PARADE On Broadway - Reviews & News Thread — Page 27

I finally saw Parade this afternoon. First of all, Max Chernin was on as Dorsey and he was fantastic. A frighteningly fanatical zealot.

I expected great things out of Parade and in some ways it didn't disappoint. It was incredibly well-acted, well-sung, and well-directed. Ben Platt and Micaela Diamond were absolutely tremendous as the leads, but the whole thing was incredibly well-cast. Really enjoyed Jay Armstrong Johnson as Craig and Erin Rose Doyle as Mary Phagan and Sean Allan Krill as the Governor.

But ... the musical itself left me kind of cold. Maybe I just didn't respond to Jason Robert Brown's score, which IMO relied too much on power ballads. But I really thought the book was kind of weak in that Leo Frank is such a passive character that even though Really Bad Things happen to him, I didn't care for him the way I care about, say, Hamilton or Jenna or Tevye or Sweeney or Eliza Doolitle or (from this season) Kimberly. The more relatable character was Lucille, because she's more proactive. But I feel like the ending should have wrecked me but it didn't. I don't know if I'm alone about this.

I got tickets at the TKTS booth. Fourth row of the front mezzanine. Great seats, except when I got up to go to intermission somehow I tripped over a small step and fell backwards down the mezzanine stairs and am pretty scraped up.

the show itself is off- i had the same reaction to the book. If you take a step back and think about how passive/background Leo is, how prominently featured the white supremacists are (song after song after song) and how oddly written the African American characters are (Conley has those two incredible numbers...but he was also the killer, which they gloss over) its just.... off.

And yet the experience of watching it was nonetheless magical.

Alex M said: "poisonivy2 said: "But I really thought the book was kind of weak in that Leo Frank is such a passive character that even though Really Bad Things happen to him, I didn't care for him the way I care about, say, Hamilton or Jenna or Tevye or Sweeney or Eliza Doolitle or (from this season) Kimberly."

Leo is written this way because this is how the real life Leo Frank was. Yes, he is passive and has flaws but this is a real human being who was murdered for no reason. The reason i think i love the show so much is that it wasn't trying to paint Leo as something he wasnt, he was a real person in a horrible circumstance.

"

He didn't come across as "real" to me. He came across as so passive it was like he was a cardboard martyr.

Having only seen the show once, I probably missed the obvious - so be patient with me here - but who were the antisemitic characters and how did antisemitism factor into what unfolded with Leo?

I do know he was called a "Jew!" at one point during the trial, and made to seem pervy (is that an accusation regularly hurled at Jewish men?) but mostly I was struck by the fact that the prosecutor wanted to pin the murder on someone and there were only 2 men at the scene who were the likely suspects. So he chose one and did whatever necessary to get a conviction.

Truthfully, I just didn't get a clear enough picture from the show of how antisemitism factored into that community or how it lead to him being scapegoated, which confused me because I know this is a show about antisemitism. As I watched it, though, it seemed more like a show about a miscarriage of justice.

I thoroughly enjoyed the opening number and It's Not Over Yet, but found the music otherwise ok with no real standouts. It's a great production and I'm glad it won Best Revival over Sweeney, but I also sat there at the end dry-eyed as others around me wept, which surprised me. It's an upsetting story for sure, and yet it didn't entirely move me, which I was forewarned it would. (That's obviously a separate issue from me not quite catching the antisemitism.)

Thank you for posting your thoughts PoisonIvy2 because I felt like I was alone in my experience. Sorry you fell though! These theatres can be so dangerous to navigate.

I don't know if Leo seemed like a cardboard character so much as a prickly loner, which was obviously the worst thing to be in that situation. Not knowing the history, I even wondered if he was the killer as the story unfolded. Not sure if that was how the creative team hoped I'd react, though.

But wonderful vocal performances and worth seeing.

Updated On: 6/19/23 at 11:57 AM

My aggression? You clearly have the wrong person as I've barely posted in this thread. I'm glad you liked much of it though.

very well put Binau.

im not sure how we know "what Leo Frank was like"-- but assuming he was this passive, quiet guy as Uhry wrote him to be, that authenticity is still a weakness in the book here. and maybe that weakness is just necessary due to history, and i thought Platt made the most of it without a doubt, but at the core of this story are two people who come off as supporting players. Why every white supremacist and his cousin gets a solo and moment is beyond me.

i say all this as a huge fan of the production who is going bck to see it again next week. flawed productions are still worthy.

PipingHotPiccolo said: "I'm not sure how we know "what Leo Frank was like"-- but assuming he was this passive, quiet guy as Uhry wrote him to be, that authenticity is still a weakness in the book here."



