Ballet West's "The Lottery"

Last night I was fortunate to attend the season-opener of Ballet West (which runs through next weekend at the Capitol Theater). As another Salt Lake critic duly noted in her review, it was nice to have a season begin with engaging new repertory rather than some of the crowd-pleasing ballets audiences might expect. The three pieces included a re-staging of Helen Pickett’s “But Never Doubt I Love”, Val Caniparoli’s premiere of “The Lottery”, and a second look at Nicolo Fonte’s “Bolero”. The writing below negotiates my own bias as a modern dance choreographer. I address the work at hand from that perspective and navigate the friendships I’ve forged along the way.

When I was 17 I saw Ballet West perform “Artifact II” and I don’t remember much aside from enjoying the white floor. I didn’t know it then but the dancer who re-staged it, Douglas Becker from the Frankfurt Ballet, would become a great friend and mentor throughout my MFA program. I didn’t know still that I would go on to administrate the thesis works of future graduates of that program, one of whom was Helen Pickett, another longtime dancer of the Frankfurt Ballet. And last night, in the magnificent circle of concert dance, there I was again at the Capitol Theater watching her work on (presumably) the same white marley.

It is my knowledge of Helen as a dancer that gave me an entry into her work which others might not experience quite the same way. She is able to extract a unique combination of precision and freedom that makes following the dancers a delight. This was visible not only in the final performance but in an early rehearsal I was lucky to see. I find that Helen is skilled at isolating and inverting the traditions we expect of ballet. The musician is there beside the dancers following each movement through a sheer veil, something impossible from the pit. And the dancers often break from the structure to watch one another and respond. These varying calls and responses create an earnestness not present in a good deal of ballet. Yet, traditional stage set-ups continue to unfold  which kept the audience (at least my small portion of it) engaged in the action and created true surprise as the final pas de deux is shadowed by a second that appears behind the veil and beside the pianist. “But Never Doubt I Love” stays in conversation with itself and keeps a few secrets.

“The Lottery” of course kept the very large secret of who would be sacrificed at the end of this Shirley Jackson story adaptation. The marketers at Ballet West have done their job and made it very clear that no one knows who will perform the tragic concluding solo. I think the audience was excited (if not suspicious) when the prima ballerina drew the lot on opening night. But just as my relationship with Helen colors my view of her work, my relationship with modern dance traditions colors “The Lottery.” While it wasn’t clear who would perform it was certainly clear what they would do and I’m not sure how different it would be with a different dancer. I applaud the risk but longed for something more — to see a dancer truly yield to a concept and not hover over it. Even with all my nay-saying the ballet was beautifully crafted from the set design to the partnering and use of space. It was almost as though Merce Cunningham had choreographed “Appalachian Spring” rather than danced it, there was something spirited and traditional but also something inquisitive.

The final work on the program is one that wowed everyone around me but “Bolero” left me feeling flat — both last night and in 2011.  The premise of the work is that as the crescendo builds, marking the score, metal plates are lifted to reveal more and more of the dance. Confusingly, a red curtain drops at the end to capture the female soloist. I think others found this exciting but to me, it was cumbersome and begged the question “isn’t the dance enough of an end?” In the case of Adrian Fry the dancing was certainly enough. While some dancers struggled to stay in the rhythm of the extraordinary live music Adrian was riding the wave, unafraid to engage his spine and slowly reach extension, really getting to what any bolero is all about, the body engaging with song.

Ashley Anderson coordinates loveDANCEmore as part of her 501c3, ashley anderson dances. You can read more about her work at www.ashleyandersondances.com

 

FOUR, a conversation/review

It’s no secret that peer reviewing has been a talking point on the blog. As a sometimes reviewer, other times choreographer Erica has grappled with ways to write about work and read what others say about her own work. As an administrator and choreographer Ashley oversees these tensions on an ongoing basis. So we tried to write this conversationally after watching RW’s season-opener “FOUR” tonight at the Rose. We write with the hope that multiple opinions and a casual approach creates a balanced discussion. (Let us know how we do). Part of the way through writing we realized a conversation format doesn’t allow for standard “descriptions,” so keep in mind this is designed for those who have seen this show, and we definitely  think you should.

