PASSING STRANGE: Really a musical?
Steve Newport
"...please don't call it a Broadway musical. You could scare away too
many people who might actually enjoy it."
NEWSDAY REVIEW:
"..the stranger-in-a-strange-land original passing for a Broadway
musical at the Belasco Theatre. Part indie-rock concert, part boho-art
project, part coming-of-age black-identity crisis, part hipster
travelogue..."
USA TODAY REVIEW:
"Who knew that it would take a bunch of German teenagers and Eurocentric
bohemians to rehabilitate the American musical? "
VARIETY REVIEW:
"...boldly atypical Broadway fare."
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS REVIEW:
"The story feels familiar and smacks of warmed-over Wizard of Oz. The
stocky, bald Stew wears hipster shades and a dark suit as he narrates,
sings and strums guitar. But he might as well be dressed in Dorothy Gale
gingham and ruby slippers."
THE NEW YORK POST REVIEW:
"Passing Strange is more like a Broadway cantata, a recycling of theater
song-cycles of the likes Joe Papp encouraged at the Public, and
sometimes risked on Broadway, many years ago. Stew is a fine artist, and
although Broadway may not be his alley, his offbeat beatness would be a
delight to encounter in cabaret."
AMNY REVIEW:
"...imagine what it would be like if its composer insisted on not just
sitting center-stage, but narrating the plot and even telling you why
it's a good show. Doesn't that sound condescending?"
JOURNAL NEWS REVIEW:
"...so different from the standard Broadway musical that it demands its
own category. It may be a hard sell to the traditional Broadway
audience..."
chromolume
seen, but have heard lots about) is most definitely a musical. ;-)
Then again, compared to "Contact," ANYTHING else qualifies as a
musical...;-)
Steve Newport
From: jongo...@msn.com (chromolume) compared to "Contact," ANYTHING
else qualifies as a musical...;-)
LOL. You may be right.
Robert Bouton
musical he hasn't seen that got overwhelmingly positive reviews.
The question is: Why?
a. To mislead readers of this newsgroup into believing the show didn't
get raves?
b. To discourage us from buying a ticket to this widely-lauded show?
c. Because he hopes old favorites of his (No No Nanette, Let It Ride,
Pipe Dream) will be revived more often if they don't have 21st Century
musicals to compete with?
d. Out of jealousy that newcomers succeed while he continues to
languish in stock?
e. General contempt for us, our taste, our intelligence?
I'm hoping everybody will ignore the malicious pull-quoting, see the
show, and give an original reaction, based upon entertainment actually
experienced
favyear54
I did see the show ----- and while I do not usually agree with Mr.
Newport, I do this time have to agree with the critics that say this
needs its own category. It most definitely is not a traditional
musical. In fact, I found it to be an extremely LONG ( at the time I
saw it at the Public, the running time was 3 hours) overly loud, and
overly self indulgent evening. Stew is a very talented poet, but this
piece made me think of the 1970's and 1980's performance art rather
than a musical. He stands centerstage and narrates his
autobiography. We see his traipsing through the sex and drug scene of
Berlin and Amsterdam in the 1970's. The night I saw it with a friend,
we almost left at the end of the first act, but thought that surely
the second act couldn't be as long as the 90 minute first act. . . we
were wrong.
I was shocked to hear that this was moving uptown, and now am even
more shocked to see it being considered for best musical. Was this
season so bleak and devoid of quality that this is representative of
the "Best of the musical theatre world?"
My gut reaction is that the Tony Committee is trying for shock value
--- or to stack the deck in favor of "In the Heights".
Harlett O'Dowd
> I was shocked to hear that this was moving uptown, and now am even
> more shocked to see it being considered for best musical. Was this
> season so bleak and devoid of quality that this is representative of
> the "Best of the musical theatre world?"
Looks that way, yes.
Steve Newport
From: favy...@aol.com (favyear54)
Newport
Shame on you. BFS.
-----------------------------------
I do this time have to agree with the critics that say this needs its
own category. It most definitely is not a traditional musical. In fact,
I found it to be an extremely LONG ( at the time I saw it at the Public,
the running time was 3 hours) overly loud, and overly self indulgent
evening. Stew is a very talented poet, but this piece made me think of
the 1970's and 1980's performance art rather than a musical. He stands
centerstage and narrates his autobiography. We see his traipsing through
the sex and drug scene of Berlin and Amsterdam in the 1970's. The night
I saw it with a friend, we almost left at the end of the first act, but
thought that surely the second act couldn't be as long as the 90 minute
first act. . . we were wrong.
