Profile for RainyAgwe

Jordan Catalano said: "Performances were all good, as was the staging. That score though. Oof. That's what kills this show. It stops it dead in it's tracks 20-something times when people open their mouths to sing. Not every song is AWFUL but there's more than enough of them that really are. And while the acrobatics were great there was nothing "elevated" about them that made you OOH or AAH (well, besides some of the people who were literally SCREAMING throughout the entire show, something that Broadway needs to find a way to address because it's ridiculous). Same with the animals - the Elephant was good but we've seen great and better puppetry on stage in the recent past and I'll even include "King Kong" in that because that ape was exceptional. Not asking Julie Taymor to come and re-do "The Lion King" for this but it wouldn't have hurt to have a bit of that on this stage. It just would have helped and heightened everything else.

I dunno what I expected from this, having never read the book or seen the film but I don't exactly have any desire to do either of them, now. But as always,I hope people do enjoy itbut it was just a big ol' miss for me."

As someone who *loved* the book and saw the show last night, there are a lot of things that the musical does that really undersells what makes the story a worthwhile read. Definitely recommend the book, though it’s not life-changing.

Outside of the noted problems with the score (I’m not one that needs everyone to be hummable, but there’s a couple of times I literally shook my head and audibly said “what the ****&rdquo, I find that that book never really narrows in on a perspective. What is the story we are trying to tell? It’s set up as the memory of a lonely old man, but gives us no reason to care about him. Then with the Benzini timeline I feel like they have so much misused time that could be used to make me care about what’s happening. I think because I know how these relationships develop in the book I just have a hard time watching them hardly scratch the surface on any of it in the musical. 

I didn’t HATE it, and I have seen **** I’ve hated, but I feel like a good musical can be found somewhere in the material they have (but remove that horrendous song Izzy and then Grant sing in act two, for the love of god).

but hey, if this closes early I want people to remember that Paul Alexander Nolan is ****ing amazing in this. Give the man a Tony nomination.

 

This morning I got to the Winter Garden Theater at about 5:45am and there as not a soul in sight. I actually went to the other side of the building just to confirm I wasn’t going mad!

hopefully I get something good!

Dang, I started to make the assumption when Jenn Colella was announced but I was hoping I was wrong :/

Someone I know who works there says there will be a couple of other pretty exciting choices for this one, so hopefully they aren’t wrong 😂

I saw the show last weekend, and as someone who has not consumed the show prior to watching it I left the theatre really impacted by what I saw. I thought the whole thing was incredibly well done from top to bottom, and the cast was stellar.

honestly I’m shocked by how some of the folks here received this production, as if I was from the city I’d probably sign up for the lotto every day. 

LarryD2 said: "RainyAgwe said: "LarryD2 said: "I'd love to see Nicolette Robinson come back. Her singing and acting were great. It's also worth noting that she was the first Jenna who had actually been pregnant, and I thought that affected her performance very strongly, including the way she moved on stage that some of the other actors didn't quite get.

Jordin Sparks was also an excellent Jenna -- she sang extremely well and really acted it beautifully, including that she seemed totally working class, which I don't think Bareilles, Mueller or McPhee ever fully captured."

Not attempting to derail anything here, but there's something about the wording of this that really rubs me the wrong way. I get that you mean that her performance feltmore authentic to you, but the way that this is worded felt a little "this woman of color felt more working class than the prominent white women who have played the role".

I'm not attempting to accuse you ofactuallysaying this, but wanted to point this out as folks whodomean it this way often code their language similarly."

Accusing me of using “coded language” is exactly what you’re doing. It’s good to remember that you actually know nothing about any of the people behind these screen names. Not that it should matter, but I am Black, and I grew up in a very working class environment. The story of Waitress resonates with my experiences.


In my comments, I highlighted that Sparks acted Jenna more authentically than any other actress I saw. She inhabited the character believably as a woman stuck in a dead end job and a marriage that she couldn’t see a way out of. If you read something untowardinto that, it’s on you.


I don’t expect an apology, but I do hope you’ll proceed with a bit more grace in the future."

I'd like to comment that I am also black along with a graduate Theatre/African American Studies double degree (woot!), looking at such language (theatrically or otherwise) has been a part of what I have done as my educational background. Not only did I pretty tamely address the potential use of language, I addressed the specifics of how you worded the statement and not your intent (which I also brought up)

Not only did I note that it is the wording that could be interpreted this way, but I also in a literal sense let you know that that's not what I believe that you intended. I feel like you took what I had pointed to and decided to exasperate the comment and make it into something much more than what I said. I pointed to the potential coding that could exist. To say that she "acted it beautifully, including that she seemed working class" is absolutely something that could be used as coded language. I'm also, as noted above, not the only one who found the wording odd. 

Heck, even in your amended version of your perspective you worded it differently. You're talking about the performative nature of theatre, and "seeming" can mean a lot of things. You're now talking about authenticity in tangible means, but "seeming" is almost always implying an outward apperance (Merriam-Webster defines as both "external appearance as distinguished from true character" and "outwardly or superficially evident but not true or real". This is about language, which is what I was talking about, not the user or their intent. I'll also reiterate that I, again, said that this is sometimes how people can code language... not that you did.

If you took my comment as some sort of personal attack, that's on you. Honestly of all the times I've seen someone point stuff like this out dare I say this is the most calm/general point out I've witnessed, especially that I literally absolved you of intent. You've now interpreted this as me accusing you as some racist who used coded language, which is a bit absurd.

I will not apologize because I have nothing to apologize for, and I hope that you'll proceed with a bit more grace and self-reflection in the future instead of jumping to such a conclusion when something along this line is brought up.