AA: The evening featured a huge amount of dancing by the extremely talented six member company and the choreographic variety was immense. All the dances but one featured the full company and I’m really amazed at the end of every RW show that they can physically get through it.

EW: The show order seemed a little complicated but I agree that the dancers were in fine form and there was an array of movement aesthetics that would please eclectic audiences.

AA: I feel like we were both pretty into Charlotte Boye-Christensen’s new duet, “The Finish Line” which was performed by Brad Beakes and Tara McArthur. While it displayed Charlotte’s classic athletic style, it was more distilled than her past work and seemed softer. (When Martha Graham fell in love with Erick Hawkins her arms starting curving, just saying!)

EW: I agree, right out of the gates I felt we were seeing growth from Charlotte as a choreographer. It reminded me of a well-worn relationship where intimacy, playfulness and aggression all reside equally in the physicality and performance. They embody those things, Brad and Tara were really successful. I felt like all the movements were necessary, nothing was arbitrary.

AA: Totally agreed. I found the choreography to be engaging and was so relieved that it was real duet and not a duet for six, but how does this make you feel about her second work on the program, “Turf”, from 2009? For me it really changed my impression.

EW: This was the first time I’d seen “Turf” and I was hopeful in the beginning. I liked the competitiveness of a trio from the men but really the difference between the two works was that in the duet I saw two humans having a real experience on stage and in “Turf” I wasn’t given permission to get to know the dancers in the same way.

AA:  I can see we were both underwhelmed by “Turf” after the success of the duet. It also, honestly, seemed rehearsed less than the other material on the program.

EW: I did find the opening piece “Grid” to be a little bit like “Turf”. There were some nice moments but conceptually and physically things did not settle for me in a conclusive way. The piece takes place in an environment of stage-length, chalk covered, elastic bands and it brought up issues about how our environment affects our decisions. And when those barriers are removed do we make the same decisions out of habit or are we able to make new decisions? As a choreographer I thought that it would be interesting to work with a prop like the that and even take that prop away at the end of the process. What would the dance look like if the “grid” was absent? I wonder if we could still feel it’s presence and think we could, maybe even moreso.

AA: It’s hard because I don’t want to re-choreograph dances from the audience but I had similar concerns about how “Grid” was functioning despite the obviously engaging tactic of the prop. It related to the John Utans piece on the program as well. In that piece the stage was littered with TV’s with rural Utah vacation footage and the beginning and ending moments of movement alongside them peaked my interest but as it went I fell into watching the TV’s exclusively and was in some kind of bad-audience-trance.

EW: Oh that’s funny, I didn’t watch the TV’s at all.

AA: So it’s clear we worked our way through the show with ebbs and flows but I think we both agree that something we had no questions about was Ann Carlson’s re-staged “50 Years”. If Charlotte’s duet was distilled then I don’t even have an adequate description for this work. Every second of the dancer-vocalized-score seemed essential to me and it’s really rare I feel that way about a dance.

EW: Throughout, this piece gave me kinesthetic responses.

AA: What kinds of responses? For me, it was cold chills and constant wonderment at what would be next from the voices and bodies of the dancers.

EW: For me it was during the moments of complete stillness where there was real settling in my skin and bones. It brought me on an organic journey where each section took the time it needed to fully resonate. It inspired me as a choreographer to be more patient and not doubt a seemingly simple idea.  I don’t know how to say this without being cheesy but it was through the simplicity that metaphors were made, and she must have had a real trust in her process and clarity in vision.

AA: It was also highly stylized and designed from the dirty, auburn costuming to the white-fabric floor and sparse light bulbs. Watching a choreographer make such clear choices (in 1996 by the way!) was a beautiful way to end the evening (that was also cheesy).

