RAGTIME is a good, flawed show **Spoilers**

With all the breathless gushers verbally ejaculating all over this show since preview one, I just had to put my feelings out there. To be clear, I really like RAGTIME, so this is not a takedown or evisceration, akin to the loathing I felt for BILLY ELLIOT. But there are some real, fundamental problems with RAGTIME as a show -- not necessarily this production -- that kept cutting my "love" short at every moment.

I saw the original production with my parents when I was 12 -- I remember virtually nothing about it except (a) the opening number, (b) the.. conclusion of Coalhouse's storyline, and (c) that I was enthralled by every minute, and completely loved it. I've not gone back and listened to one song since then -- it's been almost 12 years since I last heard or saw anything related to RAGTIME.

So, factor in my memory of loving the show, and the unanimous praise of this revival (at least from the notorious overreactors on this board) so far, and I was hella primed when I sat down this afternoon. Basically taking in the show with what are essentially fresh eyes, I thought what I saw was really good overall. The performances are (almost) all strong -- if without major standouts -- and this fantastic score sounds terrific as ever. RAGTIME's score has long overshadowed all other elements of the show in Broadway history, and I think that's the chief contributor to why the show's remembered so fondly. However, some elements of the book are just nauseating in their sentimentality, contrivance, oversimplification, and incoherence.

I'll be entering into **SPOILER** territory here, so consider yourself warned. Aside from turning a staunchly cynical, heartbreaking novel into something oddly patriotic and centered around the promise of the future (hey, it's a Broadway musical, I get it and roll with it), there was a nice amount of content that made me cringe or roll my eyes.

Sarah's death = happens so quickly, and in SUCH a contrived manner. Not only did I feel like I barely knew this women (she's barely given any chance to develop in such a short amount of stage time), the manner in which her death comes about seems more than a little forced. When people around me in the theater were sniffling, I couldn't help but feel it's because we're intrinsically conditioned to cry when characters die or other characters are seen crying, and not because of genuine investment or emotion built up in this character who's now dead.

Coalhouse's death = Is a bit contrived, but the acting sells it, and at that point, even if he's not terribly well-defined, we feel like we've gotten to know Coalhouse and the impact of his death gets to us. However, did father REALLY have to scream "Nooooooooooo!" as it happens? Over the last few decades, that's really become the epitome of all cliches, that it's incredibly difficult to stifle laughter at such a moment, which really f***s up the emotional impact that the scene would have otherwise.

Mother marrying Tateh = seriously? In the context of what we're given here, you just don't buy this at all. Beyond the fact of trying to tie up all non-Coalhouse/Sarah storylines happily (though, come to think of it, even those two dead lovers get a final happy sendoff as we see them singing in heaven), we get no visible rationale or justification for this happening. Because they were briefly kind to each other once many years ago on a train platform? Sure, it's a "nice" story beat, and yes, Mother's thinly veiled self-description is illuminating, but it doesn't really explain that their relationship is based on anything beyond commonalities in anecdotes about raising children. I think we needed at least another scene or two between them for it to feel "right."

Little Coalhouse running onstage at the end = I feel like I can't quite properly put into words why this rubbed me the wrong way so much. Maybe it's because the little kid actor was "too" irritatingly adorable, and creepily grinning like a trained over-rehearsed capuchin monkey, but even if he wasn't, I feel like this was too desperate a grab for an "awwww" moment.

The Houdini/"Warn the Duke" subplot = honestly, why was this not cut? It's so shoehorned into the show that it barely makes any sense, it's not particularly interesting, and by the time it's resolved, your only real response is "oh, right -- that."


Those are just some things jumping out at me off the top of my head, but while my comments are mostly critical, I do want to emphasize that I think this is a very strong production, and I did enjoy myself for the 2 hours-45 minutes while I was sitting in the theater, and I love the beautiful, beautiful score as much as I ever have. In fact, the music is so lovely that it nearly does compensate for how conventional, cliche-ridden and rushed the storytelling frequently is.








