In Transit: Off B’way a cappella musical
Oscar E. Moore “from the rear mezzanine for Talk Entertainment.com
For anyone who has ever taken the New York subway and for that matter anyone visiting New York City and wants to venture forth, the new musical “In Transit” which is running at 59 E 59 Street through October 30th is in for an eye opening treat as to what to expect and who to expect while trying to reach their destination while enjoying the journey.
That’s what the characters all have in common. To get somewhere. Trying to reach their goals. Whether it be a job as an actor, a new apartment, financial security, a new relationship or trying to break through the stubborn wall of denial, “In Transit” enlightens us through clever lyrics and downright hysterical confrontations all sung a cappella, that is, without the accompaniment of any musical instruments. And it works beautifully. I don’t know how well this will go over with the musicians union but that’s another musical.
For now, sit back and enjoy the ride with an exemplary cast of seven whose harmonies are closer than a jam packed subway car during rush hour. The musical arrangements and direction by Mary-Mitchell Campbell are fantastic as is the spot on direction and musical staging by Joe Calarco.
With a sharp wit, satirical barbs and basic honesty the creators have come up with a truly original way of presenting some well worn characters and situations. Kristen Anderson-Lopez, James-Allen Ford, Russ Kaplan and Sara Wordsworth – based on an original concept created along with Gregory T. Christopher & Karla Lant. This is a case of too many cooks not spoiling the stew. Which in this case, is made with prime sirloin.
The amazing rap narrator, Boxman (Chesney Show) holds everything together with his sound effects and rhythmic backup. There is Mr. Macho Bass (incredible Steve French) Alto (Celisse Henderson) who will knock your socks off with her MTA clerk’s attitude and a Texas Mama visiting her not quite out of the closet son Trent (Tenor Tommar Wilson) who sings one of the best numbers “Choosing Not to Know”. Hannah Laird is Ali (Soprano) a Marathon runner on Weight Watchers who garners great sympathy with “The Moving Song”. As temp worker Jane searching for stardom Denise Summerford (Mezzo) delivers both comic timing and a heartfelt yearning for new date, Nate (Baritone Graham Stevens) who is the poor sole who has to deal with the MTA booth clerk.
Any show lucky enough to get Anna Louizos as set designer has to be special. “In Transit” is no exception. Ms. Louizos has replicated an ideal subway platform with panels that rise and fall to accommodate other locations, movable columns and subway seats on rollers that allow for swift transitions that make this journey on the New York subway system run smoothly without any glitches or delays.
www.primarystages.org
Visit www.oscaremoore.com
10-06-10
Screen Name (or blank if anonymous)
Real Name (never published)
Email (never published)
Website(optional)
TalkBack: What do you think?
Enter Code Shown below:
Comments:
Kyle
wrote:
I saw IN TRANSIT a few days ago, and it is a terribly conceived and written musical. I agree that the acting, directing and design elements make it somewhat tolerable to watch, but the actual musical itself is absolutely 100% paper thin. And nothing can mask that. It's a silly piece of fluff theater with nothing more to offer than pure entertainment. This is why we go to the theatre? This is what we go to Off and Off-Off Broadway? Seriously? The musical's plot has absolutely no forward momentum. And all of the characters' stories are cookie-cutter generic.
Dan
wrote:
Is this why we go the theater? Fair question--one that inspired me to write my first reader's comments essay. Here goes: If you saw the same show that I and this reviewer obviously did, then yes, this is exactly why we go the theater. I found In Transit to be a thoughtful, moving, beautifully written, charming musical. Granted it may not have had a traditional book, but it employed its version of a book (more episodic, short scenes with very little connective narrative) and its songs (all sung a cappella) to actually say something. And for me it added up...to quite a bit. I would categorize it as a concept musical in the tradition of Company or A Chorus Line. Yes, it used archetype, but let's get real--the guy choosing NOT to come out to his Texan mother in order to spare her the pain of losing him to her strict religious beliefs (and himself the loss of his only living parent)--would you call that cookie cutter? Or the woman running into her ex on the subway and then his new girlfriend enters the car. I mean it was fun, it was awkward, it was tragic. It wasn't hackneyed. Kyle? No tinge of heartbreak there either? Or the moment the actress and the banker sing about being madly in love after their first date but then qualifying their enthusiasm with a post-modern, self preserving "but ...whatever." No? Nothing? Just checking. Because I felt those three moments--just the ones that I can remember off the top of my head--took situations we'd seen before and twisted them into something surprising and fresh.
And the songs? When on Off-Off, Off, or on Broadway do you get to hear that much lush harmonic singing? There were 6-part (don't quote me on that, I don't have the Playbill in front of me) arrangements throughout the entire show. Was it the a cappella you hated? Do you need a full string section in a pit to feel like you got your money's worth? I don't think I'm far off--though I may have read this in another review and am now plagiarizing it as my own idea--when I say that they were using the form (a cappella) as metaphor for our tightly pack lives in New York City where we create each other's background music whether we know it or not. Point being--this piece tried something new and daring. I found the songs tuneful, inventive, and affecting. Sounds like you did not.
New and daring is risky I guess. But without artistic risk the art form slowly dies from lack of resonance with a contemporary audience. For quite a while musical theater had become such an antique that most of the shows that were getting mounted were revivals of classics that only the folks who remember the original cast were excited to see....because that's a real musical, dammit. Why don't they write them like Cole Porter any more? Because Cole is dead. Well tastes aside, there was no lack of craft here as Kyle would imply. (N.B.: I actually love Cole Porter, but not at the cost of discovering a new voice--thankfully it's not as either/or as I have set it up here for sake of argument.)
Is there a word limit to these things? No doubt I'm over it now, but I couldn't let those comments go without rebuttal. I hope more people get to see this piece because we do need new voices in musical theater, and these writers deserve high marks for an original, post-modern, nontraditional creation. While I concede that a person likes what a person likes and that Kyle's tastes and opinions are as valid as anyone else's, to dismiss this show out of hand as he does--seeing absolutely NO merit in it whatsoever--just seems rash at best and, frankly, dishonest at worst.
To wrap up on a positive note, maybe they'll revive another Cole Porter classic next season, Kyle. That is, I suppose, why you go to the theater.
|