EW/AA: laughter laughter laughter

Nox Contemporary: Collaboration at its best

With sentiments similar to that of the new film series, Screen Deep, the second Alternative Genres (August 27, 2012) show at Nox Contemporary provided Salt Lake with a chance to experience converging

forms of performance and film.  Upon entering the gallery, I was greeted by parallel rows of laptops screening a variety of video pieces from local artists.  As I put on the headphones to view one of Aniko

Safran’s pieces, I was able to leave the rest of the world of the gallery behind, creating instant intimacy.  In one work,  Safran explores the notion of time and space through the use of a metronome.  As I watched (and heard) the ticking of the metronome in its various settings, everywhere from a nondescript room to flourishing shrubs, I was forced to think and rethink about the way in which one feels and experiences time.  This idea was further exaggerated by my peripheral setting, where everyone else in the gallery existed in a separate time and place from myself.

I was then ushered into a larger, adjacent room, which was entirely bare in order to view the second live performance of the evening (having already missed the first).  As a contemporary piece, Samuel Hanson’s “Duet”, was flawless, which is to say that it was far from being perfect.  Hanson explored the process of creation by choosing two volunteers from the audience to help him construct the piece in

the moment.  Upon blindfolding them, he guided each to a separate corner of the room.  He then instructed them to simultaneously cross half the distance from one to the other, then repeat, and repeat, etc. After many back and forth attempts at this, the two individuals finally met somewhere near the middle.  At this point, Hanson asked them to interact with one another in various, simple ways, until they

were each lying on the ground, one massaging the other’s arm.  We, the rest of the audience, were invited to form a circle around the two of them and were then instructed to slowly back away while keeping in

mind that their figures were only getting further away and not actually shrinking as we would perceive.  Again a test of trial and error, as Hanson asked us to restart this process each time we lost

awareness of the fact that they were not actually getting smaller, all the while, the massage continued.  At the end of the piece, the two volunteers stumbled their way back to their original positions in

opposing corners, back to the beginning, as if nothing had happened yet.  While this piece made me hyper aware of the process rather than product, it left me asking the question: how much should the

performance be the choreographer’s vision and how much should be the artist’s contributions to it, as a consequence of Hanson’s intermittent statements of, “No, I actually want you do it more like

this” when things were not happening as he envisioned them.

Before the next performance began, I was able to view another video piece.  “Trent goes Bowling” by Jan Andrews consisted of a video showing the creation of shards of mirror which were now on display inside of a salmon suitcase.  The video showed the artist (and friends) rolling a brilliant pink bowling ball (also exhibited in the gallery) across the room in order to break various sizes of mirrors.  The lack of headphones coupled with the white noise of the rest of the gallery made it impossible to hear anything in the video except for the crisp shatter of glass.  Along with these, the artist had provided a statement in which she divulges that this piece was originally the preparatory work for another.  That is, she needed the glass shards and came up with a creative way to acquire them and the process ran away with her becoming something else entirely.  At this point, she knew she had created something that she wished to share.

Once again, I entered the bare room, this time equipped with a ballet barre and mirror.  Valerie Atkisson began what appeared to be a warm up routine, which she performed several times over with succinct rhythm.

Her  movements were also clearly in conversation with the music she had chosen, a classical piece.  Her elegant motions and perfect timing evinced this austere notion associated with such modes of music and dance.  At the end of her piece, Valerie removed a large white poster board which had gone unnoticed underneath her feet for the entirety of the performance and held it up to show a second piece which she had now created.  Upon closer inspection of this dance drawing, I was astounded by the beautiful lines she had created, which mimicked the fluidity of her entire piece.

The final performance of the evening was “The Windy Gap” choreographed by Ashley Anderson and performed with Efrén Corado.  Set to a series of slides, Anderson danced the first part of the piece solo, then Corado, and finally the two of them together.  Each time, to the same set of slides, with each individual performing the same routine.  The beauty of the piece came from its unfolding, watching the way each interacted with the photographs in their own way, Anderson incredibly aware of the details in the images behind her, and Corado mimicking formations and shapes in the stills.   In the end, the way in which their seemingly individual pieces came together was seamless, each in communication with different aspects of the photos, each in communication with one another, at one point Efren’s piercing slaps of his own thighs

dictated the movements of Anderson.  I found this performance in particular to be quite fitting for the gallery setting.  I could imagine this unending repetition of routines, much like Valerie’s, to recur again and again alongside others, installations, videos, stills, etc.

