TC

A couple more reviews of Scottsboro Boys.

http://webcowgirl.wordpress.com/2010...new-york-city/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_494576.html

Centralparkgirl

Interesting reviews (above) to say the least. The fact that all the white characters were played by black actors was such a distraction, imo, and a poor one at that. I felt it took away from the evil of the characters by creating cartoon-like stereotypes. And the anti-Semitism - well, it seems the low road was taken at every turn. The more I reflect, the more I dislike this play.

NeoPatrick

"I felt it took away from the evil of the characters by creating cartoon-like stereotypes."

Then I take it you dislike Chicago as well -- evil murderesses portrayed as cartoon-like stereotypes? It's not really a new concept -- but perhaps a bit more "in your face" than other examples.

Just playing devil's advocate here, since I haven't seen it. But I think I do "get" the concept of the show. Call it extremely politically incorrect if you want -- but one must "get" that to enjoy it, and clearly not everyone will or does enjoy it.

TC

NeoPaatrick, At least in Chicago, the central character was developed enough to appreciate -- good or bad. Yes, she was the "bad girl", played for laughs. But the ONE sympathetic character, the husband, in that show was fleshed out enough to gain our compassion. "Cellophane" being a wonderful example of his plight. I think we are able to accept Velma as a cartoon bad girl, because (1) we have no sympathy for her victim and (2) she's at least a "smart" bad girl. Trust me, there is nothing smart about the portraits in SB.

In SB, the central characters are mere vapor, but we are supposed to come away with a heartfelt connection to them. Otherwise how can we feel the requisite guilt? The whole idea is that we, white Americans, did this to the boys and we should feel uncomfortable watching it re-enacted. I felt more sorrow as I looked at photos in the program than from anything that happened on the stage. I don't understand only doing a 90 minute, no intermission, show at the cost of reducing the title personages to nothing. Its cheap.

In today's NYT the producers talk about fleshing out the characters of the boys during the Guthrie run -- especially the youngest boy. The kid has about 6 lines in the whole show -- and that's the expanded version?? How deep is that?

CPG, I agree, having the same actors whiplash back and forth between the humble boys AND their cartoonish, white, female accusers (ala Some Like it Hot) was at the least confusing. I couldn't muster up any real feelings for either -- all too schizophrenic.

Centralparkgirl

NP - if you read my earlier post, you will see my comment about Chicago. One can't compare the two. They're like apples and oranges. Chicago (which I enjoyed immensely) was a story where as TC says, the bad girl was played for laughs. SB really happened and it's a dark event in American history - actually, I would call it shameful. Other musicals have dealt with racism, but in a different way. A few come to mind such as South Pacific, Finian's Rainbow and Ragtime. I enjoyed all of them. I do 'get' the concept of SB; Even if it gets stellar reviews at the end of the month, I just personally don't care for it. Using black actors to play the white characters in a buffoonish (?) manner diminished what those white southern men represented to me.

TC - I didn't read the Times article yet, but my performance was 2 hours! I wonder if it's a lengthened version of what you saw.

NeoPatrick

Interesting discussion about Scottsboro Boys on the Broadway World website, generally pretty major theatre goers and a lot of people IN the New York theatre. It surely is a show that seems to either get a "loved it" or "hated it" reaction.

http://broadwayworld.com/board/readm...dt=9&boardid=1

Centralparkgirl

Next Spring at Lincoln Center's Vivian Beaumont: 'War Horse.' Sounds very interesting.

http://www.lct.org/showMain.htm?id=199

TC

That looks AMAZING, CPG. My spring trip to NY will be quite thrilling this year.

NeoPatrick

I saw War Horse in London last May. I just returned from London and I saw it again with my theatre couple friends who joined me. They decided it was the best of the 7 plays they saw -- and were surprised I would go again. I could see it over and over. War Horse is perhaps the most "perfect" theatrical piece I've ever witnessed. A stunning evening of theatre.

Funny thing. I mistakenly had booked it last May for the day of my arrival (I was thinking it was the day after my arrival, but somehow screwed up on the dates). I saw a matinee and was droopy eyed on arrival with jet lag. I sat on the edge of my seat for the whole three hours simply stunned and wide awake.

If you're interested in reading about the amazing financial success of this production in London:

http://westend.broadwayworld.com/boa...t=14&boardid=3

Centralparkgirl

FYI - War Horse tickets go on sale to the public Sunday Nov 14th - not sure what time in the morning (LCT member tix go on sale Monday 11/1 10 am)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/th...20horse&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/200...HOW_index.html

It's supposed to run from 3/15 (previews) thru 6/26
But occasionally you have a production (like South Pacific) that gets extended.

I don't recall ever seeing the London review and my quick search couldn't locate it. Anyone see the review?

