RAGTIME is a good, flawed show **Spoilers**- Page 4

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 3:45pm

By the way, Tateh's story is very similar to my paternal grandfather's. So not only is it realistic to me, it's realistic within my own family. He was born in the town of Vitebsk, Russia. He and his parents escaped the Cossacks, who burned the village to the ground (twice, by the time of the revolution). They came to America in 1905, when my grandfather was seven years old and settled on the Lower East Side.

My grandfather's name was changed from "Shumel" to the more Anglo-friendly "Samuel." He was forbidden to speak Russian in the house, and soon forgot the language entirely. When I heard his stories as a child, he could only say his home address in the village, in Russian. It was the only phrase he never forgot.

My grandfather could play piano pretty well by ear, and by the time he was twelve, he was playing Nickelodeon piano for silent films. He used that money to work for free as an apprentice accountant, learning the trade at a mortuary. Somewhere along the lines, he met a group of brothers who were forming a movie studio. He started working as their accountant. The studio quickly took off, and my grandfather went along for the ride. He was a top executive VP at Warner Bros. from the beginning until he retired in the mid-1950s. He ran the NY office with Albert Warner and was Jack's right-hand man on the east coast. He was also in charge of all European distribution for the company. After that, he became an independent movie producer.

But the success he achieved was not without its sacrifices. Even with all the servants, the huge house (in New Rochelle, oddly enough, which is now a private school), the opening nights in NY and Hollywood, the many trips to Europe, all was not well at home. Far from it.

Still, I see a lot of my grandfather in Tateh. And vice-versa.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 3:59pm

"I shall counter-quibble :) I agree that Tateh is hardworking, persevering, creative etc. However, it seems that the other struggling immigrants around him try just as hard; what distinguishes him from them is more luck, not greater deservingness."

What distinguishes him is that he is one of the main characters in the show. How do we know some of his other fellow immigrants aren't successful? The story is following Tateh, not immigrant #5.

"Believing that Tateh is lucky is, IMO, better than the alternative, ie that the other suffering workers should just try harder and they'll be as successful as he is. But either way, the others' stories are conveniently ignored once Tateh gets his break, and his story is held up as The Story."

Well if we didn't follow Tateh's story, but rather followed immigrant # 5's, I could argue the exact same thing (just replacing immigrant # 5 for Tateh). While we're at it, why was Mother so special? Why couldn't the story have focused on her maid Kathleen? The author chose his characters and that's whose story we follow. If you were writing a biography of someone, are you going to choose someone who invented something useful, or are you going to choose his classmate who did nothing (but might still be successful)?

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 3:59pm

Pgenre---I'll probably get a lot of "eye rolls" for this analogy, but I've always seen the trio of stories in Ragtime as the brains (Tateh), the heart (Mother), and the courage (Coalhouse). Yeah, I know, I'm an Oz nut. But they seem to balance this way for me like a tripod.

One other thing I remember about the novel is that the supporting "real" characters (Nesbit, Houdini, Ford, Goldman, etc.) play a much bigger part in the overall picture. It seems to be more of an ensemble tapestry, in that sense. (Or you could say the focus of the book is "all over the place.")

But it seems, depending on the adaptation of the source material, production, or the interpretation, that the balance can become swayed or skewed to favor certain characters.

In the film, the focus is mostly on Evelyn and Coalhouse, oddly enough. (Both actors were singled out with Oscar nominations for their work in those roles, too.) Mother and Father are catalysts, mostly serving the "main" story. Sarah barely has ten minutes in the film, if that. And Tateh (Mandy Patinkin) also seems peripheral until he meets up first with Evelyn (when he's behind the camera as her director) and then with Mother.

In the original Broadway production, it was Coalhouse (Stokes)'s show, in my opinion. Now, it seems to be Mother's show.

I think this answer depends on where the audience wants to "look." And where the creative team invites us to "look." That seems to be where the focus is.

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:00pm

by the time he was twelve, he was playing Nickelodeon piano for silent films.