Echo Smith studies classics and literature at the University of Utah. She regularly attends dance, theater, and music performances in SLC.

coda’s starter kit at Sugar Space

If you become a member of coda, Sugar Space’s new professional dance company, you’ll find yourself in a situation much like Repertory Dance Theatre is said to have been in its early days. You and your comrades make dances on each other and you pool your knowledge to provide each other classes and choose a guest artist. Every few months, there’s a new audition and the process repeats.

I just came home from watching the first iteration of this cycle. My initial takeaway is that it read like a real ensemble evening. Diverse interests were explored, but it didn’t feel like a grab bag where a half a dozen people had been chosen from a pool of random, opportunity starved dance artists applying by mail. Care had been taken in putting a show together, in a more than idiomatic sense.

Molly Heller’s work, which was split into three, provided a narrative scaffold for the rest of the evening. In these “acts”, placed between other dances, Heller explicated her relationship with husband Brad Heller. Each vignette was also a performance of (and to) Rod Stewart’s monster(ous) hit “Da Ya Think I’m Sexy” [Rod’s spelling, not mine]. In part one, Heller (in golden stretch pants and a flouncy green top) gave her husband (purple tights, peasant ruffles up top) what might have been post modern prelude to a lap dance, while matter-of-factly telling him to periodically adjust the volume. Act II saw Brad and Molly coyly singing the song to each other while Molly slid herself across Brad’s passive form. She crept slowly, giving choice attention to certain curves, arriving in unison next to Brad just in time for the second or third chorus of “If you want my body and you think I’m sexy/ Come on honey tell me so/ If you really need me just reach out and touch me/Come on Molly let me know”. “No. It should be sugar.” Singing this line lying face down next to each other earned a healthy laugh from a crowd that had been gently giggling the whole time. The final number was a giddy romp through the space for Ms. Heller and non-dancer Brad. The song was finally playing at full blast, which was quite satisfying, when all of a sudden the dancing devolved into a slide show of Googled images of Rod himself on the back wall. The piece ended as choreographer, husband and technical director struggled in turns to disactivate of the projector and diminish the specter of Rod.

As light, fun and self-effacingly hip as this all sounds it did leave me with a few lingering questions. How was I supposed to feel about the relationship between “trained” wife and “untrained” husband? Was this just a big joke or is this really “their song” in some serious, if sentimental, way? If I am being invited into an inner joke space of their relationship, why and how? And if not, what was the aim of making it seem so?

Nancy Carter’s Hold me tight if I love you left me with many similar questions about form and content. The work was a modern dance trio, mostly, thought it began with each dancer choosing one audience member with whom to slow dance. They did this a few times at the very beginning, with a tender awkwardness that left me wishing they would make everyone in the audience dance at least once and then that would be that. What ensued instead was an exploration of formal themes such as how a trio  functions, how Shira Fagan could stay in unison with Jane Jackson with Anne Marie Robson Smock attached to her body etc. The varied musics, notably a spoken word piece about hearts “bruising but not breaking” provided an unexpected modicum of contrast.

I am pretty sure that the it in Everything is Nothing Without It was dance itself. Jane Jackson’s ensemble piece was a melange of fast paced dialogue and introspective group dancing. The six women fought over a cupcake (“That’s not really dancer food!”), went to a “showing” within the dance, and argued about the primacy of the left vs. the right brain in dance making. There was some serious unison dancing, and then we returned to the image the dance started with, the heart of the dance really, choreographer Jane Jackson trying to decide how to start dancing. Standing there twitching with indecision, is something everyone who makes dances (and probably everyone else as well) can identify with.

