RAGTIME 2025 Reviews — Page 10

Rentaholic2 said: "I don’t get some of the tepid reactions to Nichelle Lewis. Yes, she has a different style voice than Audra, but I didn’t think she was overpowered by Henry, and she performed the hell out of the role. Given how weak this year has been, I could honestly see at least 5 acting nominations."

I can see Lewis following a similar trajectory to Joy Woods (who coincidentally was originally cast as Sarah in the Encores! run) in Gypsy last year. This young breakout star in this juicy role who receives divisive reactions in this acclaimed revival, but still manages to make the cut for Best Featured Actress in a Musical based on the strength of the role itself.

FANtomFollies said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "Seeing it again now, it felt way creakier.
Alot still works, and some of the design was lovely. But I guess what burst off the stage at City Center gets a bit swallowed up at Lincoln Center, and i was left cold(er)."

Not trying to invalidate your opinion at all - but I think this may just be a symptom of seeing the show multiple times and becoming more familiar with it. I remember seeing it for the first time in the 2009 revivial being blown away and thinking it was the perfect book of a musical - right up there with Gypsy and other classics. But then after seeing it at City Center and twice at Lincoln Center, it is a bit clunky and creaky. It's the same book as the first time I saw it but with repeated viewings I think you are able to analyze it more critically. I also don't think it gets swallowed at Lincoln Center because the venue is literally half the size. I thought it felt much more intimate, though i suppose that depends on where you are sitting. Just my opinion."

All opinions welcome. I saw the 2009 revival and was unimpressed; City Centers was a blast. But there is no question that without the spectacle/novelty of solid performances of the impressive score, the show itself is a mess. Its flaws were not as glaring to me, in 2024, for whatever reason. (Though yes, the venue is half the size of city center but the stage is not). But I am nothing but glad that others are enjoying this more, its certainly got its charms, and the cast is killing it without question.

FANtomFollies said: "Not trying to invalidate your opinion at all - but I think this may just be a symptom of seeing the show multiple times and becoming more familiar with it. I remember seeing it for the first time in the 2009 revivial being blown away and thinking it was the perfect book of a musical - right up there with Gypsy and other classics. But then after seeing it at City Center and twice at Lincoln Center, it is a bit clunky and creaky."

I saw Ragtime for the first time ever earlier this week (other than being at the taping of their Good Morning America segment). I was fighting off tears for most the first act, I thought this was the best new-to-me musical I had seen in years. Then Sarah went to the political rally, and from that point I still liked the show, but way, way less.

Yes, a lot of the subplots with real figures didn't pay off. Emma Goldman sort of works, Houdini is pointless, Henry Ford is abandoned, and Evelyn Nesbit works in the first act but not the second. Yes, Grandfather's jokes are never funny.

But my biggest issue is I was just really uncomfortable with how Sarah and Coalhouse Walker are portrayed. There's this weird subtext there like black people make great martyrs but bad parents, as they both abandon their son at some point in the story. Yeah, there are extenuating circumstances, but Tateh and Mother are comparatively portrayed as perfect parents, and Tateh also had extenuating circumstances.

I flat out didn't believe Walker as written would abandon his child. With his very clear moral code, I also don't believe he'd attack random firehouses on his revenge tour.

My point is just the white savior stuff also comes off as gross on a first watch.

FANtomFollies said: "Jonathan Cohen said: "I flat out didn't believeWalker as written would abandon his child. With his very clear moral code, I also don't believe he'd attack randomfirehouses on hisrevenge tour.

My point is just the white savior stuff also comes off as gross on a first watch."

I feel like even Ragtime diehard fans (like myself) can agree the show could use some trimming and script adjustments. I wonder if Ahrens and Flaherty are the reason that no director has been able to do that?"

And Tom Kirdahy? Along with many others, I think the roles of the historical characters take up too much stage time. Only Nesbit and Goldman are important to the show’s plot. And only Goldman has good material in Act II. As it is, Nesbitt is much less prominent than she is in the movie (and I think the book but it’s been decades since I read it). I’ve often wondered whether the musical could work without the historical characters at all.

I guess I'm in the minority, but I actually think the historical figures add texture and connective tissue that elevate the material. They all play some role in the plot or in the development of the key characters, and some of their songs provide much needed breaks between the ballads and plot-heavy numbers (Crime of the Century and Henry Ford in particular). More generally, they anchor the show in a specific time and place and somewhat personify some of the key themes.

