Neo, thank you for your "thank you". I think you will agree that both you and I can be argumentative
I've never seen cpg be argumentative.
I hestitated to say something for a couple of days and considered sending you a message privately. I decided it really wasn't any of my business.
But then you asked "What am I missing?" and I decided to share my point of view. IMO it looked/sounded like you were bashing. That may not have been your intent, but that's what it looked like from the Peanut Gallery.

"And I'll also admit that it may have seemed harsh and aimed specifically at CPG ..."
Thanks for saying that.
"...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..."
I would agree with that, for perhaps the first or second time. But, IMO and maybe only MO, you went back for more. That's when the "dog with a bone" image came to mind. I know it well and have a tendency to do the same.

FWIW, I hope you bring Tuna back to the mountains

But Howard, surely you will admit that the cast must have known what to expect when they accepted their parts?

I'm going back to my original post on this one -- I "got it", I just didn't like it.

The Wall Street Journal review is more in line with my thinking.
"but to see "The Scottsboro Boys" on Broadway is to witness a nightly act of collective self-congratulation in which the right-thinking members of the audience preen themselves complacently at the thought of their own enlightenment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Or the NY Daily News viewpoint:
"The songwriters and book writer David Thompson missed the opportunity to better flesh out the men."

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...#ixzz150UlpdrV

NY Magazine says:
"The nine remain an amalgam, and attempts to distinguish individual characters inevitably founder on the rocks of minstrelsy: Kitsch subverts content somewhat, not (as the creators" clearly believe) the other way around.

TC, while the cast may not have known what to expect when they first signed up for the show, they certainly must have known what to expect by the time they started performing before a live audience.
But, I don't understand your comment in relation to my previous comment.

Howard,
I quoted the NYT article "Even Josha Henry states; "I hated it...recalling the early rehearsals. It made my skin crawl."

You said: "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."

I said; "the cast must have known what to expect when they accepted their parts?"

I think you and I got tangled -- you talking about the audience and me referring to the cast. My point is that upon first light -- even the cast felt uneasy, but they were given a lot of help to get past that point of emotion. As audience members, we only get help from each other on boards like this one.....or none at all.

Hey - no fair taking a line from a review out of context! Here's the whole paragraph and a link to the entire review from NY Mag:
"The nine remain an amalgam, and attempts to distinguish individual characters inevitably founder on the rocks of minstrelsy: Kitsch subverts content somewhat, not (as the creators clearly believe) the other way around. But then, maybe that’s the most subversive message of all. The Scottsboro Boys isn’t a precision-guided social endoscopy: It’s a single, stunning blow to the temple. And on its own discomfiting, blunt-force terms, it’s utterly successful."
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment...liant_b_1.html

Howard - hope you will be able to see it.
I'm a huge proponent of provocative, challenging theatre. The only thing that offends me in the theatre is boredom or incompetence. So, that's where I'm coming from.

TC, thanks for the detailed response. Even if I hadn't read that Times article, I would certainly have felt that most, if any all, of the cast had a very difficult time preparing for the show.
As for the audience, hell, I'm not sure how I would react to the show! But, I strongly feel that especially before that Times article and other publicity made theatergoers aware of what to expect, many did not come "fully prepared" (my words and perhaps not the best ones) for what they were about to see. I think now that there has been so much publicity about the show, there won't be as much shock. Oh yes, there'll still be controversy, but not as much shock.

Sorry Spring212. I did mean to add the NY Mag link as I had with the other reviews. I didn't exactly take it out of context to my way of thinking. The portion of the review that I quoted was used to reinforce something I had said in early posts -- that the "boys" in Scottsboro Boys weren't fleshed out enough. It wasn't intended as a general review of the play.

Howard, Its odd, I was more than fully prepared for the story of the Scottsboro Boys. The Guthrie program had pages and pages of photos and stories. I think that is one of the things that disappointed me the most. The guide made the boys so sympathetic that I was even more appalled with the play that I saw on stage. I guess there's a fine line between not enough and too much information.