Ha, besty, my grandmother had the same gig, though she was more like pre-Ragtime Mother and Tateh. (so I hear, she died right after I was born)

[Pgenre]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:13pm

"Pgenre---I'll probably get a lot of "eye rolls" for this analogy, but I've always seen the trio of stories in Ragtime as the brains (Tateh), the heart (Mother), and the courage (Coalhouse). Yeah, I know, I'm an Oz nut. But they seem to balance this way for me like a tripod."

I will never look at RAGTIME the same way... I totally dig that analogy, and I plan to revisit this show again soon and will keep these thoughts in the forefront of my mind. Wonderful analogy!

P

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:14pm

Calvin, that's awesome. Sorry you didn't get to know her, though. What stories she must have had!

I remember when I was a kid learning the piano, my grandfather sat down and played Maple Leaf Rag for me when he came to visit us in Kansas one time. It wasn't "note for note" the way it's written. Since he played mostly by ear, he just picked it up with his own interpretation when he was a kid. He was delighted that he could still remember it at all, since he rarely found the opportunity to play anymore. He just went on to other things, as so many people do.

I remember just staring at his hands while he played.

Within the next couple of years, I learned to play Maple Leaf Rag myself, and I surprised him with it. I remember the big grin on his face and the tears in his eyes. Something I will never forget.

My grandfather died when I was 18. I was just getting beyond the surface questions of "who did you know and work with" and "where did you go?" I wish I'd gotten to know more about his life.

I've moved on to other things in my life, as well. I rarely find time to play the piano anymore. But when I sit down at a keyboard, I can still play Maple Leaf Rag.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:20pm

I'm agreeing with Best about the heart/brains/courage setup of the musical RAGTIME. The novel is of course far more elaborate, with more subplots where the fictional characters interact more completely with the historic figures, and it can't be surprising that a lot of this material had to be jettisoned. For example, Evelyn Nesbit has an affair with Younger Brother and winds up doing work for the poor with Emma Goldman, which means that she eventually meets Tateh and the Little Girl.

And a lot more attention is paid to Houdini, as is well known. And the Son is more psychic in the book -- he even displays some telekinetic ability in one scene. I am not making that up, it really happens.

And I can appreciate the decision to concentrate on Mother as being the "heart" of the story, but I wish that they hadn't decided to make Father into such a jerk (at least that's how he came off at the performance I saw, a very early preview where it really felt like Mr. Bohmer hadn't completely gotten the hang of the character yet). And I have to say that Mother's journey from Good Wife to Strong Independent Woman was realized well enough but felt rather by the numbers, complete with power ballad.

Look, I don't want to complain too loudly about this show. A well-produced, well-staged, well-acted and just plain overall intelligent musical based on a major piece of American literature is a damned rare commodity these days.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:20pm

b12b, fascinating story! Thanks for sharing.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:29pm

Thanks, Dottie!

"Look, I don't want to complain too loudly about this show. A well-produced, well-staged, well-acted and just plain overall intelligent musical based on a major piece of American literature is a damned rare commodity these days."

That's the way I feel, Roscoe. It's an outstanding achievement to take the complex source material and adapt it as successfully as they have. Could they have made other choices as to what to include or exclude from the book? Certainly. But all in all, I'm very happy with the choices they made.

Updated On: 11/5/09 at 04:29 PM

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:31pm

"The author chose his characters and that's whose story we follow. If you were writing a biography of someone, are you going to choose someone who invented something useful, or are you going to choose his classmate who did nothing (but might still be successful)?"



Well, playing devil's advocate here:

As a musical/piece that maintains to be "capturing an era" or evoking a time period, I'd argue that following an immigrant who "did nothing" or was treated poorly and saw the worst of American prejudice, would be a lot more representative of the immigrant experience at that time than the few who happened to luck into success.

[Oldschool]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:35pm

I'll be succinct. I'd rather see Ragtime with all its warts, than another blow-hard musical mush from Andrew Lloyd Webber.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:44pm

I checked the book out of the library this week and it will be interesting to see the show again after reading it. I didn't realize Father is portrayed differently in the musical than he is in the book.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:47pm

MiracleElixir--I don't think Ragtime aims to capture just any old aspect of the era, but rather the extraordinary aspects of it. How it dramatically changed some people, for better and for worse. And how those changes affected the entire nation.

