Ring of Fire- Page 3

[Runner1B]

Posted: 2/12/06 at 2:36pm

My dear lady, thank you so much for welcoming me to the board. I'm looking forward to continuing to post. For the record, I work as reference librarian in a suburban Nassau County library.

I'm 49 years old, white, male and single. I was born in Mineola, NY and raised in Garden City, NY, so what you are getting from me is the suburban, "bridge and tunnel" viewpoint.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 2/12/06 at 3:14pm

Welcome
:)

and to quote THE WOMAN IN WHITE,

"i hope you'll like it here!"

:)

sorry, just trying to bring a little "cheer" into this thread if you know what i mean...
ill be quiet now.

[Runner1B]

Posted: 2/12/06 at 4:19pm

Thank you!

I'm starting to enjoy this board!

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 11:00am

I saw the show on Saturday 2/11 at 8pm. First of all, I had no exposure to Johnny Cash before seeing this show. I had read all the reviews of the first couple of previews and went in expecting the worst. Here are my thoughts.

The six leads were all excellent singers and I did find that every couple of songs I was either tapping my foot or hitting my hand on my leg to the beat of the song. Some of the tunes were catchy. The best song in the show was "I've Been Everywhere." It sounded familiar (I think I had seen it on a commercial) and the entire ensemble was on stage, each of them playing guitars. The song got faster and faster and each of them kept with the tempo and looked like they were having a lot of fun up there.

There was really no set. There was a small projected screen for scene changes and the band was on the stage. I enjoyed the lighting...pointless, but aesthetically pleasing.

No one was credited for the book in the playbill because there WAS NO BOOK. The entire show was just 29 Johnny Cash songs in a row with no dialogue in between and no storyline. The only story is that there are three couples and they sing Johnny Cash songs to each other and the ensemble joins in. I feel that the lack of book actually helped the show. If the creative team had tried to write a book around these songs, it would have been a disaster (like Good Vibrations and Lennon). It is definitely more of a musical review and should be marketed as such.

I was also very surprised to find that the show was mostly sold out (probably a lot of comps) and I did not notice too many people walking out during intermission. The audience was mostly people over 40.

The show was fine overall. Was it brilliant musical theater? No. Will it find an audience in NYC and become a hit? No. Was it absolutely horrific and completely unbearable to watch? No. I predict it will open as planned and will last a month or two. I would only recommend it to die hard Johnny Cash fans.

Any other questions on the show, just ask.
Updated On: 2/13/06 at 11:00 AM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 11:18am

That was a nice objective review.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 12:43pm

I'm seeing this show on Saturday (matinee). I am almost dreading it. (fortunately, tickets were only $35). I thought it might have a loose book (ala Mamma Mia)---but if there's no book at all----isn't that called a concert? Even a revue has "skits" at times.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 1:02pm

Maybe they should market the show as a Johnny Cash concert. Either way, it won't last. I also paid $35 (thanks tdf!) and I would have been crying if I had paid $101.25.

Good luck on Saturday, justafan22! I hope it's as painless for you as it was for me.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 3:51pm

Caught RABBIT HOLE last evening and was waiting for Ms. Nixon at the stage door when RING OF FIRE let out. Had the pleasure with speaking with a few people leaving the show --

quite a few of them, who AREN'T fans of Johnny Cash, absolutely loved the show and had a great time.


Needless to say - I was shocked.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 3:54pm

"Anyone that posts a false positive review of something terrible that makes you go and part with your hard earned moey is scum."

Anyone uses the opinions of others to decide whether or not to spend money on a show is just as bad. If I saw shows based strictly on popular opinion, I would have missed out on some of my personal favorites and I would more sorely regret some others I hated.

Based on my own experience working with a couple of major Broadway and West End production companies (which shall remain unnamed), many shills do not post "false positive" reviews. They are often people with little exposure to theatre who are sought out by marketing firms who talk up the show (and often offer comps). Others are directly tied to the production and are biased by their own personal interest in the show. Good shills are usually genuine in their opinions, they just do not have the same standards as most musical theatre enthusiasts. I have never shilled a show, but I was approached to be put on the Marketing payroll more than once in the mid-to-late 90s.