Except, of course, that his passivity is one of the main factors as to why it was so easy to pin the murder of Mary Phagan on him (as according to the show...not necessarily according to the historical record). His passivity is not a weakness in the book...it's essential to the character of Leo Frank as told by Uhry and Brown. You may have opinions on that, but it's not a mistake. It's intentional.

I liked the revival a lot...but the original production is one of those formative shows that has imprinted on me deeply, so I don't think I'll ever be able to erase it from my mind while seeing other productions of it. I thought Ben Platt was very good, but Brent Carver was astounding. In some ways it was an even quieter performance, but you never lost sight of him. He was somehow able to be cold and almost unlikable while still captivating you. Also, Come Up to My Office was so chilling and so, for lack of a better term, 'real' that you spent a moment or two thinking 'What...DID he do this?' I felt the caricature take in the revival robbed it of that ambiguity.

His passivity is what makes me find the end so moving. He proudly declares his Jewishness to his murderers. For me the whole evening is about his journey to that courage and pride, in his culture, his wife, and himself.

Robbie516 said: "Has anyone heard if this will extend past August 6th…I would be surprised if it doesn’t as it is doing well and won the Tony"

Ben Platt spoke about this recently, and said the date in August is firm, full stop closing date. There would have to be someone amazing coming in if they were considering an extension.

Binau, thank you for your reply. I agree there's an impressive subtlety to the piece and I'm glad you enjoy it so much. Reading your message, though, I'm still left wondering if this piece captures antisemitism specifically in a clear way. Even from what you and others have said, it seems like this is a show more about narrow-minded southerners needing to blame someone for a murder. Anyone who is different will do. That the lead character is Jewish is coincidental or secondary to that...I mean unless I'm missing more details here.

Perhaps the issue is that it was billed to me as a show "about antisemitism" when it's really a show about Leo Frank.

In real life, were the Frank's harassed or ostracized over their religion more explicitly..? Did that play a bigger part in the trial and they went with something more subtle for this play?

I realize, of course, that bigotry in real life can be subtle...but for a show to be about antisemitism I expected to get more of a crash course in how that looked in that community.

The gravity of the crime seemed to be why people were cruel to him. At least from my experience seeing it.

I hope you guys grasp my meaning here.

In Wicked, we know Elphaba is feared because of her skin color as its addressed clearly early on, and then we see how the rumors circulate about her being deviant and bad even though she's done nothing wrong as a student. It's not as subtle as it could be, but it is clear that racism is playing out and that lands with the audience. With Leo in Parade though it seems as if without a dead girl to avenge somehow, he and his wife would be left alone by the community to exist in peace more or less.

^ That's correct. There are also lyrics that are overtly antisemitic, particularly in Tom Watson's song as he foments the mob. They include:

Will you bеg for the jew’s reward
Or walk with us on thе side of the Lord?

Slaton jumps at the jew’s command

See them laugh when an angel dies
See them tell all their Jew-lovin’ lies
But they’ll run on the judgement day
Someone’s gonna pay when the flood comes

I do recognize that these don't immediately pop out on first viewing (especially with this particular production's sound mixing issues), but I think it's one of many smaller things in the piece that point toward antisemitism as a major root cause for the events.

Listener said: "Having only seen the show once, I probably missed the obvious - so be patient with me here - but who were the antisemitic characters and how didantisemitism factor into what unfolded with Leo?

I do know he was called a "Jew!" at one point during the trial, and made to seem pervy (is that an accusation regularly hurled at Jewish men?) but mostly I was struck by the fact that the prosecutor wanted to pin the murder on someone and there were only 2 men at the scene who were the likely suspects. So he chose one and did whatever necessary to get a conviction.

Truthfully, I just didn't get a clear enough picture from the show of howantisemitism factored into that community or how it lead to him being scapegoated, which confused me because I know this is a show aboutantisemitism. As I watched it, though, it seemed more like a show about a miscarriage of justice.

I thoroughly enjoyed the opening number and It's Not Over Yet, but found the music otherwise ok with no real standouts. It's a great production and I'm glad it won Best Revival over Sweeney, but I also sat there at the end dry-eyed as others around me wept, which surprised me. It's an upsetting story for sure, and yet it didn't entirely move me, which I was forewarned it would. (That's obviously a separate issue from me not quite catching theantisemitism.)

Thank you for posting your thoughts PoisonIvy2 because I felt like I was alone in my experience. Sorry you fell though! These theatres can be so dangerous to navigate.

I don't know if Leo seemed like a cardboard character so much as a prickly loner, which was obviously the worst thing to be in that situation. Not knowing the history, I even wondered if he was the killer as the story unfolded. Not sure if that was how the creative team hoped I'd react, though.

But wonderful vocal performances and worth seeing."