Particularly in Everything is Nothing, but in everything else I’ve discussed as well, I noticed one recurring issue. Though each was an excellent first draft, all of these pieces seemed to be looking for a kind of high drama, something surreal, possibly even operatic. And yet none couldn’t quite get there because they were held back by a commitment to a certain idea of dance-theater “realism”.  There’s nothing “actorly” or “real” about the way most dancers talk and emote on stage- and that’s fine- we’re not actors, at least not in the same sense. What would it look like if we embraced that and became the strange, unique creatures that we are? In doing so maybe we could learn a little bit more about ourselves than the fact that we’re afraid of food and that we don’t know our left from our right.

Guest artist Shannon Mockli demonstrated commitment to a ballsy idea in her solo A Space Between. A slow, contemplative solo, almost too dramatic, happens in front of a video where slipping focus is an obvious metaphor for the areas between states of consciousness, life and death. There’s a recorded text of Mockli discussing an ambiguous experience of “being between” that caused her to reflect on mortality and the life of the body, as it is and as it is imagined. In other hands, it could have been a tragic failure of a piece, yet Mockli is so committed to doing things because she feels them, that we feel them too. She transcends trend and conceit, working in a format that is reminiscent of a great essayist. She lays out several co-existent threads that can only be tied together by holding them inside ourselves all of them at the same time. Her dancing is so strong it can’t be overpowered by other the other media- and that’s rare.

Mockli’s group piece Vital Rein did similar things for each of its performers. Annie Robson Smock in particular danced in a way that I’ve never seen before, her length bridled and released with a sense of timing I didn’t know she was capable of. Mockli and dancers never lost interest in the realness of the task, nor in the responsibility of holding each moment’s metaphoric capacity.

Samuel Hanson writes in this blog often, makes dances, makes coffees and makes videos.

When the Daughters Shave Their Heads

In one of her smaller black boxes, The Rose Wagner provided a cool, air-conditioned escape from Salt Lake’s summer heat on Saturday, June 16. People gradually filled the chairs for “Daughters of Mudson” in the intimate space, and theatre workers pulled out extra chairs for last-minute concert-goers, which had already seemed especially replete with spectators for the production by loveDANCEmore (a division of the local non-profit, “ashley anderson dances”). The chitchat amongst the audience evinced a sense of community between attending dancers and reinforced camaraderie between the audience- and performers-to-be that evening. Ashley Anderson introduced Daughters of Mudson and the Mudson series at large, explaining how the “ashley anderson dances” Board President, Ishmael Houston Jones, selected five Mudson works-in-progress by five different women choreographers, who would show their completed pieces that evening.

As Anderson wrapped up her introduction to the showcase Rachael L. Shaw’s “Chrysalis” ensued. The piece begins with a woman in a yellow dress pacing along the perimeter of the stage, moving toward upstage left. She approaches the center of the space and begins a pattern of movement involving deep, harrowing breaths, twirling, and then an excruciatingly slow ascent of her forearms that cross in front of her face. She reinstates this pattern with another twirl, with her arms positioned as if she’s a ‘little tea pot,’ then knocks her arm in vertical, 360-degree swing. For me, the positioning of her crossed wrists in front of her face indicates a narcissistic mania caused by self-movement, a disconcerted acquiescence of a previously unfelt state that is to come, but is alien nevertheless. The unease of chrysalis, a transitional state, makes its presence felt as a second dancer follows the same path onstage—again, in a yellow summer dress—drawing out the length of the path that the piece must traverse. As she enters, the first dancer begins to flop around violently, like a rag doll, and plummets from her slow, calculated movement to chaotic flailing that communicates a delirium onset by change without clear resolution. The second performer’s motions involve the raising of her arms (the first dancer kicks up her legs, laying down, then exits). The lone dancer left onstage continues her pattern, just as steady as her predecessor. As a third yellow-dressed pacer enters, the second dancer increases her speed and begins lapse into disarray as well. The third dancer never arrives at her movement niche, as the lights cut out before she can attempt her dance to complete the triptych. Thus, “Chrysalis” evinces a Laocoon-esque quality, but without leaving any foresight as to how the situation will resolve—it leaves me forever in a state of deferment, without expectations, foreboding.