[badseed]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 4:03pm

This is not a concert. I have never been to a concert in which the performers don costumes and "act out" the storyline of each and every song they perform, like a series of mini-plays, as the actors in this show do.

I guess what I don't understand is the need some of you have for every new show to fit into a certain format, or definition, or mold. Does it really matter? For example, a handful of you seem quite dismayed by the absence of a book, as if no worthwhile theater could exist without dialogue. It's been quite awhile since I saw FOSSE, but as I recall, that show was nothing more than a compilation of some of Bob Fosse's most memorable work from different shows. In other words, there was no plot, no cohesive meaning or message, no character development, and no book. And yet it was an entertaining and successful piece of theater. Go figure. Those scenes/dance numbers all stand alone as little works of art....there's no questioning Fosse's brilliance and creativity, and the influence he had on dance and theater. Why can't a similar tribute to Johnny Cash work just as well? Each of his songs stands alone as an interesting piece of creativity as well. Even if country music isn't your cup of tea, there's no getting around the fact that this man is a legend, and it's easy to see why. The music in and of itself is quite moving (some songs more than others), but then you have these marvelous lyrics that so vividly tell the stories of love, and family, and hardship, and grief, etc...I felt the show didn't suffer by having each song treated as a separate story, with different characters in each. Frankly, these songs don't need a book to give them context or meaning.

I can appreciate that this show may not be for everyone. I'm just happy to see some constructive criticism being posted now, instead of simply stating that the show is "boring," or saying "theater available soon." No one reading this board could possibly decide if this show is something they might enjoy based on comments like that. I will say that I disagree with the comment that "only die hard Johnny Cash fans" would enjoy this. I am not a die hard Johnny Cash fan---far from it!! And yet I was moved by the emotion of his music as I watched this show, which is brought to life so passionately by this wonderful cast.

In short, unless you absolutely cringe at the thought of listening to 2+ hours of country music, you just may be surprised how much you enjoy yourself at RING OF FIRE.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 4:06pm

what was the run time?

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 4:23pm

2 hours and 20 minutes including an intermission.

[AugustusGloop]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 5:14pm

My problem with the show is that I felt it had no point. Not having a book and not having a point are two different things. A show can have a book, and still not have a point.

I didn't understand, from watching the show, why the show existed. If it was a true tribute to Johnny Cash, why not ackowledge him somehow, other than in the Playbill? Why the need to theatricalize his music? While FOSSE may not have had a plot or cohesive meaning, it's purpose was clear: to celebrate the work of Bob Fosse, someone who had a profound influence on American theatre. It was a scrapbook of his greatest contributions.

In the case of RING OF FIRE, each Johnny Cash song was turned into its own story, which is where I think the problem is. Because his music has such drastic variation, in this format there is nothing distinctive about it...no single style or notion that unifies the show somehow. It all just blends together into mediocrity. I really disliked how it resorted to gimmicks, such as in "I've Been Everwhere". What makes that a great song is the rhythm generated by the lyrics--without giving too much away, I felt the rhythm suffered at the hands of the gimmick.

I just felt that the show's concept was very unclear, and for me, that's a big problem. I realize that some people may enjoy it, and that's fine. But that doesn't make my opinion invalid. Nor should my opinion prevent people from taking a chance on it. I hope others can respect that.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 6:38pm

"This is not a concert. I have never been to a concert in which the performers don costumes and "act out" the storyline of each and every song they perform, like a series of mini-plays, as the actors in this show do."

There are many avant guarde concerts where the performers do just that. And often concert versions of musicals are performed with costumes and rudimentiary sets.
FOSSE as you mention was a collection of his song, "a musical revue" and billed as such.
RING OF FIRE is billed as a book musical(without a book) and is not one- that is a major issue for someone who pays to see a book musical.
I think the songs could have been effective were they given a story, wheather or not it was Cash's and framed together. A series of skits based on songs was all I saw and I could not become emotionally or intellectually involved.

