Amazing Grace- Page 2

[JPeterman]

Posted: 10/11/14 at 12:06pm

Thank you very much for taking the time to write such a detailed review, GilmoreGirl. I am a big Josh Young fan, so I hope this show works out some of its apparent flaws.

And I hope someone from the show reads this board, as it seems that your commentary and some of your suggestions may be useful.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/11/14 at 1:08pm

I think Josh Young is an incredible singer, but I do question his acting chops, especially to lead an entire show like this, so I'm def. curious.

It doesn't sound like the most compelling show, and the whole "plot" seems abandoned at the end. If you're going to talk about the creation of a certain song, and then at the end you're like "And then this happened and we have the song," well that seems odd, no? And messy?

[Marlothom]

Posted: 10/11/14 at 1:54pm

I was surprised by the immediate standing ovation - since I agree with most of the comments made by Gilmore. They incorporate the melody to Amazing Grace throughout the show as background, usually sounding a bit different or incomplete, almost as if to signal "this moment impacts the song" - but I found it more confusing than anything. There is so much going on in this show - I am not a program reader, so it took me a while to even know they were in Barbados (!) - but that's on me. I think they may need a narrator-type (Thomas would make most sense) if they are going to finish the show with a "and then he wrote the song."

But again, when the show ends with a standing O . . . (see also, Kinky Boots).

Updated On: 10/11/14 at 01:54 PM

[Menken Fan]

Posted: 10/12/14 at 10:07pm

If you think it was amateurish before, you should have seen it tonight. Apparently, Josh Young had an injury yesterday, so today's matinee was canceled for a put-in for the understudy. The understudy was on tonight, 5th preview, script in hand a woman in the front row ready to prompt with lines. Ugh.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/12/14 at 10:35pm

Who is the u/s?

[Marlothom]

Posted: 10/12/14 at 10:44pm

Oh No! I hope he is ok and recovers by next week. I hope it wasn't due to those rope climbs.

[wssinsider]

Posted: 10/12/14 at 10:48pm

Swing went on with a script in hand. I'm not kidding. It was a mess

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/12/14 at 10:52pm

I have no prob with the understudy going on with a script, guessing at this stage the producers where not thinking the lead would go out.

[getatme]

Posted: 10/12/14 at 11:00pm

I believe the understudies are Vince Oddo and Bret Shuford. Bret Shuford was on tonight.

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 9:36am

Yikes, I hope Josh’s injury doesn’t keep him out of the show too long. I can’t imagine how frustrating that must be for him, right at the beginning of performances. I was actually thinking how easily someone could slip or get hurt on those crow’s nests – I wonder if that’s where the injury happened.

RippedMan, Josh does have an absolutely gorgeous voice and, while I found his acting was okay, it was a little "overdone," if you will, at the performance I saw. Hoping that more naturalness will come with time.

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 9:59am

This is really starting to become a bad habit for Josh Young, first an illness had to force him to miss all the press performances for 'Jesus Christ Superstar' on Broadway (thank goodness he was able to return on opening night and earn himself a Tony nomination), and now an injury is forcing him out of performances for 'Amazing Grace'...

[Melissa25]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 10:36am

Perhaps it's more just bad luck as opposed to a bad habit?

[Menken Fan]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 10:58am

I just think the producers made a bad decision to put the show up with an unprepared understudy in the lead. It was very distracting and somewhat unprofessional. Not Josh's fault, but he was a main reason I wanted to see the show. I thought about going to see it again once Josh returns, but I don't think I could take it.

The director, Gabriel Barre, came out to make an announcement before the show, letting us know we'd be seeing their 1st show with an understudy, and how lucky we were to be witnessing the excitement of the live theatrical process...
Updated On: 10/13/14 at 10:58 AM

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 11:37am

Saw the Saturday matinee performance. They really did the full "Sound of Music" overhaul on a life story. So, except for the part that he was a slaver trader turned abolitionist, who married his childhood sweetheart, and wrote the title song about his transformation years later. Not much of the show is true.