Leah Nelson then took the stage, jogging in place to Edith Piaf, her arms erect in the air, waving them back and forth to begin “Wow, Utah.” The first snippet of her monologue explains why she chooses this limb predicament—because she’s been told that she has prominent shoulders. The performer goes on to section off areas of the stage where she sidles into ‘dancy-dance’ phrases and makes deliberate, angular shapes with her arms and bends her legs, almost as if she’s perverting aerobics workout videos. She seems to begin and end as to strike a pose, so to speak, because she’s all that’s there for us to behold—why not? As she moves about, she goes on to say that there is a lot of space in New York City, referring back to the initial skyscraper she formed with her arms pointed vertically; she subsequently elucidates that, because of this, all the available space has been taken up by people (hence her shoulders). She continues to try out different areas of the stage and how she fits into and around them. She continues her eroded soliloquy by commenting on how the piece feels different than the first time she performed it, as she has been away from her NY friends longer. She then examines the different reactions she witnessed, from New Yorkers and Salt Lakers alike, to her move, still surprised that there can be “opinionated questions.” ‘Oh, are you going for work?’ In a way, she seems to say, as parses through the stage, now in Utah. ‘It’s beautiful there.’ It’s beautiful because I’m here, is what I almost hear, as she moves. She responds to all of the comments and questions by moving. She is about 20 feet away from me, from the front row, and she has the space she needs to articulate herself without me getting all up in her business, without her having to get too close for comfort. Her loose, paisley-esque pants reflect the earthy styles around these parts—she appears to be one who values comfort. Some people, she says, responded with a “Wow … Utah.” She’s all over the stage—Wow! Utah! seems to be the retort. She ends her speech by illustrating how somebody who was already here felt selfishly glad that the dancer would be coming here, as they would in the same city; this person, however, implored the performer to reconsider.  Nelson comments on how this person’s words were chosen carefully because they were conveyed via email, and the lights shut off. Ah, carefully chosen words then a slumber paced between another’s work—no more hustle, no more bustle till tomorrow.

A couple ad-hoc stagehands set up a square structure for Emily Haygeman’s ode to her grandmother, “For Dorothy.” It could be an easel. It could be a window or picture frame. A woman enters wearing a blue dress, tearing out sheets of paper and strewing them about the stage, away from the frame. Another woman, Dorothy, comes over the speakers and begins the tale of her daughter’s passage into the world. Dorothy was a Catholic girl, and there was no sex talk in her family’s household. She had had a one-night stand with a boy, and was well into her pregnancy when her parents finally relegated her to a before-unknown couple’s house to have her child then bequeath it to the government. The woman in blue continues the sheet-tearing, and hops to the occasional piece of paper like an island. She twists atop it, almost tortured, but silent in her task. Dorothy continues: She tried to get her baby back from the State of California, but her parents and a priest stopped her, and let her know that what she had done was disgraceful enough. The dancer tears the sheets out—they’re everywhere—and they crinkle beneath her footsteps. Dorothy ends by stating her retroactive gratitude that it all happened so that her daughter would call her and instill her with glee in their reuniting phone conversation. But it also forced her to relive the treachery of her loss of someone she wanted to love face-to-face. Dorothy bids Emily farewell. The dancer sits in a chair behind the frame, like she’s trapped at one side of the structure, but not within. A second performer enters, and a Mama Jungle song plays. The newcomer collects the pages and tapes them up along the frame as the song plays. When the song stops, the blue woman dances, oftentimes to the edge of the frame, just craning her neck out of its confines. The song restarts, and she sits back down, the second woman taping up the pages all the while. Sometimes the song stops abruptly, and the blue performer starts up again until the song restarts, and she begins to appear as a silhouette behind the reassembled pages. She never had the chance to read them in the way they were meant, but can now see them as a pallet. The story seems completed, but it is bittersweet—the two dancers have brought their stories to the other, but remain separated by a re-appropriation of their respective pasts, characterized by scission and the lack of an in-person experience of each other’s journeys. The two part ways in the darkness.

