Hits: 390

DECORATING THE LAST OF THE TREES. EASILY THE TALLEST OF TREES WE HAVE EVER HAD AND BRENDA STARR HAS  PERFECTING A 30 MINUTE PROCESS FOR STRINGING THE LIGHTS  COMPLETING THE PROCESS IN RECORD TIME NOW– FOR THE BULBS.

AMODIO’S NURSERY WHEN I WENT OVER TO PICK OUT A TREE YESTERDAY, THEY ONLY HAD 3 LEFT! AMODIOS TOLD ME THEY HAD BROUGHT IN 250 TREES ON THANKSGIVING AND HAVE SOLD ALL BUT 3.

THIS 9 FOOT TREE IS THE TALLEST AND AS I SAY EVERY YEAR ABOUT EVERY TREE WE HAVE EVER HAD (52 TREES) i ALWAYS SAY, “THIS IS THE BEST TREE WE HAVE EVER HAD!”

IT JUST STOOD OUT. REGAL. PROUD STANDING AS TALL AS CHRISTMAS ITSELF.

HE WAS A NATURAL.

Hits: 541

MYSTERY-AMBITION- LOVE CONFLICT AGAINST BACKGROUND OF DANGER. IT’S THE TOP. NON-STOP! 

The “Item” Couple: Anya (KATHERINE LINDSLEY) and Dmitry (Coleman Cummings) Reunited? Or Forever Parted? A Timeless Romance that will break your heart–AND HEAL IT AGAIN!

WPCNR ON THE AISLE. Review by John F. Bailey. December 16,2023 UPDATED WITH PRODUCTION NOTES, 2 PM EST, December 17, 2023.

The overflow crowd at White Plains Performing Arts Center  Anastasia  opening last night  got it all:

They see Katherine Lindsley  in her WPPAC debut, as proud Russian girl Anya, suffering from amnesia, during the post Russian revolution in the 1920s..

KATHERINE LINDSLEY, ANYA IN SEARCH OF HER PAST WITH THE GHOSTS OF THE ROMANOVS AT A BALL IN THE WINTER PALACE OF THE CZARS IN ST.PETERSBURG. (Notice how the LED recreation of the Ballroom at The Winter Palace resembles the real ballroom pictured below) All Photos courtesy of White Plains Performing Arts Center, by Adam Honore,Lighting Designer

She delivers the classic Russian woman, perfectly made up with high cheekbones sensitive expressive eyes that go from blazing ire, to downcast sensitivity, to melting you with devotion. And she’s a belter. Her portrayal last night evokes the loyalty and sensitivity of  the fictional Sonya, the heroine of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s  Crime and Punishment.

Sweeping streets in Moscow, she is singled out by  enterprising entrepreneur Dmitry (Coleman Cummings)  and an aristocrat, Vlad who have hit on a scheme to support themselves by  finding a girl to train to impersonate the missing Anastasia. The “con” here is to win acceptance by the expatriate Dowager Empress (Patricia M. Lawrence) living in exile in Paris– that the bogus Anastasia is her surviving granddaughter. But is Anya just acting, or is she the real Anastasia?

The real Winter Palace in St. Petersburg Russia. 2015. (Photo, WPCNR)

We learn their deep relationship in the touching duet between Ms. Lawrence and Tala Simon (Little Anastasia) in the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg Russia in the  opening ballad Once Upon a December. Grace Adeline Flynn alternates with Ms. Simon over the next 14 performances.

The actual ballroom in The Winter Palace, St. Petersburg, 2015 (Photo by WPCNR)

The pompous aloofness of the Romanov family is highlighted by  the first of many dance numbers, the Last Dance of the Romanovs when during the ball a series of flashbacks demonstrates the Bolshevik fatal attack on the Romanovs.

Meanwhile, the impersonation is not going right for the two conspirators, but when they spot Ms.Lindsley’s charisma even with a broom fighting off a mob of attackers – they try her out.  As she shows them her natural royal manner, they think, maybe she’s the one Dmitri (Coleman Cummings) say’s “she’s a natural,” (and she is!)

In the delightful training, her mentors and Ms. Lindsley sing Learn to Do it. During the training, Cummings  and Lindsley’s  growing infatuation is a titillating promise of romance.

Gleb (Drew Becker), the soldier pursuing Anya  sings one of the signature songs of the show The Neva Flows. It sets the tone of this fiery dangerous romance with electricity between Lindsley and Cummings.

Why dangerous? The relentless Bolshevik, Gleb is after them!