So I've done a LOT of reading on the real life case and I think anti-Semitism was definitely at play, but it was also more complex than the musical makes it out to be. In real life, Leo Frank wasn't as alienated from the south as the show makes it seem (like in real life he had plans to go to a baseball game on Confederate Memorial Day). I think the show also sometimes loses focus on that Leo Frank epitomized everything the south hated as a northern factory owner. He represented evil northern industrialism being foisted upon the south, with the added offense of being Jewish and therefore culturally different in that respect, too, and robbing them of their innocence. What better way to embody that than a young, innocent, southern and Christian girl who was forced to work and eventually killed? Mary Phagan represented southern innocence and gentility, and Frank represented northern industrialism and brutality. When the north got involved in his case, that made the south even angrier because they saw it as the north butting in and protecting a criminal just because he was from the north.

Parade also misses that the focus on anti-Semitism hurt Leo Frank's case because the south took it as "oh, so we aren't allowed to punish Jewish people for crimes?" and led to even more of a backlash. It might have hurt him more than helped. As mentioned above, I'm not sure it does a great job conveying how much racism played a role in the case. People thought that Jim Conley couldn't POSSIBLY be making up his story because no way would a black man be smart enough. They also doubted he wrote the murder note without it being dictated because it used more educated words that they didn't think a black man could possibly know (even though Conley was noted to have used those exact words, like Slaton wrote in his commutation letter).

It is impossible though to deny the overall role that Judaism did play in terms of making Frank more of an outsider, and also feeding into the blood libel idea that Jews were out to murder Christians etc. The Knights of Mary Phagan did turn into the KKK. To this day the internet is flooded with misinformation about Leo Frank and Frank vs. Mangum because of Neo Nazi efforts. Furthermore, Alfred Uhry grew up in Atlanta and knew what it was like being Jewish there, so he had insights that the Parade book captures that not all of us would have access to.

I hope this answers your question. Basically, anti-Semitism definitely played a role in the case but I also think Parade oversimplifies a lot of the complexities. I guess it's hard not to given that it's a stage musical and not, say, a documentary.

Updated On: 6/26/23 at 05:19 PM

SporkGoddess said: "So I've done a LOT of reading on the real life case and I think anti-Semitism was definitely at play, but it was also more complex than the musical makes it out to be. In real life, Leo Frank wasn't as alienated from the south as the show makes it seem (like in real life he had plans to go to a baseball game on Confederate Memorial Day). I think the show also sometimes loses focus on that Leo Frank epitomized everything the south hated as a northern factory owner. He represented evil northern industrialism being foisted upon the south, with the added offense of being Jewish and therefore culturally different in that respect, too, and robbing them of their innocence. What better way to embody that than a young, innocent, southern and Christian girl who was forced to work and eventually killed? Mary Phagan represented southern innocence and gentility, and Frank represented northern industrialism and brutality. When the north got involved in his case, that made the south even angrier because they saw it as the north butting in and protecting a criminal just because he was from the north.

Parade also misses that the focus on anti-Semitism hurt Leo Frank's case because the south took it as "oh, so we aren't allowed to punish Jewish people for crimes?" and led to even more of a backlash. It might have hurt him more than helped. As mentioned above, I'm not sure it does a great job conveying how much racism played a role in the case. People thought that Jim Conley couldn't POSSIBLY be making up his story because no way would a black man be smart enough. They also doubted he wrote the murder note without it being dictated because it used more educated words that they didn't think a black man could possibly know (even though Conley was noted to have used those exact words, like Slaton wrote in his commutation letter).

It is impossible though to deny the overall role that Judaism did play in terms of making Frank more of an outsider, and also feeding into the blood libel idea that Jews were out to murder Christians etc. The Knights of Mary Phagan did turn into the KKK. To this day the internet is flooded with misinformation about Leo Frank and Frank vs. Mangum because of Neo Nazi efforts. Furthermore, Alfred Uhry grew up in Atlanta and knew what it was like being Jewish there, so he had insights that the Parade book captures that not all of us would have access to.

I hope this answers your question. Basically, anti-Semitism definitely played a role in the case but I also think Parade oversimplifies a lot of the complexities. I guess it's hard not to given that it's a stage musical and not, say, a documentary."



Wow! This is such a revealing post - thank you! It puts everything into a whole new perspective. I can see all of that in the piece now. These details make the whole show that much more meaningful.

I guess the North/South conflict just flew over my head. And I had never heard the "Jews are out to kill Christians" angle before, so that changes things as well.

I wish the show were less subtle about how these pieces came together, though I suppose it's all there if you go in looking for it.

That this case lead to the birth of the KKK seems a pretty major element...though, for obvious reasons, they wouldn't want to stage that or give that group more promotion.

....now the protest that happened outside the theatre registers differently too.

Seriously, your post should be required reading for those seeing the production. Thanks again!