Members of Movement Forum, a local improvisation group, began Ashley Anderson’s piece, all holding hands toward the back in a line, wearing an assortment of clothes—one man wears a brown vest over a blue long-sleeve that lends him a beatnik-like vibe, and one of the women wears a white leather jacket, which Joan Jett would drool over. Five of the seven dancers move to the front, toward the audience in a casual groove to an Elvis Presley classic, “Don’t Be Cruel,” which is eponymous with the piece at hand. The troupe eases into languorous poses, which evince a sense of teenage angst and apathy set forth by the rock n’ roll revolution. Two of the front line occasionally dip onto the floor and emulate a top in its final stages of its spin, a dilapidated (hip hop) windmill that segues into another rendition of “Don’t Be Cruel.” Two in the back synchronize arabesques. Dancers in the front engage in flow-y arm movements like they’re dancing to the music in a nonchalant way, like they came to have fun, but are reticent and don’t want to talk to anybody at the dance party, like contact improv would result in an awkward push away from the pursuer. Anderson seems to take what she thinks it would be like to dance to pop music from the ’50s onward if Soul Train had never happened. Another version of the song plays through, and the dancers continue their patterns of movement. It almost says, I don’t need narrative to dance. In light of what I’ve seen that’s been hip over in NYC for the last couple years, Anderson seems to answer back with a cold shoulder to being bawdy to be bawdy, or injecting her work with mono/dialogues to add a ‘performance’ aspect to the piece. She’s like the girl you try to grind on at the club that turns away and simply says, “I just want to dance,” and finds her swagger through the music that she likes, then gets a drink when she isn’t feelin’ the track.

Kitty Sailer’s gaggle entered in the dark for “Honey Cake Pony,” the final dance of the evening. Of course, knowing Sailer, the entrance isn’t typical, as rude audience members scuffle into the front row, loudly whispering “excuse me” and pointing distracting flashlights to find their seats, and asking each other boisterously if the others are to dance, or if they themselves are to dance. I have known it’s part of the performance all along, but Sailer has inducted me and those around me into her piece; she lets the fine line between audience and performer bleed into an ambiguous space, where she paradoxically inducts us into her work by sending her dance birds to squawk amongst us. As the lights come on, the giddy ebbs and flow of Sailer’s piece go on as she goes to her hands and knees in front of a male performer, Samuel Hanson, who then makes a phone call using her bare, calloused dancer foot. I am privileged enough, at one point, to have Sailer and Amy Falls play kitty cat at my shins and calves, and Sailer lifts my legs up with her back (I tell the two, “I hope I don’t have swass …”). The women she has contracted to be in and out of the piece dance in almost a can-can line in front of Hanson and Sailer, then retreat up to the back corner with the audience, farthest away from me. Sailer forces Hanson’s hand onto her left breast, and then they continue the tele-foot game until Hanson says, “Have you ever had a cat?” They both play a seductive cat in front of each other. Hanson begins a sing-along with the women in the audience—a church-choir-like tune. They begin to file down and the lights go off, and the flashlights come back on. Hanson and the women stand around Sailer, who sits in a chair at the forefront of the stage. Each takes a turn having a make-out sesh with her then sit in front of the kissing orgy to start up the previous song, and the flashlights turn off. Some may say that Sailer doesn’t necessarily take herself ‘seriously.’ They are wrong. Sailer is like a punk rock screamer who holds the mic out to the audience to sing along, foregoing any distance for the audience to make a high-brow judgment that we would normally make with another performance of a Graham piece. She’s weird, but remains enigmatic and without explicit use of the latest Nicki Minaj hit. She masks what this is ‘about’ without having to be Lydia Lunch.

Daughters of Mudson was a success. Plain and simple. I didn’t have to endure the stuffy atmosphere of academia. I saw a showcase with real artists, but didn’t have to fly where I can’t use a public restroom without buying something. I felt scared, and I laughed and I was engaged. I felt that people had made an effort to reinstate the element of danger.

Alexander Ortega is a freelance writer and musician about town. He also works for SLUG.

alexander.r.ortega@gmail.com