The Bolshevik regime under the  ruthless rule  of the Bolshevik Secret Police head, Gleb (played with menace and agonized conflicted passion  by Becker) is searching for imposters pretending to be the Grand Dutchess Anastasia Nikolaenvna Romanov, thought to be still alive.

Gleb warns Anya repeatedly her involvement in being rumored  to be the lost Anastasia is dangerous for her. Gleb, though is  falling in love with her himself. Ahh, the torture of forbidden love. The suspense mounts. Gleb’s duty conflicts with his passion.

The three Dmitri, Vlad and Anya are forced to flee for Poland to escape the Secret Police.

Then the Set Design team of Christopher and Justin Swader pulls out the stops! They seamlessly, spectacularly throw and thrill you with mood lighting, LED moving pictures evoking place and time all too real and moving. You the viewer are drawn into the show with rapt attention!

The double edge sword of romance, deception, guilt and the pursuit, convinces Anya, Vlad and  Dmitry to flee the authorities. Using a series of  moving landscapes  on an LED screen,the halls and vaulted arches  of the old Winter Palace portray and give  the audience a feel for the magnificence  the distant past in search of a memory of  old Russia that has never been forgotten by Russians today.

The fleeing trio board a  train and and take flight to the border thanks to the LED moving visuals, the train rolls down  the tracks through the autumn Russian countryside– the rail car even turns when tracks meet a curve.  It’s wizardry LED  state of the art in context!

The three on the run  are about to be apprehended they jump off the train.  An outstanding special effect! Trooping across country they eventually reach Paris and the Eiffel tower looms up.

Anya delivers a marvelous solo at the close of act one— in her tremulous sympathetic and compelling contralto, Journey to the Past

ACT TWO   opens with more special effects by pictures and moving landscapes on the projection screen as the people of 1927 Paris promenade along.

Anya meets the Dowager Empress and how does that turn out?  I cannot spoil this ending for you. Patricia M. Lawrence as the Dowager Empress provides a touch of superior royalty and humor and her interaction with Ms. Lindsley in two different scenes at the finale is the key to selling this fantastic tale.

Ms. Lindsley gave this part all she had. She delivered the goods the greats-to-be have to deliver:  the emotions of a young woman the confidence and courage singing lyrics plaintive, hurt, pleading, melancholy, righteous, touching your heart  because she’s feeling it. She carries it, ladies and gentlemen!

The audience sees the splendor of Paris. The audience sees watching the  very theater they are watching this show in majestically  turn into the Paris Ballet complete with balconies and a performance of Swan Lake (truncated but perfect–it got an ovation!)

A Russian émigré’ hangout brings Count Vlad together with Countess Lily, an old flame  of his, (now the Dowager Empress’s companion). The Vlad-Lily  attraction is aflame again  (after a frenetic dance number featuring 1927 dances is a smash and very amusing). Vlad(John Treacy Egan)) and Countess Lily (Caroline Huerta) carry off coy romantic commingling and nail it coquettishly coy~tasteful!

Meanwhile as Anya attends the Paris Ballet she is target of the relentless Gleb. (The atmosphere recalls that of The Fugitive.

Vlad (John Treacy  Egan) center at a news conference with Countess Lily, as Anya who has been confirmed by the Dowager Empress as being the missing Anastasia.

Is Anya the real Anastasia? What will happen or will Gleb her pursuer from the Secret Police eliminate her? Audience is on edge with tense suspense.

The Dowager Empress holds the key. In fact Patricia M.Lawrence with her dead solid perfect calm manner with Anya “sells” the ending of this show.  Both Ms. Lindsley as Anna and Ms. Lawrence interactions are dramatically effective  leaving  the audience spellbound at the end of this cliffhanger of emotions, uneasy to the end.

A hint: keep your eye on the music box.

Post Production Notes from John Bailey.

This show was directed by Frank Portanova, a veteran director who has directed 8 WPPAC directions and is also theater mentor at Stepinac High School. He has the distinction of directing what I feel, though I have not seen all the WPPAC shows, is the most demanding, effective, and creative production I have seen there. The cast pulled this complex ambitious performance off in just two weeks as Mr. Portanova mixed the state off art of tech with a talented professional cast and created an appropriate success worthy of  celebrating the 20^th anniversary of the White Plains Performing Arts Center.

And a word about LED–

–The use of LED in Anastasia, creates a context for the production that is better and the best I have seen.

It is another compelling actor in this cast.

