RAGTIME is a good, flawed show **Spoilers** — Page 2

'Flawed' is an understatement:

Why does Coalhouse, purportedly a musician, but by mid-Act One a guy who seems to care more about his car than anything else, send his girlfriend and child into the woods alone for "safety" but then leaves the car with ruffians while he goes to look for a cop, who was probably going to be both white AND Irish?

Wouldn't he have been able to find the unhelpful police officer faster if he had been driving? Weren't Sarah and the baby safer in the car? Wasn't the car safer with all of them in it, rather then abandoned to the clearly bigoted ruffians (did Coalhouse think they were going to polish it for him)? Was he born under a rock? Or are his actions written to suit the writers' un-thought-through whims?

Are we really supposed to have sympathy for Sarah, who thinks she can approach the POTUS waving her arms like a madwoman (even if the rest of her behavior, i.e. burying live infants, clearly indicates that she is)? This character was too stoopid to live!

And how did 5 black guys and one white one get into the Morgan Library? I can believe that a bunch of anonymous Middle-Eastern guys bought tickets on separate airlines, took them over and flew them into buildings, but I cannot believe that a black man, who is wanted in several states for killing firemen, somehow got into a famous public building and wired it with explosives.

I also can't deal with the Younger Brother character. He is first portrayed as sort of an aimless joke, getting his rocks off fantasizing over a brainless, opportunistic bimbo like Evelyn Nesbitt. Suddenly he's a revolutionary? Why? Is he now horny for Emma Goldman?

And what is the point of Father being chosen to be a hostage negotiator? This is a guy who runs a fireworks company and has a fantasy of being a gentleman explorer and lives in the suburbs. Why didn't they call me to negotiate the hostage situation? At least I live in the city! And then he gets there and discovers that his idiot brother-in-law is part of the gang! Quel surprise! Considering there are only 10 people in America, I'm surprised his father-in-law wasn't there as well!

And why does he switch clothes with Younger Brother? What's the point? All the gang members leave, he leaves, only Coalhouse gets killed. So why make that exchange? Just to have a moment? A moment without any point and therefore without any resonance is just BS.

Why were Evelyn Nesbitt and Houdini even there at all? At least Ford made the car that Coalhouse was willing to die for, and Morgan built the building that Coalhouse was going to blow up to get revenge for his car, and Goldman was there to tempt Younger Brother away from bimbos and into anarchy, and Booker was there to tell Coalhouse to be an accommodating black man--- but what did Nesbitt and Houdini have to do with ANYTHING, except maybe not being smart enough to prevent WWI?

And the wonderment continues:

Am I really supposed to believe that this little kid in New Rochelle predicted the assassination that started WWI? What is the point of this 'metaphor' if it doesn't work on the most fundamental level of reality? If only Houdini had picked up the hint the first dozen or so times the kid happened to by miraculous coincidence cross his path, WWI could have been averted, millions of lives saved, happy ending--
but Houdini just didn't get it! And guess what? Neither does the audience!!!

And of course Father goes down on the Lusitania, thereby sparing his wife, who had enough courage and spunk to raise the child of a black song writer/anarchist and marry an immigrant Jew, but apparently not the guts to divorce her husband in the first place because that would have been unseemly.

Which ultimately proves that, what works on the page doesn't necessarily work (or even make sense) on the stage.

Updated On: 11/3/09 at 01:27 AM

^^^
I'm not familiar with this musical, but is that really the story in a nutshell? I must say, it sounds too contrived.

---

Jesus Christ.

This has got to be one of the more asinine threads on the board in a while. And that's really saying something.

Updated On: 11/3/09 at 08:09 AM

"The 'message' of his subplot is irritating too. He comes hopefully to the land of opportunity, then comes to hate it when he sees the reality, then the American Dream is vindicated because he happens to get lucky?"

This is a huge problem for me, too, that I neglected to mention. Another attempt to put a "hopeful" spin on inherently cynical source material.



"This has got to be one of the more assanine threads on the board in a while. And that's really saying something."

Well, it's "asinine," not "assanine," but why exactly? Because people on here disagree with you?



"Maybe this show isn’t perfect, but I’m not sure some of you are correctly reading its intentions. This is a show that’s asking you to look inward to yourself, and outward to society – not just at what’s on the stage. And for me, it does that tremendously well. "

I'm guessing (or at least, hoping) that you're somewhat involved in this production? Because if anything, it seems like you're talking about the source material and how the musical muddles its intentions. Yes, the characters were nameless in the book to be representative of archetypes -- but in this musical, we're not meant to be crying just because of symbolism and what the characters represent. Did you SEE the show? Its a completely sentimental, supposedly character-driven piece that attempts to wring emotion out of the story and characters.

"The 'message' of his subplot is irritating too. He comes hopefully to the land of opportunity, then comes to hate it when he sees the reality, then the American Dream is vindicated because he happens to get lucky?"

This is a huge problem for me, too, that I neglected to mention. Another attempt to put a "hopeful" spin on inherently cynical source material."

Except that same progression also happens in the source material. True, the musical omits a great deal of what happens to Tateh in the Lower East Side (notably Evelyn Nesbit's participation in that subplot), but the character's progression is no different. He goes from disillusioned immigrant to successful filmmaker.

---

"And I'm not sure how you can say that it is void of emotion, and then say it's trying to wring emotion from these characters' stories."

Because it heaps sentiment and emotional import upon these events, but the resonance never really comes because we're given no reason to really be invested or care other than we're being told to.

