Big River @ Encores — Page 2

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

Double post

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

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.

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

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.

"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

What am I missing with Kyle Scatliffe?

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.