Anyone going to the first RAGTIME preview tonight (10/23)?- Page 6

[lvpblues]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 11:01pm

Thanks for clearing it up, Dottie. The way it's played now is much smoother and more naturalistic.

~K

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/25/09 at 11:58pm

You all get your panties in a twist for no reason. I wasn't being spiteful but just sarcastic. Chill out. I just thought it was funny was all. And I wasn't implying that there was a conspiracy or anything of the sort. I honestly was just bring up the point that it seems like groups always win. I didn't mean to imply that it's some how rigged, but I just find it interesting that it always seems to work out. Nothing more. Jesus, calm down.

(And I haven't seen the show, brandi, hence I wouldn't have anything to say about the show. Unlike most of the people on here, I'm not going to be a poser and post my thoughts on a show I haven't seen.)

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 12:09am

Does anyone else find it weird that whenever there is a group of people somehow they all end up winning? It seems like that always happens, but whatever, good for them.

More people, a larger percentage of the pool than just one person alone, more chances at winning. Basic probability.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 12:23am

Well, what I mean is, like tonight for instance, there was a group of about four friends. Friend #1 wins and therefore, two tickets are gone. Then, a lady in line wins, but only needs one ticket, so she gives her other ticket to another member of the group. Then Friend #3 also wins, and therefore they all get to go.

I'm not saying it was rigged because obviously it isn't, and the lady is beyond nice and gracious, so I wouldn't suspect her of anything like that, but I just found it odd how it all worked out. I'm glad that they all got to see it together, but it just strikes me as odd because when I went to the HAIR lotto the same thing happened to a group of friends going to see one of their friends who was on as an understudy perform. I won that lotto, so I have no hard feelings towards them at all, but it was just interesting that all 4 of them also got in. That's all I'm saying.

[binau]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 12:28am

RentBoy86 I saw Wicked in Sydney and noticed the same thing....I don't think it's rigged though. I'd rather they all go than some randoms.

[broadwaybaby086]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 12:30am

I saw it tonight via lotto and don't have much to say at the moment other than I really enjoyed it (especially after having seen In the Next Room for the matinee). The score is one of my favorites and it is 100% done justice by this production. Christiane Noll, Bobby Steggart, Quentin Earl Darrington, and Robert Petkoff were the standouts to me- especially Noll.

Re: the lotto, I didn't notice any funny business. I showed up as a single and wrote down two and offered the second (if I were to win) to a stranger near where I was standing. When my name was pulled (yay!) the young man came with me, and then his name was pulled right after mine (miracle! What are the odds?). I then offered my second ticket to the person in front of me, with whose friends I am acquainted, so those three ended up being able to sit together. If that was the group to whom you were referring, it was actually just freak chance as I came with none of those to whom I offered my second ticket.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 10:38am

OMG. Please, read my posts people! Nothing in my post says I thought it was rigged, but just thought it was funny how it all worked out! Jeez.

[hubee]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 10:45am

Well, I have to admit, I got lucky. There were 7 of us there trying to get 6 seats (but we were hoping for at least 2, never thinking we would get all 6) but we did. 3 of us won! I'm still shocked but elated.

The show btw is AMAZING AMAZING AMAZING!

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 10:52am

Is the pit visible?

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 11:07am

Somewhat...the front part is uncovered.

[broadwaybaby086]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 11:15am

Yes, quite. I found it interesting that where the pit usually opens only upward, the pit at Ragtime opens both outward and upward. Instead of a solid wall or tarp behind the conductor, there is decorative gating. In the front row I felt that contributed to the orchestral imbalance- especially when the percussion, brass, and keys were piped in from a separate room behind the pit. I really missed the raw brilliance of the brass sound.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 11:42am

That what I was wondering. I hate hearing an orchestra sound canned. I thought Finian's sounded a little canned too.

[Calvin]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 11:47am

I think most people who run lottos just don't mix up the cards very well before drawing. The few times I've done them, I've noticed most of the people who win were standing next to each other in line (and the times I've won, the person who entered before and after me also won). Which also would explain why several people in a large group often win.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 12:33pm

I wish more lottos would use the bingo ball spinny thing like they do at Wicked. The names are always sufficiently mixed up there.

[binau]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 4:49pm

As for the show itself, do you guys have any opinion on Act II? And, perhaps how it compares to Act I *cough*. Was there any criticism about this in '98?

[Oldschool]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 4:56pm

Not quite sure what you are asking here. Without giving any spoilers, Act I sets up the stories and Act II sees the three story lines progress, transform, and collide with an Epilogue to tie things up. I didn't see the '98 production, so I can't address that. I saw the DC production several times.
Updated On: 10/26/09 at 04:56 PM

[binau]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 5:03pm

I'm asking if anyone considers Act II to be worse than Act I.