The designers using the giant LED wrap around screen, seamlessly fits the LED context of place and feeling into the to the sky,  towering side sets of multi role arches and towers to the sky , and by doing so, have masterfully given a new role for LED screen in entertainment, it is part of the ensemble.

LED  in Anastasia, instead of being just “holy cow-what an effect wowcandy” for the audience,  has created a new role, advancing to seamless creativity and interaction with the actors,  by the set designers and the LED master–Brad Patterson, Video Designer of this breakthrough WPPAC production

The WPPAC is  not just now Westchester’s theatre!

It’s the theatre of the future–a writer’s extra member of the cast because LED in this production of Anastasia gives creators LED as a new creative tool to reach out and grab the audience’s imagination and perception with more real feeling.

You’re in the Czar’s palace, You’re on a train to freedom. You’re in Paris.

Creators of plays and musicals should see this and write LED that “acts” into their shows.

I do not know how actors feel about this, but if your senses feel the magnificence of The Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, if you and your lead actor feel you’re walking in Paris. You’re in Paris. What a high the LED effects must have brought to the actors in this show. The perspectives the LED gives the audience and the actors gave the impression the proscenium had been rebuilt and expanded.

The actors gave it all they had. It was them and the LED magic creating new theatre magic. 

Anastasia will have 13 more performances. Go see it. 

Is a Hit, mon! Go to www.wppac.com for dates and times.

The grand entry grounds of The Winter Palace, Home to Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Czar Nicholas I, as it looked when I visited it in 2015. The production of Anastasia recalls the heritage and heartbreak of the Russia of memory. (Photo by WPCNR, 2015)

Hits: 227

JOHN BAILEY INTERVIEWS STEPHEN FERRY AND JOHN IORIS ON 20 YEARS of WESTCHESTER’S ONLY PROFESSIONAL EQUITY THEATER TALKING ABOUT THEIR SEASON THAT OPENED  FRIDAY NIGHT WITH “ANASTASIA” at the WPPAC AT THE CITY CENTER.  See John Bailey’s Review!

Hits: 210

WAKE UP COLD SNAP SUNRISE THIS MORNING 7:30 A.M. EST

Hits: 217

 INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION TO “DISCHARGE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY… THE “NY CONSTITUTION DEMANDS THAT PROCESS, NOT DISTRICTS DRAWN BY COURTS.”

WPCNR COURTSIDE. From the New York State Court of Appeals Decisions. December 13, 2023:

The Court of Appeals of New York State in a 60 page decision released yesterday, (with key paragraphs excerpted in context below) has ordered New York State Election Districts of 2022 to be redrawn by  reconvening the Independent Redistricting Commission with a terse opening paragraph from Chief Judge  Rowan Wilson. The decision vote was 4 to 3.

You can read the complete decision here: https://nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2023/Dec23/90opn23-Decision.pdf

“In 2014, the voters of New York amended our Constitution to provide that legislative districts be drawn by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The Constitution demands that process, not districts drawn by courts. Nevertheless, the IRC failed to discharge its constitutional duty. That dereliction is undisputed. The Appellate Division concluded that the IRC can be compelled to reconvene to fulfill that duty; we agree. There is no reason the Constitution should be disregarded.

(Editor’s note:) The paragraphs in context below taken from the Judge Wilson’s decison)explain the Court reasoning to direct the Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw the districts before the 2023 elections:

The members of the IRC aligned with the legislature’s supermajority declined to oppose the petition, but the remaining IRC Commissioners moved to dismiss the proceeding as untimely and for failing to state a cognizable claim for relief under either the Constitution or this Court’s decision in Harkenrider. Having successfully intervened, the Harkenrider petitioners also moved to dismiss the petition as untimely and on the basis that, in Harkenrider, this Court had already remedied the constitutional defect identified by petitioners by directing the enactment of new, nonpartisan maps.

 Supreme Court granted respondents’ motions to dismiss, agreeing that the Constitution required the Harkenrider redistricting maps to remain in place until the next census. On appeal, a divided Appellate Division reversed, granted the petition, and “direct[ed] the IRC to commence its duties forthwith” (217 AD3d 53, 62 [3d Dept 2023]). According to the Appellate Division, petitioners’ claim against the IRC was timely because – 8 – No. 90 – 8 – it “accrued” on March 31, 2022, the date on which the Harkenrider Supreme Court ruled that the 2021 legislation purporting to allow the legislature to proceed absent a second IRC submission was unconstitutional (217 AD3d at 58).