Josh Young's opening song is beautiful and moving and probably the best part of the show. As others have mentioned the main set piece is a large aft deck of a ship and is used in most scenes. I think some of the high society party scenes suffer from lack of sets. I agree that the show doesn't flow organically, but steps through trying to hit its marks. The show certainly has more villains than most, but does so in order to show the complexity of the slave trade. I can forgive them changing the details of John Newton's life to make it possible to put him situations to bring in characters that highlight these points. I wish they had a concept album available as with almost all new shows I cannot remember any melodies. I also appreciate the writers giving so many of the characters their own song. I am sure this is off putting to many in the audience, because you are asked to be emotionally involved with so many characters.

The biggest "goof" that occurred on stage, happened to the tribal queen that captures and ransoms John in act II. She had been using a whip and it gets caught in her elaborate wig and she fiddled with it for a few seconds and couldn't get it out. So, she lets go and lets it hang there while she finishes her lines then backs up to one of her guards who frees it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 3:08pm

I'll see just about any big new Broadway-bound musical, but unless I'm offered comps, I just don't see myself attending this one. Nothing about it interests me in the least.

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 4:24pm

ErinDilly, after reading your comment about many of the events not being true, I took a look at John Newton’s Wikipedia page – if all is to be believed on this page, I think the show did take WAY too many liberties with the story being told. For me, the biggest ones are…

SPOILERS!

- Not “washing up on shore” (and being saved by Thomas) to the Princess’ land, but rather getting kicked off of his boat and his crew leaving him with the brother of the Princess, who then delivered him to her. I know they clearly wanted to make John feel in debt to Thomas for saving his life here, but it feels disingenuous.

- His father didn’t rescue him from the Princess, but sent someone else to find him. Why even include that whole relationship arc with his father if it didn’t seem to happen in real life? There’s plenty of other things going on – it’s unnecessary.

-His moment of awakening did result from a storm, but in the show it’s also directly after his father died on the boat with him and he was about to commit suicide, but then saw a letter from Mary. The fact that, in reality, this awakening was only the result of the storm – and, seeing as the awakening is really what this entire show is about – makes it feel dishonest to allude that it came out of so many other things as well, other than simply surviving a storm.

- Perhaps my biggest issue is that, although it is said that he sympathized more with slaves, he didn’t actually become an abolitionist and talk of his thoughts against slavery until much later in life – in fact, after his moment of spiritual awakening, he even still was working in the slave trade for years. Seeing as the entire show is about how he realized his wrongs and stopped what he was doing (and they made it sound like he immediately started speaking out, with his wife, about it) – to find out that is untrue makes me feel like they are painting this man in a much, much better light (with a much different life) and makes me beg the question – why create a musical around him and his spiritual awakening in the first place?

END SPOILERS!

I couldn’t find any information on his wife, Mary. Was any of her storyline true to life? If not, I’m truly shocked that they added that entire storyline for her (a huge storyline it is and one that I found fascinating, if it were true). And, I assume Thomas never existed?

If they felt like they had to add SO MUCH fiction to his life (not just additions in terms of helping to aid the storytelling aspect), then it makes me wonder why they even thought they should make this a musical in the first place?

It also now makes sense to me why I thought there were multiple times in the show when he could have had a spiritual awakening before he actually did, but didn’t – because some of those moments didn’t even happen!

I obviously knew they would take some liberties and I figured there were quite a few characters that never existed and some storylines were exaggerated, but I have to say I’m honestly shocked at how far they took it. I know they do say it’s “based off of the true story”…but, when the show is being shopped out as “The Song The World Knows, The Story it Doesn’t”…I feel like that story should to be much closer to the truth than this to be able to use that tagline.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 5:07pm

"ErinDilly, after reading your comment about many of the events not being true, I took a look at John Newton’s Wikipedia page – if all is to be believed on this page, I think the show did take WAY too many liberties with the story being told. For me, the biggest ones are…"

Historical accuracy is a very big deal for me when considering any piece of entertainment "based" on historical events, so I appreciate these kinds of reviews/comments. I totally understand artistic liberties, to a point, but...

