Kathleen O'Connell

I'm putting in a plug for Shostakovich's Lady McBeth of Mtsensk. The Graham Vick / Paul Brown production is one of those "updatings" (from 1865 to what looks to be about 1965) that really works.

Not that it should matter one bit, but when I did a quick search on tenor Brandon Jovanovich, one of the firsts things that popped up in the search box was "shirtless" ...

I would have had a better reaction to Spectral Evidence if R. Fairchild's lip sync solo had been deleted.

I'm not too proud to admit that I enjoyed that part ...

I'm so slow -- I didn't realize Marin Alsop was their daughter. How hard it must be, to lose both parents so close together.

I never made that connection either!

Rest in Peace.

Apollinaire Scherr's review of Acheron is now up on the Financial Times' website here.

I didn't find the reference to Stoppard particulary distracting, myself. And given the ballet's subject matter and title I can understand why the work of Housman might come to Macaulay's mind.

Always the master of the put-down he reflects on Scarlett's "cherubic, curly haired, wide-eyed puckishness"-

Respectfully, atm711, I tend to agree with those who have said that this wasn't intended as a put-down.

It's also a trope I've seen in other profiles of artists (e.g., "Some not familiar with his work might find it hard to imagine, given X's cherubic face, bright eyes, and cheerful outlook, that in his writing he is preoccupied with the grimmest of subjects, torture and murder." )

I took it as a tactic employed by a writer on deadline in search of a lede in the wee hours of the morning, and nothing more sinister than that. Were McCauley writing on a different schedule, I suspect (or at least I hope) he'd jettison some of the tools he relies on to crank out timely copy.

If there is a deeper connection between Stoppard's play and Scarlett's ballet, McCauley didn't elaborate.

But it's a such good line and has such perfect tone – And [so] this is the Stygian gloom one has heard so much about. It sort of calms Scarlett’s portentous title, allows Macaulay to say "Are these characters [really] dead, as the title “Acheron” implies? They’re still creatures of sexual and sensual behavior." In the underworld of Homer, unlike Scarlett’s, remember that Odysseus has to bring a liter of blood or so in order to revive the shades he meets and to get any sort of intelligence out of them.

It is a good line, and I stated as much. I nonetheless find the way it was introduced into the review clumsy at best.

And just to be clear, I'm not grinding some sort of anti-McCauley ax. I've found real value in many of the things he's written. But he can be infuriatingly facile at times: and that's exactly how his opening contention that the darkness of Scarlett's subject matter was somehow "curious" given his "cherubic" appearance struck me. One's looks are hardly a marker of the subject matter one is drawn to probe. (Unlike atm711, I didn't read it as a put-down.)

But I don't mind any of Mr. Macaulay’s throat clearings about the Acherontic – or Anacherontic or Anacreontic – worlds. (Or even iambic footwork.) It was Scarlett after all who brought the subject up.

I don't either, for the record. It's appropriate to discuss a work's title in a review, especially one that seems a pointed as Scarlett's. What I did mind was the tangent on Tom Stoppard, "The Invention of Love," and A. E. Housman, which, on a first reading at least, struck me as being there mostly to let us know that McCauley has been to a play. The quoted material -- "I'm dead then. Good. And this is the Stygian gloom one has heard so much about." -- could actually have been deployed with real wit. But McCauley prefaces it with "Soon after the curtain rose on “Acheron,” I remembered how Tom Stoppard’s play ... " which pulls the focus away from the ballet under discussion to an unrelated work in another discipline and to McCauley himself. (And I mean to him as a person, not to his critical response to a work, which I'm very much interested in.) But he's writing under deadline and this stuff is hard to do. But that's why there are editors.

"Iambic footwork" may be a pun too far, but a little mischief never hurts ...

He comes from a critical practice that is much more accustomed to cross-references (literature/dance/music/art/history) than the more direct, observation and description criticism that we mostly see here in the US.

One of the many plusses of the internet is our access to many more critical voices from around the world -- I'm always interested in seeing what colleagues have to say about something, especially if it's a performance or an artists I've reviewed myself. But I'm even happier to see other approaches to writing itself.

