Ragtime book vs. musical — Page 2

Sally-You have to listen to the music. It's stupendous! I can't even begin to express how much I LOVE this show, so I won't dare try.

---

For me the really cinematic quality about the novel is conspicuous: One of the main subplots involves a woman who will capitalize off of turn of the century sex mores to become a notorious movie star, another involves an immigrant who becomes a filmmaker and a third (if you read between the lines) is about a man who provides music for silent films.

I do think it's difficult to adapt into a two-hour feature film. On the other hand, the novel doesn't exactly have very little dialogue. It's just not in quotes. There are many moments in which the narrator tells us what one character said to another. (what immediately comes to my mind is Grandfather sitting down with The Little Boy to tell him his memories of antebellum America and John Brown)

I love the third-person technique as well. Unfortunately, I think that's also what will keep Ragtime the musical from adaptation as a film for a long time. Perhaps that's for the best? However, I would at least like to see a slick recording of the stage production.

Forman's film has an amazing score by Randy Newman and some touching moments, but I'm happy that Doctorow and others don't want him to have the last word on the material. Visually, it lends itself well to modern cinematography and could easily win several Emmys if made today with the look of HBO's Carnival (except set in turn of the century New York). The Forman film reeks of Reagan-era blahness. I think it should have either been made hot off the heels of the novel's 1975 publication or twenty years later.

"'Poor young rich boy, masturbates for a vaudeville tart, what a waste of a fiery heart...' The line is from The Night That Goldman Spoke at Union Square."

One of the numerous weak moments in the musical's book that refer to something in the novel, yet provides no explanation in the show. How would Emma know anything about him? In the musical, it is their first encounter, yet in the novel, masturbation is how they meet. Another is when the boy shouts "Warn the Duke!" at Houdini during the opening without ever explaining Houdini's ties with Archduke Ferdinand and his encounter with the family. I was really shocked at the gaping holes and unexplained inside references to the novel when I saw the show and was surprised that no one ever mentioned them.

---

Updated On: 12/10/04 at 02:35 PM

I'm beginning to get really excited to get to the end of chapter 8... :)

---

I LOVE Ragtime. It is SO good! A friend of mine, who doesn't like it, calls it "Gagtime"! :|

And there 94 years to go!

---

I'm watching the Original Broadway Production of the musical right now. Apparently, the Little Boy's clairvoyance isn't explained until the epilogue because even he doesn't understand its origins. He can only answer with "I don't know" when Mother asks him why he's saying "warn the duke," "we'll know those people some day," etc.

Anyway, I had read the book once before seeing the musical -- and I still wasn't disappointed. I was impressed by how much they managed to incorporate into two acts. But I can understand why you and others would be disappointed... it's been almost thirty years since the novel was published, and quite a few interesting subplots still have never been fully presented in adaptations! I would like to see the Freud and Lavinia Thumb characters finally portrayed.

thank you soo much for everyone's feedback! I am really excited to read the book now and am SOOO excited to start rehearsals (which don't start until March.. ughhh..) but you have all been a great help!
:)
Kim

---

heyy what were you doing reading in church? hmm? HMM!

ok anyhoo

I finished the book like 2 days ago, it's def. one of my favorite books now

---