Here's the link to The Guthrie's play guide, if anyone is interested.
http://www.guthrietheater.org/sites/...Scottsboro.pdf

TC, thanks for sharing that Guthrie play guide. It's very interesting. After reading those favorable reviews in the program, I could only wonder (or should I say pipe dream) if anyone ever considered including the unfavorable reviews alongside the favorable ones!
I wondered.....but at the same doubted if was even idly thought of. It's an interesting thought though, eh?

Marketing is marketing...no matter where.

Anyone see today's NYT article on Spiderman? They have yet to complete a run through of act one -- with opening scheduled for this coming Sunday! What are the odds on yet another delay? $65 million and counting.......

"Every week’s delay eats up to $2 million in lost revenue and, especially, higher expenses for technical rehearsals that require additional crew members. But Ms. Taymor said she hoped that those who bought tickets to preview performances, many of which have been offered at reduced prices, will “get to enjoy the art of making theater, as well as the magic of it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/th...ml?ref=theater

Saw Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown last night. Unfortunately, it was as bad as Ben Brantley of the Times said it was. What a waste of so much talent. There was an occasional bright spot, like a second-act number by Patti Lupone, but in general, we were bored and/or at times confused. Fortunately, we didn't have to pay for the tickets, so I guess it was a case of "You get what you pay for!"
It was all the more disappointing after viewing the wonderful Sondheim birthday special on PBS Wednesday night, where Lupone and other Broadway stars absolutely sparkled.

I've also heard how terrible it is. Sorry I missed the Sondheim special. I hope it will be repeated.

I guess it was a case of "You get what you pay for!"

Some of us, unfortunately, have paid a LOT MORE than free! I'm beginning to worry about our January holiday. First the Spiderman disappointment and now this. Go ahead, tell me that Pacino is awful in Merchant and just make my day complete.

TC, I knew you would not greet news happily! Before the show opened, we debated getting tickets for the show and we decided to wait until it opened....and then, after it opened, we were happy that we hadn't bought them. Then, on Thursday, friends who had been given the tickets couldn't make the performance because of illness and offered us the tickets. We figured, "What the heck, how bad can it be?" Well, we found out. For once, a show did not get the ubiquitous and undeserved standing ovation at the end.
It made us sad to experience this production and see so much talent--both on and offstage--go to waste. To think that the director, Bartlett Sher, was the same one who guided the wonderful revival of South Pacific.
I think it was Charles Isherwood, another Times critic, who best summed it up with the word "misfire."

Good news McLaurie, according to its online schedule, the Sondheim concert is being repeated at 9 p.m. Sunday on Channel 13.

I can handle "bad" or even "confused", Howard. But..."bored"? Oh geez!

Well, maybe bored isn't the right word. We thought that except for Patti Lupone's number, the second act was worse that the first and we just couldn't wait for it to end!

Thanks for the Sondheim info Howard! Look forward to it.

I think you'll enjoy it, mclaurie, especially the final section where six female stars--Patti Lupone, Marin Mazzie, Audra McDonald, Donna Murphy, Bernadette Peters and especially Elaine Stritch bring down the house with six sparkling solo performances.
At the end of the show, you'll wish for more and more and more!

I have a confession.

I have tickets to see Spiderman. I got $69 seats to a newly posted matinee performance on Dec. 22. I used the discount code that TC posted above. The discount was supposed to end Dec. 20 but I used it on the Dec 22 matinee (tickets sold through Live Nation) and it worked, I think because it was a newly added matinee.

I am much more excited about the tour of the NYSE that that we are all going on which is the purpose of the trip. Tour with Jane King, the Bloomberg NYSE reporter. And lunch w/her in the dining rm at the NYSE. I won that on a nonprofit auction site. But my late teen son and daughter wanted to see Spiderman so we are doing that too.

If anyone sees Spiderman before then in previews, I hope you'll post about it.