I was so lucky last week to get to accompany my Grammy to this outstanding theatre production, which is a little hard to describe, but of course I’ll try.
photo by Buck Lewis, courtesy of New York Stage and Film & Vassar’s Powerhouse Theater
In Your Arms is a dance-musical production with very little dialog. It is a series of shorts, mostly unconnected, but with a theme of romantic relationships. These vignettes range through time and geography, sometimes implied and sometimes explicit, as with “The Lover’s Jacket,” in which dates and locations (Spain in 1939 and Argentina in, I’m pretty sure, 1940) are projected against the wall. This is one of the finest and most communicative pieces of nonverbal storytelling throughout the whole, although all of them were impressively clear in their messages and emotions despite being mostly wordless. Details might be blurred, of course, but the feeling and action of each piece was perfectly plain.
The exception was Carrie Fisher’s contribution, “Lowdown Messy Shame,” which is voice-overed by Fisher as she is seated off to one side at a typewriter, composing the action we see played out across the stage. The players act out Fisher’s imaginings but also comment upon them, in a cute innovation. One review found this one overly wordy – and indeed it was almost the only spoken theatre of the evening – but I enjoyed it as much as any other, despite its differences. (“The Dance Contest” also uses some voiceover.)
As I said, these shorts had a shared theme, but remained distinct. I loved the survey over time, space and culture. And then they are tied together by opening and closing pieces featuring a singer expressing nostalgia for loves past. Here I agree with the Union-Tribune (link above) that less song would have been fine; but I think these scenes served well nonetheless to emphasize the loose links between all the pieces. Overall, this nearly-wordless hour-and-forty-five-minutes of music, dance and theatre was profoundly emotional and moving, over a wide range of topics but centered around affairs of the heart. I was deeply impressed; it’s the best thing I’ve seen in a long time.
I was further pleased by stage settings and costume. No set stands out in my memory as being particularly complex or elaborate, but each was distinct and evocative, and the transitions were smooth and easy; I love seeing a change of just one or two elements transform a stage and introduce a new setting with perfect clarity. I think that kind of subtle-but-clear set design is more impressive than elaborately complete stage dressings. A unique element here, too, was the use of shadow and projection throughout; the time-and-place cues in “The Lover’s Jacket” were projected on the screen, and shadows were a major feature in “A Wedding Dance,” while projected home movies were central to “Life Long Love.” The costumes were great fun, too, and well designed for showcasing the dance as well as helping to tell the story. I liked the protagonist’s costume in “Life Long Love” for what it emphasized and revealed, while also looking demure at the appropriate moments.
I do want to say briefly that I wasn’t sure about the racial tones in “A Wedding Dance”, which tells the story of an African couple’s immigration or… kidnapping? I don’t have enough information to be certain whether this was a well-told realistic story, or an ugly appropriation of stereotypes. Likewise “White Snake,” which tells the story of a white businessman who reads comic books and fantasizes about his Asian assistant. It was a great piece of theatre and movement, combining dance and martial arts and a lovely representation of the blurry line between fantasy and reality. But I wasn’t sure how much fun we should be having with certain stereotypes there, as well. I haven’t worked out what’s okay here, in part because of the lack of details in wordless theatre. Just something I wanted to note. On the other hand, the same-sex couple in “Artists and Models, 1929” was represented with sensitivity and realism and I found them delightful. I want to say that this was one of my favorite pieces, but gosh, I want to say that about nearly all of them.
Finally, I must note that this event took me back to San Diego’s Old Globe theatre, where I saw what I’m pretty sure was my first Shakespeare production, in 1992, when I was 10 years old. The theatre and surrounding park still felt familiar, and it was such a treat to be there again with my Grammy, thoroughly aside from the quality of the show.
If you have a chance, definitely make a point to see In Your Arms. It was a rare treat for me. There are rumors it might be Broadway-bound, so maybe a larger audience will get an opportunity at it.
Thanks, Grammy, this was so special.
Rating: 9 memories.
Filed under: musings | Tagged: musical theatre, short stories, theatre | 1 Comment »
And I must admit, this was a sillier movie than Psycho. For one thing, The Birds necessitated special effects, and 1963 special effects do not play well in 2015. The attacking birds were a low point in the action, for their unrealism. (I suspect the sound effects of rioting birds were provided by screeching cats.) For that matter, the threat the birds posed read well on the page, but did not ring true onscreen: much flailing, of people and of birds, but not much evidence of real danger. As in Psycho, drivers persisted in getting into their cars via the passenger door. Also, they walk into one another’s homes – even strangers’ homes – right through the (unlocked) front door, sometimes without knocking. This I find most strange (and it happened in Psycho, too). Was this a 1960’s reality?? 
pagesofjulia 