starrs - you are most welcome

More on the Scottsboro Boys: quite an interesting article about the difficulties and challenges of this production through the points of view of five of the actors. It doesn't change my opinion, but I found the actors' ideas and feelings about their parts in this production so interesting. The article also mentioned that most of the protesters from the day before had not seen the play.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/th...=1&ref=theater

Thanks for the link, CPG. Interesting article. The following statement from the actor, while describing the attempt of this production, is the place it failed most for me -- I didn't feel that "connection to the anguish " he speaks of.

"At the same time, the cast must bring the audience members along for the ride, making them comfortable enough to laugh at cartoonish portrayals of blustering white sheriffs, prancing Southern belles and shuffling former slaves while connecting to the anguish of lives ruined by bigotry."

TC - I knew you would it interesting. That connection wasn't there for me either.

Douglas Hodge (along with Kelsey Grammer) is leaving La Cage on Feb 13th and is to be replaced by Harvey Fierstein who won a Tony in '84 for writing the book. I would still urge anyone planning to see this show to catch Hodge's outstanding performance before he leaves.

should have been 'would find it....'

OMG....while I adored Doug Hodge, seeing Harvey do this show would be wonderful. I saw him in Hairspray. What a treat. Who's taking Kelsey's part?

Kelsey Grammer's replacement has not been chosen yet.

I wonder whatever happened to the idea that Kelsey Grammer was going to move in to the Albin role when Douglas Hodge left? That was supposedly part of his original contract -- that he'd end up doing both roles.

Here's an interesting discussion on BroadwayWorld about the protest of Scottsboro Boys. Be aware, people don't mince words or hide their feelings at all on that site!

http://broadwayworld.com/board/readm...t=48&boardid=1

Patrick, It seems pretty clear that most of the posters on broadwayworld haven't seen the show either. Not much informed discussion there. Clearly, based on the above linked NYT article, even the actors have had a tough time with this one. Some of the BW posters could stand to read more and write less. IMHO

Actually if you'd look at other Scottsboro Boy's threads there you'd see many of those same posters who HAVE seen the show and have even posted their own reviews. Several have clearly followed the production from its early workshop days in fact. (and a couple of them are actually connected with the production itself). I'm not defending some of their outrageous comments and very over-the-top comparisons to other shows, but I'm not sure why you suggest it is clear that "most" of them haven't seen the show or what "reading more" has to do with anything?

I didn't read "other Scottsboro Boy's threads" from BW. At the link you posted they made themselves sound quite uninformed to put it nicely. There wasn't much of a discussion going on.

I think the NYT article linked by CPG is quite interesting. If the actors found the production to be "one very fraught assignment", were "initially shocked by it" and state that "just hearing it was a minstrel show kind of repelled me immediately". Even Josha Henry states; "I hated it...recalling the early rehearsals. It made my skin crawl."

My point is, the cast went through ions of preproduction discussions, readings, meetings with the writers and director, rehearsals, etc. to finally come to terms with the show. Why is anyone expected to embrace it at the end of 2 hours?

I agree that the New York Times article was very interesting and I agree with all it says. I'm not sure that anyone is asked to "embrace" the show especially in a "wasn't that fun and wonderful" way, but there is little doubt it causes much thought and controversy -- one of the major goals of theatre. And don't forget that while some of the actors were first repulsed by it, their feelings seem to have changed towards the show pretty dramatically since then. Of course it is that instant "repulsion" or "shock" from the audiences that the show is clearly seeking -- for whatever reason.

especially in a "wasn't that fun and wonderful" way,

Oh you do like your words, Patrick. Did you really think I meant it that way? Embrace as in -- understand, come to terms with, wrap our head around all the ideas and make sense of them, etc, etc, etc.

Gee, this is sure a rough crowd. Do I honestly have to "defend" every simple statement I make here?

I sure didn't mean to imply that's what you meant by "embrace". I was simply making the point that certainly that show WON'T do that, as some people have walked out of the show saying things like "it didn't entertain me" and embrace was a very handy word for that. Read my statement again. Why do you think I added "especially in a 'wasn't that fun and wonderful' -- to make sure what kind of way I was talking about -- not you. It seems everyone is being so sensitive here. Can't we just make comments without people taking things so personally? Why not focus on my main point above that "there is little doubt it causes much thought and controversy" instead of focusing on a statement as if I were trying to start an argument or put words in someone else's mouth?

