Big Assassins mistake

Reports are that Neil Patrick Harris will be playing both the Balladeer and Lee Harvey Oswald in the upcoming "Assassins".

I think this is a poor directorial choice because I think the Balladeer should be more of an outside influence, just a "storyteller" not related to the action.

What are your thoughts?

---

I actually disagree, my dear Gotham.

From the moment I knew this bizarre jewel of a show, I always felt that Oswald should be played by the Balladeer.

In the song, 'Another National Anthem', the Assassains' cries of discontent finally overpower the moral conscience of the piece, the Balladeer. But then, he disappears, never to be heard from again. How much more insidious is the message of a piece that says even the one character you've come to trust can be poisioned by the American Dream enough to kill?

I think it can work beautifully...if directed and acted well.

---

Updated On: 11/19/03 at 01:18 PM

But I think what will happen is that the audience will see that throughout the entire piece, the Balladeer has been introducing all these killers only to "be" Oswald. It takes away the layer of Oswald thinking "should I do this or not?"

I see it akin to the Narrator in "Into The Woods" being found as the Giant.

---

Updated On: 11/19/03 at 01:22 PM

Well...we all know that Oswald does do it. And we know it wasn't because a bunch of past and present Assassains one day showed up at the depository to talk him into it.

Interesting you bring up the Narrator in INTO THE WOODS. He was very much a straight-forward device in the show we've come to know and love. His death really meant nothing, except that the characters would have to figure out how their own story ends. There was no emotional involvment with the character (which is fine). I would have loved, however, to have seen those few performances in which the Narrator turned out to be the son of the Baker. If done properly, I think it would have added an emotional resonance to the piece that would have not only been well-earned, but probably would have also goosed the critics into giving Act 2 better reviews.

I've known ASSASSAINS for a while now, and would NEVER have wanted to play the thankless role of the Balladeer, because all you do is tell a story in which you are not emotionally invested. Now that the actor has an arc to play (and indeed a point), I think it can actually propel the drama of this fractured piece and make the abrupt shift into the depository smoother.

Most of the piece has a hallucinatory feel that I think can be established firmly long before that final scene. If done, it could provide a chilling ending (at least in my opinion and certainly in the production I will eventually direct).

---

And I suppose someone with the username MusicMan knows the depth and complexity of Musical Theatre, thanks for the input Harold.

---

You're very welcome, sumofallthings. Your tribute is 100% accurate. Unfortunately, ASSASSINS, with its facile and thoroughly banal conclusions doesn't meet my standard.

Updated On: 11/19/03 at 10:57 PM

I don't think the score is the problem. It's the revue format that keeps cutting off the show's momentum whenever it tries to gather some and Weidman's simplistic and biteless book that do the show in. 'Assassins' has moments in the score that never amount to more than themselves because the scenes surrounding them are completely unsatisfactory.

ok, this is gonna be a sappy post, but i just love this thread. i don't know a durn thing about assassins other than that i loved deb monk's song, but man i just love to see folks debating and actually substantiating their arguments with logic and in the process giving me a whole buttload of insight about a show that i want to learn more about. and nobody's even calling each other names and cursing or belittling each other's opinions. you bitter queens give me hope for america!

---

Damnit! I don't like the fact that Balladeer and Oswald are going to be double cast. Simply because I would never be able to be the Balladeer! Besides, I think the Balladeer works best as a character when he solely comments on the action, I have always seen him as the voice of reason, or the good part of each characters' conscience. He was the "good voice" that reminded all the characters of other alternatives rather than what they thought was the best - to assasinate their respective presidents to satisfy whatever individual problems they had. But including Oswald would make all of this pointless, I feel. But it will be an interesting parallel, but I would much rather have the Balladeer's function to be continually the "conscience" of the characters.

Cheers,
The Balladeer

---

that does kind of work, ROBBIE. Maybe take it a step further...set the whole show in a kind of museum of American villains, sorta like the "Chamber of Horrors" you sometimes see at Tussaud's or like at the the Tower of London, and maybe London Bridge. Everyone is drawn in, like the Narrator, intending on being passive observers, but somehow the humanity, rather than the depravity, gets to the witnesses.

i just think the view of the Narrator as "Jiminy Cricket" is a little too simplistic. It seems like an easy out for the audience.

i did see one college production that used a metaphor of video games (the sophisticated computer kind, where the player assumes an identity and dispenses justice including killing other game players). Very good visuals, with some nice projection and video work. It was truly interesting.

---