I was shocked to hear that this was moving uptown, and now am even more
shocked to see it being considered for best musical. Was this season
so bleak and devoid of quality that this is representative of the "Best
of the musical theatre world?"
My gut reaction is that the Tony Committee is trying for shock value ---
or to stack the deck in favor of "In the Heights".
Like I predicted here-- it's one of those NOISE/FUNK and CHRONICLE OF A
DEATH FORETOLD Tony seasons. Gotta punish YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN for not
being as good as the vastly over rated THE PRODUCERS. Payback time for
Susan Stroman, Mel Brooks, Harvey Fierstein. Disney is in and out every
other season. This one's an out. But thanks for your first hand account.
I wonder if Noel Katz (Robert Bouton) has actually seen it. (And if we
should believe him if he says he has.)
John W Kennedy
Piffle. Ain't nothin' wrong with a show that gives value for your
entertainment dollar. "Hamlet". "Götterdämmerung". Anything from the
Viennese silver age. Heck, none of them take as long in performance as
the average Renaissance faire.
Bloody television.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"
Stephen Farrow
"Length" and "quality" are two different things (I know, I know - go
ahead and do your worst). I've seen long theatrical productions - long
as in all day, not just three hours - during which I haven't looked at
my watch once (like "Angels in America" in a single day at the RNT,
which was absolutely thrilling), and I've also seen long-ish
productions, like Kenneth Branagh's magnificently dreadful stage Hamlet
at the RNT, in which the four hours flew by like a decade.
--
Stephen
That was nifty.
Steve Newport
From: jwk...@attglobal.net (John W Kennedy) <<<I did see the show
and have to agree with the critics that say this needs its own category.
It most definitely is not a traditional musical. In fact, I found it to
time was 3 hours) overly loud, and overly self indulgent evening. Stew
is a very talented poet, but this piece made me think of the 1970's and
1980's performance art rather than a musical. He stands centerstage and
narrates his autobiography. We see his traipsing through the sex and
drug scene of Berlin and Amsterdam in the 1970's. The night I saw it
with a friend, we almost left at the end of the first act, but thought
that surely the second act couldn't be as long as the 90 minute first
act. . . we were wrong.>>>
entertainment dollar.
Piffle right back atcha. Modern theatre should be as tight as it can
possibly be.
Steve Newport
From: stephen...@gmail.com (Stephen Farrow) <<<this needs its own
category. It most definitely is not a traditional musical. In fact, I
found it to be an extremely LONG ( at the time I saw it at the Public,
the running time was 3 hours) overly loud, and overly self indulgent
evening. Stew is a very talented poet, but this piece made me think of
the 1970's and 1980's performance art rather than a musical. He stands
centerstage and narrates his autobiography. We see his traipsing through
the sex and drug scene of Berlin and Amsterdam in the 1970's. The night
I saw it with a friend, we almost left at the end of the first act, but
thought that surely the second act couldn't be as long as the 90 minute
first act. . . we were wrong.>>>
three hours - during which I haven't looked at my watch once (like
"Angels in America" in a single day at the RNT, which was absolutely
thrilling), and I've also seen long-ish productions, like Kenneth
Branagh's magnificently dreadful stage Hamlet at the RNT, in which the
four hours flew by like a decade.
I just read the brilliant AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY and agree with the critic
who said he wanted more. A couple of this year's "Best Musical winners
(A CATERED AFFAIR and XANADU) are very short, are they not?
Stephen Farrow
Self-correction - Branagh's crappy stage Hamlet was at the RSC, not the
RNT.
--
Stephen
We're drawing up a plan for world domination. The key element?
Coffeemakers that think.
Steve Newport
From: stephen...@gmail.com (Stephen Farrow) <<<I do this time have
to agree with the critics that say this needs its own category. It most
definitely is not a traditional musical. In fact, I found it to be an
extremely LONG ( at the time I saw it at the Public, the running time
was 3 hours) overly loud, and overly self indulgent evening. Stew is a
very talented poet, but this piece made me think of the 1970's and
1980's performance art rather than a musical. He stands centerstage and
narrates his autobiography. We see his traipsing through the sex and
drug scene of Berlin and Amsterdam in the 1970's. The night I saw it
with a friend, we almost left at the end of the first act, but thought
that surely the second act couldn't be as long as the 90 minute first
act. . . we were wrong.>>>
"Length" and "quality" are two different things (I know, I know - go
ahead and do your worst).
Too easy.