And here we go again -- "oh you do like your words, Patrick". What's really going on here? Am I missing something? I really am a nice guy. Honestly. I just happen to have a lot of opinions about theatre since that's what my college degree is in, and I have spent most of my life doing theatre and teaching theatre-- and I honestly am NOT trying to pick fights or insult people just because I give an opinion. Nor am I ever trying to suggest my opinion is right and others are wrong! Really! There is no right or wrong about likes or dislikes.

Phew!

Must be this daylight savings time. Makes everyone testy. Let's have a Cosmo and see a show... play.... production.

Good idea, and so last night I did. (OK, so I had a Robroy, not a Cosmo) But then I saw our Naples Players production of the very funny Regrets Only by Paul Rudnick.

A few very short clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIOggt9wDeo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3xko64Uwjg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvDiI...eature=related

"What's really going on here? Am I missing something?"
NeoPatrick, you know I like you. You know I've driven twice to see you perform. But, since you asked...Yes, you are missing something. You were doing your "dog with a bone" thing. And with cpg, of all people. I've NEVER seen cpg involved with a "back and forth" thing. She expressed her thoughts, with hestitancy, and got slammed for it. Perhaps after a good show and a good Robroy you'll reread your posts to her and see what we witnessed. You are both theatre lovers with a long history in the theatre. You both deserve to be heard respectfully. Respect was missing (IMO anyway).

As one of the multitudes who loved the Scottsboro Boys, I really have to step in here with a good word for it - actually quite a few good words. I found this show over-the-top fabulous and amazing. The concept, the performances, direction, choreography, all the production elements were spot on & fantastic. I loved the irony and the sardonic approach. The minstrel show framing device is effective - brilliantly employed to point up the racism and the criminal justice travesty these young men were subjected to.

TC wrote: "My point is, the cast went through ions of preproduction discussions, readings, meetings with the writers and director, rehearsals, etc. to finally come to terms with the show. Why is anyone expected to embrace it at the end of 2 hours?"
I don't agree with this analogy - the audience isn't involved with any pre-production discussions, readings, etc. that go into making the show. The audience isn't doing all the prep work - they are just seeing the result - you either embrace the show itself (as I do) or you don't. You shouldn't have to know anything about what how a cake was made to decide if you like it.

While I understand that some may be offended by this type of provocative theatre, many are not. I love that this show stirs things up while simultaneously entertaining the pants off you.

Spring, You miss my point. In a NYT interview, the cast members make the following statements: "one very fraught assignment", -- "initially shocked by it", -- "just hearing it was a minstrel show kind of repelled me immediately" --"I hated it. It made my skin crawl."

My point was that it took them a lot of work and time to comes to terms with this production. As audience members we do not have that luxury. Two hours -- take it or leave it. I personally, feel the subject matter is much to deep to embrace this difficult telling at the end of two hours. I question the multitudes who loved the show immediately. I mean, is that the reaction the director was going for? I think she really wanted us to hate it. So in that regard, maybe those of us who were offended are the ones who really "got it".

I preface my comments by admitting that I have not seen the show. Still, I don't think that fact minimizes the possibility that I just might be right.
While TC has a valid point, I cannot help but feel that a good number of the people who were/are offended by the show went to see it without really knowing what to expect. Thus, the "shock" of seeing the show manifest itself.

starrs, I thank you for your comments. Perhaps you won't agree but I honestly did not purposely OFFEND CPG whom I agree is very knowledgeable. I do NOT apologize for my comment that a person who dislikes shows with stereotypes has indeed limited the number of shows he (or she) likes. I made that statement and I'll firmly stand by it with the idea that I firmly believe stereotypes are what make up most theatre! It's how playwrights make their audiences easily recognize things and people. And stereotypes are pretty much what make most jokes work as well. And I'll also admit that it may have seemed harsh and aimed specifically at CPG -- of course it sort of was because it was her comment I was commenting on. She took it personally, and perhaps anyone would do the same -- but I still say we should all be thick skinned enough that when someone says a totally opposing thought to something we've just said, that of course it will be construed as being directly aimed at us -- that doesn't make it a personal "slam" or "bash" -- just an opposing viewpoint to a viewpoint just given.