I came away from this performance not thinking about the show's flaws, but in awe of the construction of the book. Yes, it's a long show, but it's very tightly written with very little fat in the script (aside from the less important historical figure business, which I realize many people think should be scaled back). I was never bored, and the desires, motivations, choices, etc. of all the key characters are crystal clear. Given how many characters there are and how much happens throughout the show, the fact that it works at all as a cohesive story feels like an achievement. I also personally don't mind a show being long when it has the scale and epic scope to justify it (not unlike Les Mis). My biggest issue is the timeline, which doesn't seem to make sense in a few places (for example, when we meet Tateh as the Baron, it feels like years have passed for him, but only a few weeks or months for the other characters).

spicemonkey said: "I do thinkHoudini is kinda meaningful tho, withthe historical backdrop (before WWI, or metaphorically something catastrophic about to happen)"

As far as I know, and I did look into it today, in real life Harry Houdini never met Archduke Franz Ferdinand. In a vacuum I have no problem with the Houdini being in Ragtime. He's not the only Jewish immigrant who moved to America and reinventing himself in the show.

But like the soothsayer warning Julius Caesar "Beware the Ides of March" in Shakespeare's play makes sense because Caesar was the target of the assassination plot. It was actionable information. "Warn the Duke!" isn't because in real life Houdini had no access to Ferdinand and in the story, even if they were friends, they literally lived on different continents.

I believe that's the only supernatural element in Ragtime, there's no obvious reason to speculate Houdini and Ferdinand were friends, and it just felt like a swing and miss for connecting the show to WW1.

DrewJoseph said: "Is there any chance at all this might extend all the way to november? Or is this a strictly limited run?"

i think it's likely, considering how well it is selling. There just might be some cast changes over the summer. Of course, their Tony chances + Joshua Henry should be enough it to extend it through the summer for now.

Lauren will be on for Caissie 2/8, 3/15, 5/10.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DTbArOEj1Qh/?igsh=MTVobzVudnR5ZzdsZg==

kdogg36 said: "Jonathan Cohen said: "I believe that's the only supernatural element in Ragtime, there's no obvious reason to speculateHoudini andFerdinand were friends, and it just felt like a swing and miss for connecting the show to WW1."

I wonder if the little boy's clairvoyance (he also senses that Tateh will soon be important to his family) is one of those things that had a bigger role in early drafts of the show, but mostly got cut so thatjust a vestige remains."

I've always just taken this as a comment on a new generation's ability to see things that adults cannot - to say what is unacknowledgeable for adults. I've had several such mystical experiences with my own children.

THANK YOU for this. I absolutely agree. The historical characters are critical to the plot -- just like in the original book by Doctorow. The arc of the story is so very much based on 'the possibility' of change. Goldman leads a revolution -- but winds up being deported to Russia. Houdini is the symbol of possible escape, and yet he doesnt understand (until too late) what Edgar is telling him - he admits that. Nesbit is the star her mother always wanted her to be -- until she's doing four shows a day in Atlantic City.

Couldn't agree more Mike, they are absolutely critical and add so much to the show throughout.

Exactly.

Kad said: "I generally like the use of the historical figures in Ragtime. They add texture and context to the narrative and symbolize the social upheaval and rapid progress happening in the era. Radical or new ideas, technological innovation, celebrity, and wealth were affecting the lives of average people in new ways every day. Ragtime is an epic, almost allegorical story about America, not just an intimate melodrama about a handful of people, and the use of historical figures helps build that sweeping vision. I think most important is that although the historical figures may add to the runtime, they don't distract from the core characters. The time spent on Nesbitt and Houdini isn't time lost from Mother and Coalhouse."

Still not sure how I feel about Henry Ford having a whole song knowing the original Broadway production opened in a theater initially named FOR Ford Motor Co.

True, you need a car for the plot to happen, and it's not distasteful, but still

Kad said: "The song existed before they had the theater and Ford was also in the novel, so I’m not sure what’s untoward about it. It’s not exactly product placement.

They certainly could’ve just had Coalhouse roll in with a new car and say he bought it, but the innovation of mass production as a means to deliver goods like that to the middle class is a major part of the era and signal of progress. Having a production number with Ford is a fun way to theatricalize that."

THIS. I keep coming back to what the show is about -- the possibility of change. Ford is one of the two edged swords -- as is true historically, and in the show. Yes, the Model T made automobiles affordable and accessible. It changed the country and changed the future. Of course, that;s what Coalhouse is singing about -- the car are the wings of his dream for his family. (Ford even got sued by his own shareholders because he kept the money in the company to expand and lower the price.) But he was a terrible human being by most measures.

The Ford song covers both parts -- the lyric regales the worker 'who aint so clever' but can still work on the assembly line (and earn an excellent pay check). But the refrain keeps to 'speed up the belt, speed up the belt. Which was also happening at River Rouge. -- the fast the assembly line moves, the less margin for error, the more injuries. But of course, we make more cars. The choreography includes workers falling down as the 'speed up the belt' lyric repeats.

It all ties together.

(In the end, of course, the River Rouge workers have had enough, and strike. And then the ugliness really happens. The hidden passages where Ford's spies watch. The scabs and the goons. But THAT would be a different show.)