I have absolutely no issue with dance critics cross-referencing other works of art: ballet doesn't happen in a vacuum and a good critic will draw our attention to the meaningful (or interesting or enlightening or just plain fun) connections between one thing and another. In this particular case, however, there doesn't seem to be any real connection between the work under review and the work referenced. McCauley brings up "The Invention of Love" solely to tee up "Stygian gloom" and apply it to Mark Stanley's lighting. If there is a deeper connection between Stoppard's play and Scarlett's ballet, McCauley didn't elaborate.

But I don't mind any of Mr. Macaulay’s throat clearings about the Acherontic – or Anacherontic or Anacreontic – worlds. (Or even iambic footwork.) It was Scarlett after all who brought the subject up.

I don't either, for the record. It's appropriate to discuss a work's title in a review, especially one that seems a pointed as Scarlett's. What I did mind was the tangent on Tom Stoppard, "The Invention of Love," and A. E. Housman, which, on a first reading at least, struck me as being there mostly to let us know that McCauley has been to a play. The quoted material -- "I'm dead then. Good. And this is the Stygian gloom one has heard so much about." -- could actually have been deployed with real wit. But McCauley prefaces it with "Soon after the curtain rose on “Acheron,” I remembered how Tom Stoppard’s play ... " which pulls the focus away from the ballet under discussion to an unrelated work in another discipline and to McCauley himself. (And I mean to him as a person, not to his critical response to a work, which I'm very much interested in.) But he's writing under deadline and this stuff is hard to do. But that's why there are editors.

"Iambic footwork" may be a pun too far, but a little mischief never hurts ...

Marina Harss’ review of Archeron* Acheron is now up on DanceTabs. (I didn’t notice it in “Links” – did I miss it?) She seems more enthusiastic than McCauley. (She also spends considerably less time clearing her throat than he does. He squanders a whole paragraph to set up the adjective “Stygian,” a word that requires no introduction, frankly, especially after “Asphodel” and “Acheron” have been explained.)

She’s spied a reference to Symphony in C. The passage I believe she’s referring to starts at about 1:48 in this clip, featuring Allegra Kent and Conrad Ludlow in the Adagio.

Note: I can’t say enough good things about Harss’ dance writing. I admire (and envy!) her disciplined eye and keen ear. I don’t always agree with her critical assessments, but I always trust her to give a lucid and honest account of what happened on stage. In this she reminds me of the great Deborah Jowitt.

[Oops! Edited to add the link to Harss' review!]

[*Ugh. Edited for a howler of a typo. Archeron is of course a Galactica type battlestar in service with the Colonial Fleet during the First Cylon War.)

You're not alone. Union Jack is the one Balanchine ballet I will never sit through again. Way too much fluff/dancing ratio.

Interesting. I have to say that Dancers at a Gathering is one ballet I will never sit through again. I've seen it several times, and had vowed - never again. I decided to give it another chance. For the first 20 minutes or so, I loved it, and couldn't imagine what my problem had been with it. After another 10 minutes I wanted to shout out - All right you can stop now. 5 minutes after that I was willing to beg - Please, please stop now. Each to one's own I suppose.

Dances at a Gathering, which I've only seen a couple of times, well-spaced out, is, in my opinion, too long. I enjoy it, I love, love, love the music and the dancing, but it seems to need editing.

You're in good company. Arlene Croce on Dances at a Gathering: "I would like to see it cut by fifteen minutes--though not the same fifteen minutes--at every performance."

(From "The Relevance of Robbins," first published in Ballet Review as "Waterloo" in the Spring 1972 issue, and republished in her first review collection, After Images.)

In memoriam, PBS / American Masters is rebroadcasting "The Power of Song," a film about Pete Seeger. Check your local listings for broadcast times.

You can also stream the film in its entirety here on the American Masters website. I don't know how long they plan to leave it up, so if you're really interested in watching it, don't put it off for too long.

While you're there, you can see what other full episodes are available for streaming here. One of them is "Joffrey: Mavericks of American Dance."

I've only ever seen Harlequinade in 2005 and cannot recall--does NYCB perform it as a full-evening work, or would there be another piece on the program?