[Kalimba]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 5:07pm

Dearest Qolbinau,

What kind of question is that?? The two acts in Ragtime are very strong. Maybe you should rephrase the question as to ask, which act one thinks is the stronger of the two. Personally, I think it's a well crafted show and both acts are strong.

Kisses,

Kalimba

[binau]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 5:11pm

Well I wasn't trying to give any connotations that the show itself was 'bad'.



It's just, maybe you have to be there, but from the cast recording/synopsis
*SPOILERISH/SPOILERDON'TMOVEONIFYOUWANTITSPOILEDFORYOU*

I can't help but feel reminded of a certain Baker's Wife's death (in terms of unexpected randomness/ridiculousness, and melodrama in general. I guess the 'former' belongs to Act I, but still.

I'm wondering if I'm in the minority, it appears so.

And I am willing that it might be something that doesn't translate well to the recording (especially in terms of timing).

Updated On: 10/26/09 at 05:11 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 5:18pm

^ What in the hell are you talking about?

[binau]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 5:26pm

Guh.

(spoiler warning)

I think that Sarah suddenly dying at the end of act 1 by running towards a president and getting battered to death seems ridiculously sudden and melodramatic.

It reminds me of the Baker's Wife's death in Into the Woods, random/melodramatic. (You know I definitely have misread this too if this death wasn't intentionally meant to be like this lol). Have you seen Harold+Kumar? It kind of reminds me of when the police officers randomly shouted "HE'S RESISTING" then beat the black guy when he was just standing there. (Analogy: "SHE'S GOT A GUN - beat).

Similarly, in Act II the thought of Coalhouse then taking it out on the 'town' seems ridiculous...I guess it is meant to be 'historical' though (did this actually happen in reality :/?)

Now, as I said, I'm only judging this from the cast recording+synopsis, so I'm wondering:

1. If anyone else thinks this (apparently not)

2. Perhaps it didn't transfer on the cast recording well, for me anyway. (Perhaps the timing since it's just song after song in the recording makes the death seem much more sudden and ridiculous than it is on a stage).

I find it strange that this seems surprising....I must have missed something :-/. I mean, it embarrasses me that this post may seem completely misinformed/misread/unusual/surprising etc..

I'll conclude it's just something you 'have to see'. I'm guessing you all would say "I found the story completely believable, shocking/moving".

Updated On: 10/26/09 at 05:26 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 5:39pm

This reminds me of the thread where someone accused High School Musical of plagiarism for having the popular athlete hook up with the nerdy girl.

[binau]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 5:43pm

Not sure how, but k. *hides in corner*.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 5:59pm

I understand what qolinua is asking and I would agree that Act I is much stronger than Act II.

My first exposure to Ragtime was a college production and I decided it was unfair to criticize the merits of the show itself before seeing a professional production. Now having seen this stunning production on Broadway, I have to say that the faults I had with the show were still there. A great deal of action happens in the first act and there are several showstopping numbers. Act I then ends with one of the most beautiful and powerful songs of the last fifteen years. In Act II, the story meanders quite a bit; we've lost the Sarah and Coalhouse relationship and so Coalhouse spends most of the act skulking and bellowing. The Tatah storyline is wrapped up neatly without much exploration. For me, in Act II, it's only Mother's journey that feels satisfying. "Make Them Hear You" is rousing and the show reclaims some power in those final scenes, but never quite reaches the same heights that Act I does.

I find it similar to Dreamgirls in the sense that because "And I'm Telling You" is so explosive, nothing in Act II ever reaches that same level. Same with Ragtime and "Til We Reach that Day."

That said, I found this production glorious.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 6:00pm

*spoiler, I guess*
Coalhouse's anger towards Willie Conklin and the firemen for destroying his car expands and overtakes him when they destroy Sarah, who was his world. He also becomes explosively angry because his attempts to bring the men to justice who destroyed his car (which is a symbol of freedom and equality and many other things to him) are largely ignored and passed off as something trivial. All of this could be forgotten in time and Coalhouse would recover and could eventually replace the car, but Sarah's death is irreparable and she cannot be replaced.

Somebody else can probably explain this better than I can but basically Sarah's death is necessary to move Coalhouse's character along. If she hadn't died, his character would end roughly in the same place that he started, but her death provides him with the impetus to transform into this angry man that isn't really him, just as the thought of his child and of the lessons he needs to teach him brings his rampage to a stop.

Like I said, someone else can probably explain that better than I can but that is my personal take on it.
*end spoiler*