[bwaybby]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 6:21pm

I flew in from DC to see the show cause I've been following Josh since I saw him here in A Little Night Music many years ago.

I absolutely loved the show. Then again I've never seen Josh in something I've not loved...so I may not be the best judge. But the entire audience seemed totally enthralled. The cast across the board was amazing. Can't imagine anyone better in any role. Especially Josh. He had us, and those around us, in tears at the end.

Sat eve something big, I think a bell, fell and hit Josh on the head during the second act. Everyone near me assumed it was part of the show because of what was happening at the moment, it was like a storm on a ship. Also because he kept going and was climbing and singing his big song right after we thought he was okay. But then he seemed to have trouble standing during the last number and the bows.

Seeing it again tuesday. I read they canceled the sunday matinee... anyone have an update on Josh? I'm assuming that him getting hit on the head was NOT part of the show you saw ErinDillyFan? GilmoreGirl?

[Amalia3]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 9:50pm

Just to be clear, titles are massively important. There is such competition for your theatre dollar. Anything that makes you even question whether you want to see a show is a liability. That goes for art work as well.

It may be shallow, but you want as many things to make you say, "I HAVE to see this show." Not "Maybe I'll get around to it after I've seen everything else."

[Pootie2]

Posted: 10/13/14 at 11:03pm

^I agree with that. I had zero interest in this show based on the title, which I assumed would be a religious musical.

Also, the comparison to the classic "don't judge a book by its cover" doesn't entirely work: The cover art for books are chosen by the publishers, not the authors themselves. Are theater show titles chosen by the writers or the producers? (If by the writers, then certainly I'd expect the choice to reflect more closely to their creation.)

Updated On: 10/13/14 at 11:03 PM

[nanillo17]

Posted: 10/16/14 at 1:20am

Does anyone know if Josh is back in the show this week? Hopefully he's doing well and is back on his feet. I'm seeing this on Sunday, have no expectations of it but I enjoy Josh's voice so hoping he'll be in.

[pc1145N2]

Posted: 10/16/14 at 9:41am

I completely agree with Mr Matt on this one. I'll just just about any new show (and usually more than once) but I have zero interest in this one. This thread isn't really helping matters either. I'm not sure if it's the title (which is not helping at all) or just a lack of interest in the subject matter.....but I'm surprised by my own reaction.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 10/16/14 at 11:15am

Very few real-life stories work dramatically on stage. Certainly, "Amazing Grace" is much closer to the truth than "The Sound of Music" is to the Van Trapp story.

I am not sure how many musicals follow history closely. I have heard that "1776" and "Parade" coincide fairly accurately to the real events.

Accept it as a work of art, just like any other musical, and enjoy the show.

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 10/16/14 at 12:21pm

I would have no problem accepting it as is, had I gone into the show knowing this. But, because they are using the tagline they are and because they are saying it’s “based on,” I went into the show thinking that much (or at least the important events) of the story would be true. If they had said “loosely based” or even “inspired by true events,” then I would have understood that the true story was simply a jumping off point to create a work of fiction. But, I think they are certainly trying to brand this as “the story of the song’s creation” – and, because the events onstage differ so much from the truth, the whole thing feels disingenuous now.

It also has an effect on how I viewed the show in terms of its storytelling. For example, I had just accepted some of the events onstage, no matter how unbelievable, because I assumed they were true. Now that I know that some aren’t, these events seem a little too over-the-top.

Also, they even explicitly say in the show that John and Mary devoted the rest of their lives to speaking out about slavery…so, to find out that that’s not entirely true (especially considering he still worked in the slave trade for years after his awakening), this almost seems to be a lie to the audience.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/17/14 at 12:43am

I think the biggest mistake of any musical is giving too many characters their owns songs. Sure it's a musical, but not everyone needs a big solo - just look at the Addams Family or Women on the Verge.