Centralparkgirl

Nathan Lane is hosting a salute to Broadway (at the White House) tonight on PBS 9 pm (eastern time)

NeoPatrick

The reviews in London were pretty much unanimous raves. You can find a number of them simply by Googling "reviews of War Horse in London".

Here's also an interesting article with a few pictures from the NY times a year ago about the London production.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/th...4warhorse.html

anniegaff

We saw Scottsboro Boys Friday night. My review in one word: powerful. We loved it, but I certainly understand why some do not. Like Centralparkgirl, I did not find the jokes funny at all because I could not put aside the fact that all of the action really happened to real people; I wanted to call the audience members who were laughing, especially at the beginning, idiots. As the play continued, the laughter subsided as the real message of the play sunk in. As for the black actors playing white characters as buffoons--that's what white actors in minstrel shows did to black characters--that was the whole point. And, as the play continued, the "cartoonyness" of the sheriff and the women diminished as the seriousness and the reality of what was happening increased.

Our performance was about 1 hour 45 minutes. An intermission would have ruined the atmosphere in the theater, in my humble opinion. There really is no place in the show where a break would be appropriate--not like other musicals where there's a huge musical number.

We started our vacation Tuesday night and saw Rock of Ages in Minneapolis before flying to NYC Wed. morning. Talk about polar opposites!! We can't remember ever laughing so hard at any show. I loved the fact that a list of songs was NOT provided in the playbill so that the first notes of each 80s song cracked us up because we knew what was coming in the lyrics. Pure fun and lighthearted.

HowardR

My compliments, anniegaff, for a most thoughtful and intelligent commentary on The Scottsboro Boys.

TC

"As the play continued, the laughter subsided as the real message of the play sunk in."

Anniegaff, Did you feel that you got to know the Scottsboro boys as individuals from the NY show? In Minneapolis, I felt that they had been formed into one lump to represent all injustice to all blacks by all whites anywhere. While that is a noble idea, I wanted to see more flesh on their bones. In a play entitled for them, it hardly seemed right to overlook them as individuals. I saw that as yet another form of racism?

What I didn't "get" with the minstrel show format was the boys, themselves, portrayed in that style. The reverse placement of white/black characters made sense, as you say, but the boys with tambourines, shuffling and singing, just didn't fly with me. Did that change between Minneapolis and NY?

The hardest part for us was that the Guthrie program included many photos of the real Scottsboro Boys while incarcerated. We could not get past their sad faces and depressing stories to laugh at anything on the stage.

Just my opinion. Thanks for posting your point of view. That's live theater!

HowardR

My compliments to you as well, TC, for an equally thoughtful and intelligent commentary. There should be more high-level dialogs like this on the forum!

anniegaff

Only 3 of the 9 boys were developed to any extent--Haywood, Eugene (the young one), and the one who wore glasses (sorry, I can't remember his actual name). I wish I had seen it at the Guthrie so I could tell you if changes were made, but the character of Eugene had more than 6 lines, so maybe additional lines were added. I understand what you mean when you say they were lumped together to represent all blacks, but maybe that's just another point being made in an obscure way--all blacks were lumped together and considered "dangerous" around white women by racist whites. When 2 white women said "rape," all 9 were automatically guilty regardless of the facts. Perhaps that's a stretch. . .

About the dancing with tambourines, shuffling and singing: on one hand, they were men in a minstrel show portraying the Scottsboro boys; on the other hand, they were doing what the white interlocutor told them to--at least at first, until they sang "Southern Days." It worked for me, but it did make me uncomfortable. There were gasps and tears from audience members at the end of the performance, so the message certainly hit home with many.

I only saw one photo of the 9 with their lawyer in the lobby of the theater. There were none in the program; however, like I said before, I didn't find any of it funny anyway. (Well, I did laugh once--when Tambo objected to a new trial being granted.)

If nothing else, the play has all of us thinking, and that's always a good thing. Have a good day.

anniegaff

I see Howard commented while I was busy with my reply. Too bad we can't have this conversation in person. Howard, have you seen the show? If so, what do you think?

HowardR

No, I haven't seen the show. Before this exchange between you two, I had no desire to see it. Now, my attitude is starting to change!

NeoPatrick

Well, I for one would LOVE to see it. It's hard to comment intelligently on a show I haven't seen, but I keep reading lots of descriptions of the show and one of the biggest negatives seems to be that the "boys" don't get treated individually and you never get to know them or more about them. Well, it seems to me from other posts, perhaps that's the whole point? They were treated as a group -- and stereotyped -- so here's a show which does the same thing. Perhaps the very way it is done is for the purpose of making the rest of us feel guilty. Seeming attempts at laughs and jokes that just aren't funny? Perhaps that's the whole idea as well.

In any case, I'd love to see this show -- I tried last winter to see the workshop, which overlapped my stay by just a couple of days, but there was no way I could get a ticket.