Big River @ Encores- Page 2

[wonkit]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 11:53am

A critic "puts a work in a cultural context"? I guess I don't really see that as a critic's role. I thought a critic was supposed to describe whether a particular production is dramatically, musically and physically successful and if not, why not? A relevant discussion of Twain's book and whether it is accurately translated into another medium. I see no reason to turn a theater review into a political commentary.

 

[Comden Green]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 12:19pm

I do see the importance of determining the cultural relevance of a play.  It has to speak to us.  There is little need to put on a show that speaks to an earlier time but is no longer important.  

And.  PC?    The term has become cliche and probably not helpful in a conversation at this time.    Just say what you want to say rather than labeling something as PC.   

I also submit that one can be concerned about "tranny" and also the bigger issues simultaneously. 

[PJPan]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 2:23pm

After seeing it, I want to see Charlie Franklin in many more shows. His Tom was charismatic as hell.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 2:26pm

This thread has taken a turn.

[smidge]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 6:19pm

Does anyone know if they still do the Saturday matinee talkbacks after Encores performances?

[JudyDenmark]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 9:33pm

PJPan said: "After seeing it, I want to see Charlie Franklin in many more shows. His Tom was charismatic as hell."

Could not agree more. He was a highlight of the production!

 

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 11:40pm

SmoothLover said: "

I thought the actor playing Huck could have used a little more charisma and spontaneity. Many of the supporting performances were crisp with some nice vocals in the Gospel numbers.
 

"

Really? I am so surprised by that opinion - which are you certainly entitled to have. Nicholas B. has been in 3 Broadway shows already and he's just barely 18.  I thought here he was terrific...and was a huge presence in the show, along with Kyle and many others.

It was a wonderful production. Not getting into whether or not it was a well written show...obviously debatable. But the performances and staging made it extremely enjoyable to me..and that band (with the stellar fiddler) were great too.

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 11:44pm

wonkit said: "A critic "puts a work in a cultural context"? I guess I don't really see that as a critic's role. I thought a critic was supposed to describe whether a particular production is dramatically, musically and physically successful and if not, why not? A relevant discussion of Twain's book and whether it is accurately translated into another medium. I see no reason to turn a theater review into a political commentary.

 

 

"

However, theater itself is in one way or another a commentary on the human condition, which obviously includes politics. 

[StageStruckLad]

Posted: 2/11/17 at 11:51am

I'm with those that found the New York Times review annoyingly P.C. What else are we to make of statements like it's hard to watch the show without being bothered by "how very white and male anyone who has a substantial role is." Or that it's "ultimately the story of a white boy waking up to injustice, and painting himself as a hero."

That's the story that Mark Twain wrote, and it's ludicrous to find fault that Roger Miller and William Hauptman didn't give larger roles or more songs to the black supporting cast. 

Despite her claim at the end of the review, Laura Collins-Hughes does indeed seem to be arguing for a "rewriting of Twain."

I had a great time last night, and the audience seemed to love the show. 

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 2/11/17 at 12:15pm

I am really going to miss Isherwood if, in his replacement, we get PC clowns like LAURA COLLINS-HUGHES.

Updated On: 2/11/17 at 12:15 PM

[Comden Green]

Posted: 2/11/17 at 1:40pm

Way to jump to conclusions.     Railing against a reviewer     Attacking her for being PC.  Calling her a clown. After one review.    (still not sure what's wrong with looking at the play with "new eyes" and noticing something the rest of us hadn't noticed )

 

She he made a point.  Her point had some validity.   A point that you happen to disagree with.  That's fine isn't it?   Doesn't make her a clown or a purveyor of PC        You disagree.   Sheesh.   Why all the anger?

 

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 2/11/17 at 2:13pm

Owen22 said: "I actually didn't think I'd miss Isherwood so quickly. But this misshapen, confusing and contradictory review by this Hughes critic sure makes me rethink my hallelujahs at his firing.

This is how she ends the review: " I’m not arguing for rewriting Twain or for consigning “Big River” to the scrap heap. But especially right now, with the United States plumbing its own soul over questions of privilege and belonging, the show doesn’t seem to have a great deal to add." Add?  Add to what? It's an Encores revival of a Tony winning Broadway musical!! All it needs to add is joy to the lives of those who love these songs and story.   

What kind of politically correct bull is this?  Is it because this very funny show at times makes one feel a little uncomfortable?  I'm sure we are all for new plays and musicals not appropriating slave stories and placing them in a white's perspective. (You could possibly list a lesser reason for that being Huckleberry Finn did it so well a hundred plus years ago.)

Jesse Green's review at Vulture is better written but as useless.

I'm sorry I got mad at Whizzer for his initial review. If paid professionals get it so wrong who am I to call out someone on a theatre chat board?  Argh. It's PC crap like this that makes the right think we are bleeding heart elitists.  And crazy.  I'm guessing Hughes and Green would join those groups that, over the years, have tried to have Huckleberry Finn banned from school libraries because the N word.

