"TOMORROW MORNING"
at the York Theater
|
I liked the York Theater Company's Off-Broadway production of "Tomorrow Morning." I wasn't crazy about it, but I liked it. And wish more people were turning out to see it. (The night I attended, the house was little more than half full.) The show, previously produced in London and Chicago, was given its New York premiere by the York Theatre Company. And while I don't think the show is going anywhere--it's in that "pretty good" category that won't attract investors--there's enough freshness and originality in the show to catch my attention. And I'd like to encourage the show's creator, Laurence Mark Wythe. He wrote the book, music, and lyrics. And if the work is far from perfect, there aren't too many folk capable of writing a show's book, music, and lyrics. And even if this particular show falls into the "good but not great" category, the playwright is someone to watch.
|
The plot is different from that in any show I've ever seen--and I'll give the playwright major props for originality. At the start, we meet two couples. The younger couple, who call themselves "John" and "Kat" (Matthew Hydzik and Autumn Hurlbert), are looking forward to getting married. The older couple, who call themselves "Jack" and "Catherine" (D. B. Bonds and Mary Mossberg), are looking forward to getting divorced.
| |
Gradually, we are given clues until we realize that this play is actually not about two different couples, but about just one couple; we are observing the experiences of one couple, separated by 10 years. The young, optimistic guy and gal who can't wait to get married have morphed into these older people yearning to escape their marriage. Or so they seem to be saying. And we're wondering how they got there.... It's a terrific concept, no doubt about it.
|
|
The singing and acting was good throughout. I thought the older actors (D. B. Bonds and Mary Mossberg, seen in the photo at left) sang with greater finesse and naturalness.
But I liked the spunk and spirit of the younger actors; they seemed more vivid on stage. And more appealing.
Both couples were very well cast, though; it was easy to believe that we might be looking at younger and older versions of the same people. So far, so good....
|
But it is not enough for a musical to have a intriguing premise, or fine actors. The story has to have forward momentum, it has to carry us along. But too many of the songs in this show seemed similar, and that made it feel like we weren't moving, but were stuck in one place. And when we finally got unstuck, after we'd seen all the reasons the guy and the gal no longer wanted to be together, the playwright sought to convice us that suddenly everything was fine with the older couple.
And--lo and behold, folks--they aren't going to get divorced after all!
But that happy ending did not belong in this show; it seemed contrived. I think the musical would have felt more honest had the older couple not had that sudden change of heart at the end.
--Rob Adams
|
|