Ben Brantley's review of the original production of 'Ragtime'

Updated On: 11/2/09 at 02:57 AM

You make some excellent points, Elixir, but you undercut yourself by mocking those who enjoy the show by referring to them as "breathless gushers" and "notorious overreactors." In almost the same paragraph you claim that what you "saw was really good overall" and concluding "I did enjoy myself for the 2 hours-45 minutes while I was sitting in the theater." SO, if you enjoyed the show - even with the perceived flaws - why the needless condescension towards others who enjoy it?

Musicals are by their nature a hybrid entertainment form, and while no musical is perfect any show that entertains and provokes emotional responses - laughter or tears - has to be considered a success.

---

Miracle Elixir....
It sounds like you have more of an issue with the source material than the show itself. Doctorow's novel is a brilliant, yet highly eccentric piece of literature in which events unfold at a wonderfully random pace. At some point, it's wise to sit back and remember that this is a MUSICAL. Although it deals with serious and challenging issues, it exists primarily to entertain.

well..no need to get ejaculatory!

I saw it yesterday. I had seen the original once and the PaperMill production once.


In this production Mother seems to be the hub around which all the other characters revolve; I didn't feel this as strongly with either the original or PaperMill production. Perhaps it is the strength of Christiane Noll's performance.


Of all the flaws pointed out, the death of Sarah feels the most contrived to me. I truly wish that her character could have been developed a bit more.

"well-written" - yes; "perfect" no.

I am not here to throw cold water, but much as I love the music, there are certain parts of the book which just feels too abrupt and Sarah's death is one of them.

You don't need to tell me about people dying being abrupt.
My father died in such a manner in July of this year.

I mean abrupt in the sense that there was no build up to why she should that she could just go up to the politician and ask him to do something for Coalhouse unless you count that a woman who leaves her own baby to die in the cold says that she's not quite all there mentally.

I have always found this part awkward and hard to believe.

You need to *see* the production. Listening to a cast recording just doesn't cut it.

"You need to *see* the production. Listening to a cast recording just doesn't cut it"

I have only listened to the cast recording, and the death does come across as random/abrupt/ridiculous (I have posted about this before), I assumed htis WAS because it was a cast recording [so it wasn't as well paced etc.]. Apparently not.

---

Kim yells "NOOOOO" after she shoots Thuy, too. Which I always found odd.

---

I'm constantly amazed at how many people on this site don't understand metaphor.

"The book for Ragtime is too abrupt and makes no sense. Like...when the mother is gardening and finds the baby and starts singing "What Kind Of Woman," it just doesn't flow."

Is that meant to be sarcastic? I'm going to assume that it was...

I saw the original production, haven't seen the revival. I remember thinking Sarah's death was abrupt as well and feels a lot like a plot contrivance to get Coalhouse to act as he does throughout act two. I haven't read the book, so don't know if this is described better there. Indeed, Sarah feels like a tool through most of the play - we really don't know anything about her other than that she abandoned her baby, at one time loved Coalhouse and he loved her, and she wanted to (in whatever way she could, rational or not) help him. That's not a whole lot of character development, but really, I don't know how much she NEEDS. Coalhouse is the center of that story, and she helps push the story forward. I'm not saying it's good writing necessarily, but if every character was fully developed it would be a six hour play.

---

I'm not bothered by the plot contrivances as some others who have posted previously. There are all kinds of devices, and, historically speaking, many of which fall into the category of contrived, convenient, corny, and so forth. Sometimes I feel that if one dissects these things too much one loses sight of their whole. Many of the classics of musical theatre are full of such contrivances and we overlook them for the whole that they present.

One of the thing that surprises me about the book/libretto is that the character of Henry Ford is sanitized -- they talk about his innovations and desire to manufacture for the masses and completely avoid his blatant racism and anti-semitism. I can't help but wonder given that it was going into the Ford Center that it was cleansed accordingly...

Good lord. If the people on this board wrote the book to Ragtime and explored all of the characters in the depth you all want to, Ragtime would be a 7 hour show.