 

"

So you mean when a creative team decides to do a revival of a show, people just copy and paste what's already been put on stage? Theater is supposed to be relevant, in one way or another. There are so many things and so many ways a revival or encore can add even if the show itself was written 100 years ago and full of sexist, racist, poor-taste jokes, if the creative team has the talent and intention. I don't see how it is wrong that a critic or a modern audience desire something more. 

Also, is political correctness wrong? The ideals upon which the country was founded are fuzzy and full of contradictions. What do you really mean by freedom of speech? If you have the freedom to say whatever you want, then why are racist and sexist comments wrong? If there's limitation of what we can say and what we can't, then is the "freedom of speech" really freedom? Personally, I think political correctness gives everyone equal right to discuss questions and confusions as such, of which theater is definitely an important means, and keep people from fighting and killing each other over disagreements or personal preferences.

Updated On: 2/11/17 at 02:13 PM

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 2/11/17 at 2:13pm

Double post

Updated On: 2/11/17 at 02:13 PM

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 2/11/17 at 4:54pm

StageStruckLad said: "I'm with those that found the New York Times review annoyingly P.C. What else are we to make of statements like it's hard to watch the show without being bothered by "how very white and male anyone who has a substantial role is." Or that it's "ultimately the story of a white boy waking up to injustice, and painting himself as a hero."

That's the story that Mark Twain wrote, and it's ludicrous to find fault that Roger Miller and William Hauptman didn't give larger roles or more songs to the black supporting cast. 

Despite her claim at the end of the review, Laura Collins-Hughes does indeed seem to be arguing for a "rewriting of Twain."

I had a great time last night, and the audience seemed to love the show. 

Roles are expanded or diminished in musical adaptations all the time for the good of the story or the message the writers are trying to communicate. 

 

[wonkit]

Posted: 2/11/17 at 9:15pm

I saw today's matinee. I had no prior experience with this show other than the clips previewing this production. I thought the music was entertaining and on a number of occasions moving, thanks in large part to remarkable singers. I would say that Waiting for the Light to Shine, Muddy Water, River in the Rain, Worlds Apart, How Blest We Are,  Leavin's Not the Only Way to Go, and Free At Last were worth the price of the ticket. I would love to hear that this is being recorded.

I appreciate that the mission of Encores! is to do the full book,  to understand what the show was like when it was fully produced. But as an audience member (not a musical historian), I think the play as a whole could do with some judicious cutting because it takes such a long time to get up some steam. (The audience restlessness around me was like a boredom geiger counter!) A number of songs could be shortened (Do Ya Wanna Go to Heaven? and Guv'ment seemed to be endless) and a number of other songs could be eliminated, although it would be bad news for Tom Sawyer: The Boys and Hand for the Hog just stopped the show in its tracks.

The heart of the story is Huck and Jim, so the King/Duke plot could be reduced by half: eliminate the Nonesuch and Arkansas, both embarrassing and tiresome.

This cast was just plain wonderful, with special bravos for Nicholas Barasch and Kyle Scatliffe.

Now for the issue of "cultural context": personally I just don't think Mark Twain is the kind of material that can be translated into this medium. The idea of the Mississippi stories about Tom and Huck - the 25 words or less version with emphasis on "cute" - overlooks the harshness of life, not only slavery but orphans and physical abuse and illness. Huck is not a good boy, just a morally awakened one who knows that he can't live by the rules being set for him. The only real relationship he has is with Jim, who is considered a non-person by all the upright citizens around Huck. He is a pretty damn complex character!

I will share my experience with a seat mate of mine at the matinee. We were total strangers, and she was a very pleasant older white woman and we chatted before the performance. During the intermission, she said, "I don't know the story but I bet that Huck buys Jim and then buys his wife and children, too." Do I need to say how very upset she was by the end of this "awful" show? It's Twain, my dear, not Lifetime movie of the week. That would be a "happy" ending for you, but the idea of Huck buying his friend Jim just seems to me to be the most problematical resolution imaginable, which may account for Twain not going there. At the end Jim is a free man and Huck has played a part in protecting him long enough for that to happen. They are parting ways and we don't know what will happen for either of them. But what happened while they were together is the crux of the story. 

 

 

[nicnyc]

Posted: 2/12/17 at 4:07am

I saw the show tonight (Saturday) and I thought Kyle Scatliffe's performance as "Jim" alone makes the production worth seeing.  His performance is perfection from beginning to end, a STAR!  Beautiful, heartfelt, deeply-moving!? Was lucky enough to see him at 54 Below and we haven't missed a show he's been in since. An unbelievable talent!

