Posted: 4/21/16 at 8:01am
This show was a colossal mess and disappointment of epic proportions. I honestly see no way of salvaging this. It's long, tedious, meandering, and bloated. The choreography is out of this world and definitely worthy of a Tony win, though.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 9:56am
I thought Shuffle Along was a thrilling piece of musical theatre, even with its substantial second act flaws. I do hope things come together for them, because what is happening on that stage is truly wonderful.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 10:03am
gypsy101 said: "It's almost like these producers have never put on a show before! When is the cut-off for Tony nominations this year?"
The cutoff is 4/28. A show must open on that date to be considered for this years Tonys. Wondering if that will happen with the show having this many issues.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 10:14am
I saw it last night and I don't think it's a disaster, but it's certainly an uneven show- thrilling, but uneven. I never found the plot difficult to follow, but I think the show moves very quickly through large chunks of time, so there's a bit of a whiplash effect going on. George C. Wolfe clearly found this story fascinating, and he makes a compelling case to that point, but I think the focus was too broad for the show to really work. After leaving, I wasn't sure what exactly he wanted the takeaway to be. Is this show a celebration of black artistry? Is it a condemnation of the historical forces that relegated a landmark musical to the dustbin of history? Given the use of blackface and the stereotypes in the show, should we even want to remember Shuffle Along? And what does it mean to perform this material in front of a mostly white audience, both in 1921 and today? I don't know if the show successfully addresses that (and what show could?), but it nonetheless is thoughtful about the material. It may be overly ambitious, but it's a smart musical and should be celebrated for that.
Even if the writing didn't fully work, it's a wonderfully exciting night at the theatre. Audra is naturally a force to be reckoned with, and the four men do excellent work right alongside her, though personally I thought Billy Porter oversang his big Act Two number. Adrienne Warren is also giving a breakout performance- her first number is delightful. All the physical elements are excellent, especially the gorgeous costumes, and the band sounds flawless. And then there's the dancing, which has to rival Hamilton as the most exciting choreography on a Broadway stage right now. Granted, I love tap dance, but this is easily the best tapping I've ever seen in my life- the Pennsylvania Graveyard section in the first act was absolutely stunning. The show is very good in every other way, and is well worth seeing regardless, but it's worth it just for those tap sequences. It isn't a perfect piece, but it's very worthwhile and a great night at the theatre.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 10:23am
JBroadway said: "Between Audra's hiatus, their revival petition, the delaying of the other awards, the controversial Playbill change (and subsequent change back), and the quality of the show itself, my overarching response is just a big resounding "What a mess!" I don't even mean necessarily that the production is a total mess, it's just an abnormal number of bizarre messy things."
I was off of these boards for a while and don't feel like scrolling through a million threads, what was the controversial Playbill change?
Posted: 4/21/16 at 10:25am
vfd88 said: "I was off of these boards for a while and don't feel like scrolling through a million threads, what was the controversial Playbill change?"
The production began distributing playbills with their gorgeous original artwork, then suddenly changed to a weird, rather ugly design that looked haphazardly put together (seemingly for good), and then reverted back a few days later to the original one. Not really controversial—just bizarre.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 11:46am
I echo much of what has been written here.
1) There's no way the committee calls this a revival. That's clearly a plan to get out of HAMILTON's way. The book is entirely new, the score is completely rearranged to tell an entirely different story, namely the backstage creation of the musical and the effects of its success.
2) I agree the first act is thrilling. Wolfe's book, his swift direction, along with Glover's hair-raising tap numbers are sublime. The act ends on an exhilarating high.
And then, Act Two. Specifically, the middle of Act 2. Showing the show's success keeps the story from Act 1 continuing. But once it starts to attempt to show how the show has affected the lives of the creators, it loses focuses quickly. It's not shocking, in a way; many biographical films and plays lose focus as they try to cram too much of a person's life into the piece. And life is meandering, repetitive, and this makes for unfocused storytelling. You can see the unfortunate events of their life from amile away. And worse, each star's 11 o'clock number feels rote. I thought, "Oh look, Stokes does a 'Live, Laugh, Love"" and "Oh look, Audra does..." You get the idea.
In the end of Act 1, we know we're working towards Opening Night. What are we working towards in Act 2 - death? Sadly, yes. And no, that's not a spoiler alert. They all die eventually - like we all do - and anyone could have told you that. So, to spend an entire closing number telling you what became of EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the show, all the way to death, is mind-numbingly dull and seems so far from Act 1's juggernaut of energy. The end of the show should tell us what it's all been about, not peter out until we know how everyone died.