I saw NYCB's "Harlequinade" in January of 2004. It was performed in two acts with an intermission. The program opened with "Apollo." I remember thinking at the time that "Harlequinade" could easily have been edited down to a single, if longish, act, but I liked it anyway.

Benjamin Millepied danced Harlequin, Alexandra Ansanelli danced Columbine (she was divine), Joaquin De Luz danced Pierrot, and Amanda Edge danced Pierette. If I recall correctly, De Luz had joined the company not long before, and was still a soloist.

Oh, and Peter Boal danced Apollo ...

Edited to add: and just for the record, Sofiane Sylve danced La Bonne Fée and Jennifer Tinsley led Les Alouettes. I think it was one of the first times I saw Sylve, and I remember the experience to this day: her take-no-prisoners authority just blew me away.

Leaving aside the technicians coming out of college theatrical production programs, this is the compensation environment that theater operators find themselves in.

Thank you for enlightening us on the benefits of being an uneducated laborer in New York.

Just to be clear, I made the distinction between technicians coming out of theatrical production programs and workers from the skilled trades because they are likely to be differently credentialed, not because one group -- or one set of credentials -- is more worthy of a good paycheck than another.

Leaving aside the technicians coming out of college theatrical production programs, this is the compensation environment that theater operators find themselves in.

Thank you for enlightening us on the benefits of being an uneducated laborer in New York.

You do need to revise your wording of take home pay. Your quoted amounts for take home pay are actually gross pay. Take home pay would deduct Federal income taxes, New Your state and city taxes, plus Social security/Medicare taxes.

I am not knowledgeable on current New York state and city taxes, but my guess is that the take home pay amounts would be approximately, $ 60,000 annually and not near $ 100,000.

Although, I consider the intelligence of construction workers and stagehands to be on a relatively low level compared to most educated professions, the arts are not immune to idiots in high ranking positions.

Yes, it was sloppy of me to use "take home pay" rather than "gross pay." I was trying to draw a distinction between the employee's cash compensation and the amount of compensation received in the form of fringe benefits, and didn't choose my words as carefully as I might have. I hope my point was clear nonetheless.

Re the intelligence of construction workers and stagehands: I come from a working class family. They were all plenty smart.

Some context: a skilled worker in a unionized trade can make a very good living in New York City. By way of example, consider the “prevailing wage” rates mandated New York State’s labor law. (Section 220, which covers employees of private contractors on public works projects has been on the books since 1909.) The “prevailing wage,” which includes both an hourly wage and an hourly benefits rate, is set annually at a level comparable to the going rate paid to unionized workers in the relevant trade. The rate schedule also establishes rules for overtime and holiday pay, shift schedules (e.g., “swing” vs “graveyard”) and the like. You can find a Powerpoint presentation summarizing the law here.

You can find the current Section 220 rate schedule here, but by way of example, here are the 2013 hourly wage and benefit supplements for a few key trades:

Carpenter - Building Commercial

Effective Period: 7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014

Wage Rate per Hour: $48.08 / Supplemental Benefit Rate per Hour: $41.10

Assuming a 40 hour week – i.e., no overtime – and 50 weeks of work, the total compensation cost to the employer (i.e., including benefits) is $178,360 per year. The employee’s take home pay is $96,160.

Electrician "A" (Regular Day)

Effective Period: 7/1/2013 - 5/13/2014

Wage Rate per Hour: $52.00 / Supplemental Benefit Rate per Hour: $46.13

Assuming a 40 hour week – i.e., no overtime – and 50 weeks of work, the total compensation cost to the employer (i.e., including benefits) is $196,260 per year. The employee’s take home pay is $104,000.

Plumber

Effective Period: 7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014

Wage Rate per Hour: $52.36 / Supplemental Benefit Rate per Hour: $37.34

Supplemental Note: Overtime supplemental benefit rate per hour: $74.40

Assuming a 40 hour week – i.e., no overtime – and 50 weeks of work, the total compensation cost to the employer (i.e., including benefits) is $179,400 per year. The employee’s take home pay is $104,720.

Overtime rates and holidays vary by trade, but here are the rates for a carpenter by way of example:

Overtime

Time and one half the regular rate after an 8 hour day.

Time and one half the regular rate for Saturday.