It's not "Our Town" or a Norman Rockwell painting. (Although, I love those!) It doesn't celebrate the common man or the "ordinary day."

And, generally speaking, this is what makes for good drama. Would we really want Gone With the Wind told from the primary perspective of Sue Ellen O'Hara? Or India Wilkes?

Would West Side Story work as well if it were all about Chino and his story coming to America? Or Officer Krupke?

These stories and leading characters are compelling because of the dramatic aspects. Not because they represent the average, ordinary, or typical.

Anything but.

Updated On: 11/5/09 at 04:47 PM

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 4:53pm

besty, that's really neat!

I have heard recordings of my grandmother before. She really was phenomenal. Her teacher actually was taught by Liszt, so my dad says. Unfortunately, opportunities for female pianists on the symphony level were not too great in her time. She did get to play the famous Wanamaker organ in Philadelphia, though.

One funny story my dad used to tell me was when she worked in a music store. Her job was to play sheet music at customers' request so they could see if they wanted to buy it. Her boss instructed her to heavily embellish the music whenever she played it to make it sound better. She didn't like it, but she did it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 5:04pm

"One funny story my dad used to tell me was when she worked in a music store. Her job was to play sheet music at customers' request so they could see if they wanted to buy it. Her boss instructed her to heavily embellish the music whenever she played it to make it sound better. She didn't like it, but she did it."

Love it! I assume you've seen "In the Good Old Summertime" with Judy Garland and Van Johnson? That's what they do for a living in the movie.

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 5:12pm

I have not, but now I have to!

[Pgenre]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 5:12pm

There's also a big "meet cute" scene with Cary Grant and Alexis Smith at a big sheet music store in the Cole Porter "biopic" (and I use that term VERY loosely) NIGHT & DAY. LOVE that scene!

P

[Dagobert]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 5:18pm

This notion of some people being successful just out of "luck" really rubs me the wrong way. I don't buy it for a minute. Tateh and Best12bars grandfather and many other successful people had some luck, sure, but luck is when opportunity meets preparation. and determination and creativity and perseverence. I think it is those latter qualities that distinguish the Tatehs of the world from all the others, not just luck. Is it possible some really talented people never "make" it only because they did not get their lucky break? Sure, I suppose. But to think that those who do make it are "just lucky?" That sounds like jealousy and sour grapes-- and the same warped sense of entitlement to the American Dream espoused by Willy Loman and Sondheim's Assassins.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 6:37pm

Dagobert---right now, I think that many Americans are in love with the ordinary, the average, and the typical. Chalk that up to millions of reality shows (most of which are game shows that reward prizes, so maybe that's where the "luck" and "fate" part plays into the mindset). You can also chalk it up to YouTube, or any other media device that puts the "average person" in the starring role and driver's seat.

Many today are obsessed with random status reports on Twitter like "I'm eating ice cream right now" or "it's dark outside."

I remember when the news services kept polling people daily about the last presidential election. People were actually saying on the news that they thought Obama was "too smart" and not enough like them as a person. That they liked George W. Bush previously, because they could relate to him better. They also asked these same people if they wanted someone smarter than they were for president, and they said "no." I couldn't believe that. Regardless of political partisanship, I can't believe that anyone today would say that truthfully. But they did. They didn't want to vote for Obama because he was too smart, not because they disagreed with his political platform.

We live in a country with people now who want to vote for themselves as the most interesting, the most intelligent, and the most important.

That's not what E.L. Doctorow was writing about in Ragtime. And our country was a very different place at the turn of the last century. Some of it better, some of it much worse, but the basic philosophy of Americans, both new and old, was to reach for something extraordinary. Not common. People died trying to get to this country, to seek out and live the American Dream. And it wasn't a dream of entitlement. It wasn't something that was owed to them by geography or by birth or something that anyone could have handed to them by a stroke of "luck."