AdamGreer is just biased (hence his av). He takes offense whenever someone *dares* to criticize his favorite shows. Just check out any past N2N-related threads, and he was as defensive toward critics then, too.

---

Why are Houdini and Evelyn in the show???? You are really asking that???

All the "real" people in the show are symbols. Houdini is the symbol of the European Jewish immigrant, ESCAPING from tyranny and becoming successful in America.

Evelyn symboloizes America's obsession with celebrity - she is the original tabloid princess - Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Kim Kardashian all rolled into one.

Henry Ford symbolizes the industrial revolution. Emma Goldman symbolizes the Socialist movement. Booker T. Washington symbolizes the early civil rights movement.

"But again it doesn't matter, because the whole show is a metaphor."

It doesn't matter to you perhaps, but apparently, to others it does.

"The brilliance of the interwoven book, music and lyrics is that they have the emotional impact of real people."

It seems that some people did not experience this impact.

It's fine and dandy to say from on high that it's all a metaphor, and thereby dismiss all criticism. If a metaphor it is, then that metaphor still has to work in theatrical terms, and not bore an audience out of its gourd.

Haha, this is so nitpicky. So allow a fellow nitpicker to try to solve these problems.

"Why does Coalhouse, purportedly a musician, but by mid-Act One a guy who seems to care more about his car than anything else, send his girlfriend and child into the woods alone for "safety" but then leaves the car with ruffians while he goes to look for a cop, who was probably going to be both white AND Irish?"

Coalhouse is shown to be naive, I think. He believes that he will get justice because justice is due to him.

"Wouldn't he have been able to find the unhelpful police officer faster if he had been driving? Weren't Sarah and the baby safer in the car? Wasn't the car safer with all of them in it, rather then abandoned to the clearly bigoted ruffians (did Coalhouse think they were going to polish it for him)? Was he born under a rock? Or are his actions written to suit the writers' un-thought-through whims?"

Maybe he was't thinking clearly because he was so distressed.

"Are we really supposed to have sympathy for Sarah, who thinks she can approach the POTUS waving her arms like a madwoman (even if the rest of her behavior, i.e. burying live infants, clearly indicates that she is)? This character was too stoopid to live!"

Again, at the time it wasn't so weird. Sarah is also not shown to be very, like you said, rational.

"And how did 5 black guys and one white one get into the Morgan Library? I can believe that a bunch of anonymous Middle-Eastern guys bought tickets on separate airlines, took them over and flew them into buildings, but I cannot believe that a black man, who is wanted in several states for killing firemen, somehow got into a famous public building and wired it with explosives."

Can't explain this one, but Ragtime's not the first musical to have some implausible plot device like this.

"I also can't deal with the Younger Brother character. He is first portrayed as sort of an aimless joke, getting his rocks off fantasizing over a brainless, opportunistic bimbo like Evelyn Nesbitt. Suddenly he's a revolutionary? Why? Is he now horny for Emma Goldman? "

The idea is that Younger Brother was this very passionate person who had no outlet for it. He was channeling this passion into Evelyn, which was pretty useless and a waste of his time. When he discovered Goldman's causes, he realized what he had been looking for.

"And what is the point of Father being chosen to be a hostage negotiator? This is a guy who runs a fireworks company and has a fantasy of being a gentleman explorer and lives in the suburbs. Why didn't they call me to negotiate the hostage situation? At least I live in the city! And then he gets there and discovers that his idiot brother-in-law is part of the gang! Quel surprise! Considering there are only 10 people in America, I'm surprised his father-in-law wasn't there as well!"

I thought it was because Father knew Coalhouse. It's kind of like how you call in the person's family to try to negotiate.

"And why does he switch clothes with Younger Brother? What's the point? All the gang members leave, he leaves, only Coalhouse gets killed. So why make that exchange? Just to have a moment? A moment without any point and therefore without any resonance is just BS."

Dunno.

"Why were Evelyn Nesbitt and Houdini even there at all? At least Ford made the car that Coalhouse was willing to die for, and Morgan built the building that Coalhouse was going to blow up to get revenge for his car, and Goldman was there to tempt Younger Brother away from bimbos and into anarchy, and Booker was there to tell Coalhouse to be an accommodating black man--- but what did Nesbitt and Houdini have to do with ANYTHING, except maybe not being smart enough to prevent WWI?"

As someone else said, symbolism for the various changes and causes at the time.

And the wonderment continues:

"Am I really supposed to believe that this little kid in New Rochelle predicted the assassination that started WWI? What is the point of this 'metaphor' if it doesn't work on the most fundamental level of reality? If only Houdini had picked up the hint the first dozen or so times the kid happened to by miraculous coincidence cross his path, WWI could have been averted, millions of lives saved, happy ending--
but Houdini just didn't get it! And guess what? Neither does the audience!!!"

I think it's silly, too, but it's not enough to ruin the show for me.

"And of course Father goes down on the Lusitania, thereby sparing his wife, who had enough courage and spunk to raise the child of a black song writer/anarchist and marry an immigrant Jew, but apparently not the guts to divorce her husband in the first place because that would have been unseemly."

Not just unseemly. She would have lost likely her child, her financial stability, etc.

---

Interesting idea Dottie, but Cayce would have been 30-something at the time.

There are magic beans in "Ragtime" ? Who eats them? And why? Fill me in on all!!!!!

---

The creators of the musical gave the Little Boy the name of "Edgar" as a tribute to Edgar L. Doctorow, author of the source material for Ragtime.

---