Double time the regular rate for Sunday.

Saturday may be used as a make-up day at straight time when a day is lost during that week to inclement weather.

Double time the regular rate for Overtime Holidays.

Overtime Holidays = New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Presidential Election Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Day

Takeaways:

1) Forget law school. Go to trade school.

2) Join a union and keep it strong.

3) Find your calling in a job that can’t be outsourced to a low-wage country on the other side of the ocean.

Leaving aside the technicians coming out of college theatrical production programs, this is the compensation environment that theater operators find themselves in.

Not exactly a specific casting wish list, but ... I'd like to see ABT extend its fall season at the Theater Formerly Known as State (TFKS) by several weeks so that we can see more dancers from the corps and soloist ranks in featured roles and in ensembles from rep other than story ballet warhorses. This fall's season there was a delight, but there just wasn't enough of it.

I'd like to see them decamp from the Met for TFKS altogether, of course, though scheduling around NYCB's three non-Nuts seasons there would be a challenge. Plus Paul Taylor now seems happily ensconced at TFKS for a regular three week gig during the break between NYCB's winter and spring seasons ...

Aww I like the fluffy multi-layered flower dresses. Think they're much less offensive when the flowers are dancing. You get to see the layers fluffing up and down and take on a life of its own. Much like Ginger Rogers' famous "feathers" dress in Top Hat.

those dresses are iconic NYCB Karinska designs. No way no how no change!

You are lucky that my chances of holding a winning Powerball ticket are less than zero.

That's because Balanchine's version is much more popular. To get an optimal look at his group dances, such as the battle scene and the snowflakes, I wouldn't advise getting orchestra seats anyway. An elevated view is preferable.

And for many people, easier to get to whether you're taking public transportation or driving. NYC's public transportation system and roadways were designed to get people in and out of Manhattan from the outer boroughs and the suburbs. If you live in New Jersey -- or even in parts of Queens and Brooklyn -- getting to BAM can be a real challenge.

And yes -- don't sit in the orchestra! And don't worry about sitting off-center in the rings, either -- the view is just fine. (Although you might want to avoid the pairs of seats that run along the sides of the rings.)

The sight lines in BAM's opera house aren't as good as those in The Theatre Formerly Known as State -- you have to be more careful when choosing your seats there.

My absolute favorite thing about the Balanchine version is that there are no human grown-ups in the Land of Sweets and that the Sugar Plum Fairy treats Marie and the Nutcracker Prince as if they were her peers and her honored guests, not kids deposited in her charge.

The set designer does put Marie and the Nutcracker Prince in a gloried high-chair, though

Hmmm ...now that you mention it ... I'll never be able to look at it with a straight face again

I'll add it to the list of Things I Will Fix with When I Win Lotto and Take over the Board. But the first thing to go in the NYCB Nuts would be the ghastly tutus for the Flowers. Way way back in the late 50's / early 60's one of my aunts used to make novelty spare toilet paper roll covers that consisted of a southern belle-ish doll dressed in a vast, very pink, very flounced crocheted dress. You set the unused roll on the toilet tank, stood the doll up in the tube, and covered the roll up with her dress. The first time I saw the NYCB Nutcracker I gasped in horror when the Flowers appeared: they looked just like those damned dolls.

ETA: Flouncy tutus and high chair in one easy shot ...

I think I was one of the few people who was underwhelmed by the ABT / Ratmansky Nutcracker when it was first presented. Most of my issues are theatrical rather than choreographic, though I have issues there as well. (Note: I saw the ABT / Ratmansky Nutcracker in its first season, so some of the details may have changed since then.)

There isn’t a lot of magic in the production’s sets: the Land of Sweets, for instance, appears to be located in a tidy but minor manor park behind some unexceptional wrought-iron gates. Ho-hum. Some of this may be due to budgetary constraints, some to the scale and stage machinery of the BAM opera house. (Some of the choreography looks like it was purpose built for a smaller stage, too.) It doesn’t help that some of the big set pieces – the battle with the Mouse King, e.g. – are a narrative muddle. And I could live without the bees in the Waltz of the Flowers. The joke wears thin really fast.