On the merits, the Appellate Division concluded that Harkenrider “exclusively addressed the Legislature’s constitutional violations and, thus, did not remedy the IRC’s failure to perform [its nondiscretionary constitutional] duty” (id.). The Appellate Division also reasoned that the Constitution authorized judicial intervention in redistricting only “to the extent . . . required” to remedy a violation of law and, in Harkenrider, “the Court was not ‘required’ to divert the constitutional process beyond the then-imminent issue of the 2022 elections” (217 AD3d at 60 [emphasis omitted]). Thus, in the Appellate Division’s view, the congressional map adopted pursuant to Harkenrider was “merely an interim map for the purpose of the 2022 elections” and the IRC could be compelled to produce a second congressional map for the legislature’s consideration (217 AD3d at 58). Two Justices dissented. Initially, the dissenters would have rejected the petition as time-barred because petitioners unreasonably failed to demand the IRC perform its legal duty until five months after the IRC failed to act. Alternatively, the dissenters would have affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of the petition because “the failure of the IRC to act . . . was . . . part and parcel” of our holding in Harkenrider that the originally enacted maps violated the Constitution’s procedural requirements (217 AD3d at 68 [Pritzker, J. dissenting]).

Further, this Court’s remedy had already “repaired the procedural and substantive infirmities in a manner directly set forth in the NY Constitution” (id. at 68-69). Since a constitutionally-enacted “congressional map has been established and remains in place” for the duration specified in the Constitution—namely, until the next federal census—the dissenters concluded that petitioners lacked any clear legal right to relief (id. at 70). Respondents appealed as of right on double dissent grounds (see CPLR 5601 [a]).

For the reasons detailed below, I would reverse and dismiss the proceeding. II. Petitioners seek to compel the IRC to fulfill its constitutional duty “by submitting a second round of proposed congressional districting plans for consideration by the [l]egislature” (Amended Petition at 5 [¶ 14], 20 [Prayer for Relief]). As is proper, I will begin with the timeliness of this claim for relief, which the majority chooses to ignore for the first 24 pages of its opinion.

It is well-settled that a proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel “must be commenced within four months . . . after the respondent’s refusal, upon the demand of the petitioner . . . to perform its duty” (CPLR 217 [1]; see Matter of Waterside Assoc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 72 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1988]; Matter of De Milio v Borghard, 55 NY2d 216, 220 [1982]; Austin v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 NY2d 430, 442 [1959]).

As we have cautioned, however: “This does not mean that the aggrieved party can, by delay in making [a] demand, extend indefinitely the period during which [they are] required to take action. If [they do] not proceed promptly with [the] demand [they] may be charged with laches” (Austin, 5 NY2d at 442, citing 22 CarmodyWait, New York Practice, §§ 289, 297, pp. 379, 388-390; see also Matter of Sheerin v New – 10 – No. 90 – 10 – York Fire Dept. Articles 1 and 1B Pension Funds, 46 NY2d 488, 496 [1979]; Matter of Devens v Gokey, 12 AD2d 135, 137 [4th Dept 1961], affd 10 NY2d 898 [1961]).

To avoid application of laches in this context, a “demand must be made within a reasonable time after the right to make [it] occurs” (Matter of Devens, 12 AD2d at 136) or, at the latest, “after the petitioner knows or should know of the facts which give [them] a clear right to relief” (Matter of Granto v City of Niagara Falls, 148 AD3d 1694, 1695 [4th Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Matter of Barresi v County of Suffolk, 72 AD3d 1076, 1076 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010]; 24A Carmody-Wait 2d § 145:880).

In furtherance of the policies underlying CPLR 217 (1), four months has been deemed the longest possible period in which service of a demand can be considered reasonable (see Matter of Norton v City of Hornell, 115 AD3d 1232, 1233 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 907 [2014]; Matter of Zupa v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southold, 64 AD3d 723, 725 [2d Dept 2009]; Matter of Blue v Commissioner of Social Servs, 306 AD2d 527, 528 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Thomas v Stone, 284 AD2d 627, 628 [3d Dept 2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 935 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 608 [2002], cert denied 536 US 960 [2002]; Matter of Densmore v Altmar-Parish-Williamstown Cent. School Dist., 265 AD2d 838, 839 [4th Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 758 [2000]; Devens, 12 AD2d at 137; Matter of Amsterdam City Hosp. v Hoffman, 278 AD 292, 297 [3d Dept 1951]). Unexcused delay of more than four months requires dismissal of the proceeding, even in the absence of any prejudice (see Matter of Sheerin, 46 NY2d at 495-496; Devens, 12 AD2d at 137). – 11 – No. 90