I agree with the many previous posters who noted the issues with the script, etc.  It isn't a great show by a long shot and I didn't enjoy much of the show for those reasons - but I was so glad I got to see Scatliffe's Jim.  He really broke my heart.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 2/12/17 at 4:10am

Comden Green said: "And.  PC?    The term has become cliche and probably not helpful in a conversation at this time.    Just say what you want to say rather than labeling something as PC.   "

This bears repeating.

Also: 

http://www.vulture.com/2017/02/big-river-and-why-its-never-coming-back-to-broadway.html

[Comden Green]

Posted: 2/12/17 at 8:17am

LizzieCurry said: "
Also: 

http://www.vulture.com/2017/02/big-river-and-why-its-never-coming-back-to-broadway.html

 

"

Very interesting piece.    And it echos what the times reviewer said; what the times reporter was harshly criticized for on this thread.  

 I think they are important points.   

[mpkie]

Posted: 2/12/17 at 11:20am

So grateful for this thread because I was one of the silly folk who did not know that "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" was not a children's book. After perusing some of the original posts, it made me extra excited to see the show.

I thought the production was great and I thought Nick Barasch and Kyle Scatliffe were absolutely wonderful in their roles. And yes Charlie Franklin was hilariously charming as the ridiculous Tom Sawyer. I was too far away to recognize him but only now realize that he was one of the adorable Mormon boys I saw last year, lol (he was blond then).

Now that I've seen it, I want to see an actual concert version where they just sing through the songs with the same cast and the same orchestra. I found the score in turns delightful, moving, and beautiful, and the best part of the show.

I really enjoyed the post-show talk back, too, very insightful for a newcomer to the show like me. The audience definitely missed Nick Barasch out there. ("Where's Huckleberry Finn?!" It was funny to hear the audience react to when they mentioned he is only 18 years old.

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/12/17 at 12:27pm

As I said earlier, I don't mind if a good critic places a revival within a cultural context.It actually happens very rarely. After seeing the current, wonderful "Sunday" revival  I guarantee the critics will not be placing it in a "cultural context" in their review. Because there IS NONE.

However, a young, privileged white boy getting "woke" to the indecencies of racism seems to me utterly currently culturally contextual.  But instead, Hughes (and awful Jesse Green) decided to get all anxiously PC and miss the forest for the trees.

Updated On: 2/12/17 at 12:27 PM

[wonkit]

Posted: 2/12/17 at 1:12pm

"Young privileged white boy"??? I'm sorry, but what show did you see? Read the book? I think you missed the forest and the trees on this one. Huck is abused by his alcoholic father and ignored by the entire town whose people shun him and are satisfied to let him not attend school or church, until he finds gold and is finally thought to be worth something. (About $300, as I recall.) I thought Jesse Green nailed it when he criticized the book writers for treating the serious points of Twain's novel like "flaglets on a string" - wish I'd coined that phrase. The very best scene in the book is when Huck struggles with himself about breaking the law (hiding a fugitive slave which is a crime, for which he will, among other things, go to hell) and his true and deep friendship with Jim. (When PC people are upset about Huck and Tom letting Jim sit in a shed while they discuss digging him out with spoons, they forget that Tom is a crazy boys-life book reader and they are 13 years old - not a mature age even today.) This critical moment is tossed off in the musical with no particular dramatic emphasis but it is actually the whole point of the exercise.  Green is criticizing what he should as an arts critic: that by emphasizing the entertainment element, the musical ignores serious matters that I think would be less squirmy and acceptable PC if treated with the proper seriousness. 

It is possible to look at Huck and Jim as brothers in non-personhood. Huck is useless and ignored until he has money. Jim is useful and ignored until he has enough money to by his freedom. 
 

Updated On: 2/12/17 at 01:12 PM

[smidge]

Posted: 2/12/17 at 1:12pm

Sounds like Frank Rich wasn't a fan of the Times review: https://twitter.com/frankrichny/status/830616262707286016

[Jayar2]

Posted: 2/13/17 at 3:47am

What am I missing with Kyle Scatliffe? 

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 2/13/17 at 9:54am

Jayar2 said: "What am I missing with Kyle Scatliffe?"

I don't care for him either, I thought he was awful in The Color Purple.

[astromiami]

Posted: 2/13/17 at 10:02am

StageStruckLad said: ... it's ludicrous to find fault that Roger Miller and William Hauptman didn't give larger roles or more songs to the black supporting cast. 

Despite her claim at the end of the review, Laura Collins-Hughes does indeed seem to be arguing for a "rewriting of Twain."
 

It is bizarre how many people are projecting things into this review. She criticizes the lumpiness of the book, not the lack of larger roles for black actors.

She does point out that this is a strange time to mount Big River given where we are culturally. The lack of black agency in the novel has been noted for decades, so why is it a surprise when a critic makes the same observation about a stage adaptation?

Huck Finn and Big River are products of their respective times. Noting that their historical context is at odds with contemporary America seems like a responsible thing for a critic to do, even in a positive review.

It is not as if she were Jesse Green claiming the story is racist.