Sadly, the most telling moment was the dialogue before the Finale. Someone asks Audra's character if it's time for a song, and she replies something to the effect of, "Of course. But we'll do it with a lot of energy, because that's what we do." If that's not a perfect example of a book that doesn't even know why the FInale song is about to start, I can't think of a better one.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 11:55am
Some of you are acting like this is SPIDERMAN.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 11:55am
So all this show has to do to move from this Tony season to next Tony season is postpone its opening one day? (April 28 to April 29) Interesting.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 11:57am
I would go back just for the Pennsylvania Graveyard section. It was simply mindblowing.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 2:04pm
I was going to try to get a rush ticket tomorrow but it seems like the show is still a work in progress. Do you think they'll extend the rush policy after previews?
Posted: 4/21/16 at 3:00pm
Since rush is apparently all partial view, I'd be surprised if they do not extend the rush policy. I'm thinking the price will just increase, even though the price is already $40.
Also, even if this is considered a revival, I'd be shocked to see it win over Color Purple or even She Loves Me.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 3:05pm
^Or Fiddler on the Roof. Say what any of you posters will about the current Broadway revival, but it's still been well embraced by the community.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 3:10pm
If it is SOMEHOW considered a revival by the Tonys, I think you'd see a lot of voters refuse to vote for it out of principle. Because it ain't a revival and has no logical argument for it to be considered one.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 3:14pm
^Kind of like what happened with One Man, Two Guvnors four years ago.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 3:18pm
Jeffrey Karasarides said: "^Or Fiddler on the Roof. Say what any of you posters will about the current Broadway revival, but it's still been well embraced by the community."
I loved this revival of Fiddler and agree that it has its supporters, but the production hasn't been embraced in the same way that The Color Purple and She Loves Me have been. I would be very surprised if it were to beat out either of the two.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 7:49pm
Has there been any official documentation that the producers are petitioning for revival status? Rudin is not a stupid man and I can't believe he would think the committee would consider such a petition when even the people on this board realize it's not a revival.
Posted: 4/21/16 at 10:21pm
BroadwayConcierge said: "vfd88 said: "The production began distributing playbills with their gorgeous original artwork, then suddenly changed to a weird, rather ugly design that looked haphazardly put together (seemingly for good), and then reverted back a few days later to the original one. Not really controversial—just bizarre."
Yes, it was bizarre too. I say "controversial" because of the response on this board to the new Playbills. But perhaps that word implies that it's more widespread than just on this message board. But the fact that they changed it back so quickly leads me to believe there was criticism that made its way to the producers.
Posted: 4/22/16 at 12:07am
I believe what happened was that the early previews did better business than anticipated and they were running out of programs. So they whipped up a quick interim to use while more of the original were being printed. No big mystery.
Posted: 4/22/16 at 12:24am
Wilmingtom said: "I believe what happened was that the early previews did better business than anticipated and they were running out of programs. So they whipped up a quick interim to use while more of the original were being printed. No big mystery."
Really? What are you basing that on? I admit I don't know anything about the printing business, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but that strikes me as incredibly illogical. It seems to me that designing a whole new Playbill cover and getting THOSE Playbills printed and delivered to the theatre would take significantly more time and money than it would to print and delivery another batch of the originals.
Updated On: 4/22/16 at 12:24 AM
Posted: 4/22/16 at 1:02am
It also seems irresponsible that a theatre would not have a playbill for every seat in the house for every performance, no matter how well they anticipate selling.
Whatever their reason was for the change (and change back) I'm sure it wasn't that.
Posted: 4/22/16 at 1:19am
It may not have been relayed to me acurately by the person at Spotco who told me but that was the gist of it. Because of the hype surrounding the beautiful program, people were taking them by the handful. Also I don't believe they are printed in the City but have to be shipped in. This would not be the first time an interim program was used while they cranked out more of the originals.
Posted: 4/22/16 at 8:03am
Has there been any official documentation that the producers are petitioning for revival status?
Only the New York Times yesterday: http://nyti.ms/1WGamD8
"The lead producer of “Shuffle Along,” Scott Rudin, is planning to argue that the musical is a revival, according to a spokesman. That would allow it to sidestep a head-to-head competition with “Hamilton,” the show that is presumed to have a lock on the Tony Award for best new musical."
Posted: 4/22/16 at 8:09am
Aaaaahhh...remember a few weeks ago when some posters insisted them trying to go as a revival was a bunch of hogwash? Good times.
Posted: 4/22/16 at 2:24pm
And then there's the dancing, which has to rival Hamilton as the most exciting choreography on a Broadway stage right now. Granted, I love tap dance, but this is easily the best tapping I've ever seen in my life- the Pennsylvania Graveyard section in the first act was absolutely stunning. The show is very good in every other way, and is well worth seeing regardless, but it's worth it just for those tap sequences. It isn't a perfect piece, but it's very worthwhile and a great night at the theatre.