It was the pursuit of happiness, just like it says on that piece of paper. The chance to succeed. Not a free gift or a game show prize. Just the opportunity to make it. And hopefully, the wisdom to make the right choices and see the opportunities when they come along.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 7:04pm

I should add that I don't mean to oversimplify a very complex subject about a very complex country, then or now.

But I can see how the reactions to the stories and characters presented in "Ragtime" would be as diverse and as controversial as the country itself.

To me, the most interesting part of this is playing the "what-if" game. What if Coalhouse had just focused on his promising music career above all else and let the hate crime go, just as Sarah and others had urged him to? He might have been one of the most famous, respected, and wealthy musicians of his day. AND ... what if he had done that instead of standing up for the injustice? Would the advancement of the African American race been slowed for every one of the "Coalhouses" in America who just "let it go" instead of standing their ground and fighting to the death? He took a huge hit, derailed himself, and sacrificed his life for his principles and for what was fundamentally "right." Who is to say that this isn't "success?"

Tateh focused on his opportunities and his career. This above all else. At the end, Tateh is a different person. He has reinvented himself. He is living the American Dream. But the old Tateh is "dead and gone." Is that a fair trade? Did he "succeed" in life?

So much to think about.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 7:28pm

By the way, I recommend to everyone that, in addition to reading the original novel (if you're so inclined), you rent the Milos Forman film. I decided to put the DVD on now, and I had forgotten how damn GOOD it is. Wow.

Completely different than the musical, but a highly "successful" adaptation, nonetheless.

EDIT: Oh, and Randy Newman's musical score cannot be beat. Ever. Ever. Ever.

EDIT AGAIN!: I forgot about "Mameh," both in the novel and in the movie. Yes, Tateh has a wife. She is NOT dead, but rather "dead" in his eyes. He is so focused on his work and his career, and of making something of himself, that his wife is utterly abandoned. He catches her having sex with another man, and he "kills" her with a ripping of his clothing, which is a traditional Jewish symbol for the separation between the living and the dead. A VERY powerful scene in the movie with Fran Drescher (in a terrific, brief performance). This only underscores Tateh's choices and priorities in life.

Updated On: 11/5/09 at 07:28 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 8:42pm

I love this discussion, it is fascinating.

Realy, I just wanted to say that I love In the Good Old Summertime! It's based on the same play that She Loves Me is based on.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 9:16pm

True dat!

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 9:32pm

Okay, I'm rambling now, but I'll go one further, since I'm in the whole nine yards ...

SEE THE MOVIE!! Especially if you like the Broadway show or the novel. The scene between Booker T. Washington and Coalhouse in the library is EXACTLY what's missing in the Broadway show. As I said previously, they should have cut "Make Them Hear You." And this scene, with its incredible dialogue, should take its place. No music. Just these words.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/5/09 at 9:51pm

As I alluded to in another thread, most of the problems RAGTIME has from a structure standpoint is that it tries to take a rather sardonic book and make it fit a conventional book musical mold (altering its wry commentary on Americana into a sort of Joplinesque patriotism). There are just going to be flaws that stem from that. Colehouse in the book is almost an anti-hero. He goes insane. He does things that are simply unsympathetic and yet the musical calls for his sympathy at just about every turn.

There are major key plot elements in Younger Brother's relationship with Evelyn Nesbit that are left out of the musical, deeming his 2nd act motives in the musical as almost absurd.

There is a long laundry list of things that just didn't fit this adaptation for the material but that do create problems.

I like RAGTIME - I think probably it could have been more exciting if there had more adventure in the storytelling of the adaptation. But it was written as a super-oiled well manufactured musical to show off Garth Drabinsky's empire. For a musical so calculated in - well just about everything, its pretty darn good.

It just rarely has moments of incredible brilliance. And yes, a lot of the lyrics are howlers - like my favorite:

"There were gazeebos and there were no negroes." Doesn't rhyme and clearly the creative team that couldn't think of anything else.