Straightforward application of these well-settled principles can lead to only one conclusion: petitioners’ claim was filed far too late. Petitioners seek enforcement of the IRC’s duty to submit second-round maps to the legislature, but they did not demand that the IRC fulfill its constitutional duty when the commission announced on January 24th that it was deadlocked and therefore would not comply. Nor did petitioners make any demand when the IRC’s constitutional deadline for the submission of second-round maps came and went on January 25th. Petitioners remained silent as the legislature introduced its own redistricting legislation on February 1st, removing the process entirely from the IRC and signaling that the legislature would proceed with redistricting despite the IRC’s abdication of its constitutional duty.

 Petitioners also sat idle when the infirm redistricting legislation was delivered to the Governor and signed into law on February 3rd. Petitioners’ inaction continued throughout the entire Harkenrider litigation. Significantly, at oral argument before this Court on April 26, 2022, both the Harkenrider petitioners (intervenors here) and the state respondents acknowledged that mandamus relief “could have” been sought against the IRC at an earlier point, evidencing that the availability of such relief was always well understood (oral argument tr at 33, 46). Indeed, counsel for the Speaker of the Assembly stated that “there could have been a lawsuit brought by petitioners against the . . . members of the commission but the . . . time passed” (id. at 46 [emphasis added]).

Even after our decision in Harkenrider, most petitioners remained idle with respect to mandamus relief or chose to pursue alternative relief. Most notably, lead petitioner Hoffmann sought an order in the United States District Court for the Southern District of – 12 – No. 90 – 12 – New York requiring that the gerrymandered maps enacted by the legislature be used in the impending 2022 congressional elections (Doc. No. 1, complaint at 3, 13, in De Gaudemar v Kosinski, No.1:22-cv-3534 [SD NY May 2, 2022]). The District Court harshly rejected that request to “hav[e] the New York primaries conducted on district lines that the State says are unconstitutional,” referring to it as an attempt to “impinge[]” on “[f]ree, open, rational elections” (Doc. No. 92-2, transcript at 15, 40, in De Gaudemar, supra).

Only after these efforts failed, the special master maps were certified, and several more weeks had passed did petitioners finally seek mandamus relief against the IRC. There is no excuse for this extravagant delay. Even assuming petitioners’ claim would have been deemed premature on January 24th—the day the IRC announced its stalemate—they had a clear right to mandamus relief against the IRC on January 25th, when the 15-day constitutional deadline elapsed without any second-round submission by the IRC.

 Further, it is unfathomable that petitioners can argue that even after the Governor signed the legislature’s maps into law on February 3rd, it remained unclear whether the IRC would act to deliver a second set of maps. Because these events were unequivocal, petitioners’ commencement of this proceeding on June 28th was “well beyond four months after they knew or should have known of the facts that provided them a clear right to relief” (see Matter of Granto, 148 AD3d at 1696).

Plainly, by then the ship had sailed. Petitioners agree that this proceeding is governed by a four-month time limit, but argue that such period should be measured from March 31, 2022, the date the Harkenrider trial court declared the 2021 legislation unconstitutional. However, the 2021 legislation neither relieved the IRC of its mandatory constitutional duty to submit second-round maps  nor concealed petitioners’ clear right to mandamus relief arising from the breach of that duty on January 25th.

The 2021 legislation provided merely that “[i]f the commission does not vote on any redistricting plan or plans, for any reason, by the date required for submission of such plan,” the legislature could enact its own redistricting plan (L 2021 ch 633 § 1 [emphasis added]). Nothing in that language purports to modify the IRC’s underlying constitutional duty to submit maps to the legislature, which is the very action petitioners now seek to compel. Moreover, it is a bedrock legal principle that statutes are subordinate to the Constitution and are void in the event of any conflict. Thus, even if the legislature had intended to relieve the IRC of its mandatory constitutional obligation, the only way to do so was to amend the Constitution.

The legislature clearly understood this: it initially submitted the 2021 legislation to the People in the form of a ballot initiative for a proposed constitutional amendment. In rejecting that proposal, the People signaled their strong preference for the constitutionally mandated process, which—as I will explain— leaves remediation of any IRC breakdown primarily to the courts. The legislature’s response was to ignore the voters’ will and circumvent the Constitution by enacting the same provisions as an ordinary statute. That unsubtle effort to subvert the IRC’s role was legally ineffective for the reasons stated above.