What I found most disconcerting was Ratmansky’s decision to have Clara (I think she’s Clara in the ABT version) and the Nutcracker Prince almost die at the hands of the Snowflakes, only to be rescued at the last minute by Drosselmeyer and carted off to the Minor Manor Park of Sweets. Now, there is a bit of menace in the Snowflakes’ music, and Russian winters are notorious in their deadly power (just ask Napoleon) but the interpolation of a near-tragedy takes the dramatic focus off of the triumph over the Mouse King and the Nutcracker Prince’s magic transformation. AND it makes the Nutcracker Prince’s mimed retelling of the battle total nonsense theatrically: at that point, wouldn’t he be recounting his just-minutes-ago near-death experience?

AND IT JUST KILLS ME (sorry for shouting) that the kids have to be rescued by some grown-up just when we should be glorying in their own agency and their independence from adult ministrations. They slew the evil villain on their own, thank you very much. My absolute favorite thing about the Balanchine version is that there are no human grown-ups in the Land of Sweets and that the Sugar Plum Fairy treats Marie and the Nutcracker Prince as if they were her peers and her honored guests, not kids deposited in her charge. A good Sugar Plum treats the Prince’s narration like it’s the most gripping battlefield report she’s ever gotten. It’s not even clear that the children ever return to the Stahlbaum’s cozy bourgeois milieu: when we last see them they are taking off in a magic sleigh for who knows what adventure and are still very much a royal pair.

For related reasons I’m not enthusiastic about Ratmansky’s handing over the big pas de deux over to Clara’s vision of her grown up self dancing with a grown-up beau. It signals a return to the real, un-magical, grown-up world. It’s not an unreasonable direction to go in, of course; I just prefer it to be magic all the way down. Ratmansky’s version is very resolutely focused on real, lived human life. (The Sugar Plum Fairy is, if I recall correctly, a non-dancing role. She seems kind of like an auntie.)

If you want to see a different (but not outré) take on the story, by all means go to the ABT version — there’s definitely good stuff in it. If you want to revel in traditional Nutcracker magic, the NYCB version might be a better bet.

I happen to like it when there are tons of kids in the audience, especially when they are really, really into the story.

. . . I got the feeling watching the videos that NYCB is definitely trying to talk to Middle America as well. Whether or not the videos speak effectively (and responsibly) to the general public is another matter, but I do think this is a kind of outreach effort - beyond the dance community.

At the Friends luncheon last winter, when Parker made a presentation about this series, she said that she is trying to figure out how to get tourists who always take in a Broadway show to venture a little farther north to Lincoln Center and take a look at the NYCB. I do think that was the primary audience for the AOL series.

Then shouldn't they be making a fuss over what goes on in the THEATER? The tourists don't make pilgrimages to Broadway because they've seen a few featurettes showing actors putting on their make-up or rehearsing in their street clothes. They go because they're going to see a SHOW -- the kind of show they can't easily see in their hometowns, either because there are famous stars in the cast, or because the production values outstrip what a regional theater or touring company can manage, or because the local venue doesn't have the perceived cachet of a Broadway theater.

And they know what they're going to get -- the most successful Broadway shows build the "let's go see a show!" experience around some known quantity -- a famous actor, a "franchise" of some sort (Lloyd-Webber, e.g.), familiar pop songs bundled into a juke-box musical, or a storied classic. In this respect, ballets that are not Swan Lake or The Nutcracker are like off-off-Broadway.

The AOL series is a worthy effort, but I'm not convinced that it sells ballet as a theater-going experience. As many others have said: show some dancing!

going after the wrong part of the stereotype.

The right part of the stereotype is??

Well, I'd hoped it would be understood that I didn't think any part of the stereotype was "right."

ETA: What I tried to convey, but perhaps didn't, is that tackling the whole "all male dancers are gay" stereotype by hauling out the counter-examples seems to me like a misguided effort to accommodate a presumed squeamishness about sexual orientation.

Ah, but how refreshing it might have been to hear a male dancer say something like "Yeah, when I was a kid I was worried that my classmates might think I was gay. But guess what: its OK to be gay! That's what I learned in ballet class." I'm mostly peeved with the production team for going after the wrong part of the stereotype.