AugustusGloop, I agree with most of those points. I wanted to see an actual celebration of Cash, it did not come together. They also did not show the darkness and intensity that make Cash so special. The "I've been everywhere" gimmick was horrible. I contemplated walking out.

All in all though, I did not hate this show, it had some very enjoyable performances and a few of the songs/skits were genuinely entertaining and quite good.

[QMAN03]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 8:54pm

Did you like Rabbit Hole?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 9:16pm

I have tickets for it in March, I hope it is still open then. I am going to see it because of Lari White. I grew up listening to her album "wishes" and want to see her live.

As far as the show goes, I applaud them for trying to do something different. Just like "In My Life" and Brooklyn." These may not be good shows, but maybe they are necessary mistakes on the way to someone else's future brilliance. Maybe.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 9:42pm

(Loved it, QMAN. But let's not threadjack...)

[QMAN03]

Posted: 2/13/06 at 10:09pm

Oh right. Sorry.

So...um...yeah...Ring of Fire.

[Runner1B]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 2:32pm

I'm prolonging an unpleasant discussion, but it appears that a "shill" is someone with unverified credentials who posts a positive opinion about a theatrical production? Also, the shill is someone whose tastes or sophistication or writing skills are not (yet) up to the level of a true theatre sophisticate?

I think you need more of these...

--Peter

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 2:57pm

Still waiting to see Runner1B -- who insists he's a frequent theatregoer not affiliated with Ring of Fire -- weigh in on even ONE other show or in ONE other thread. Funny how this "non-shill" seems to only care about trumpeting the "greatness" of Ring of Fire.

[badseed]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 4:02pm

AugustusGloop, of course your opinion is valid! It is also very well articulated. I see your point and agree that the purpose of FOSSE is very clear, and not so for RING OF FIRE. I can appreciate why that would be problematic for some people. I guess for me, that ultimately didn't interfere with my ability to get swept up in the emotions of this performance and enjoy the heck out of the show. I perceived it primarily as a tribute of sorts to Johnny Cash, a celebration of his music. I could personally relate to a lot of the life experiences and relationships that were portrayed on that stage, (no, not the prison folks!), and perhaps that's also why I was especially moved by the music and performances. There is perhaps no need to theatricalize Cash's music, but it was apparent to me that his music lends itself well to theatricalization. I thought this show was a creative and enjoyable presentation of Johnny Cash's music.

You seem much more familiar with the Cash repertoire than me! You mention the "drastic variation" in his music which, for you, caused the show to lack a distinctive and cohesive (musical) style. For me, the drastic variation was precisely what held my interest. I went to the theater expecting a similarity in Cash's songs, but it wasn't there....I enjoyed that. And I must confess, I enjoyed "I've Been Everywhere."

Smartpenguin, the reason I made the statement, "This is not a concert," was to clarify for people who have not yet seen this show that it's not a group of people standing on stage, singing one song after another. There's much more to the show than that. It is clearly more theatrical than concertlike. (And as you pointed out, some concerts are more theatrical than concertlike, too!) I thought the couple comments made about this show being a concert were misleading, that's all.

Also, what Maltby said was this: "It's a book musical without a book---a play made up of songs." (At least that's what I read in the Playbill article). I think he makes it very clear there is no book.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 4:10pm

He is clear that there is "no book" but he insits to the audience that what is there equals something ie. "a play" my main issue is that it just doesn't. Each song rises or falls of it's own esteem, and there seems to be little thought as to why or how these particular songs are pushed together.

I understand what you are saying about the "concert" comments, I agree it is not a concert. I would have been more entertained by a tribute concert to Jonny Cash.

Runner1B, if you are concerned about the "unpleasant discussion" why bring it back up? Most of us have discussed the merits and failings of this show with civility. There seemed little reason to interject the "shill" comments again. It only lends creedence to the argument against you. As does, as Margo pointed out, you apparent didinterest in posting on any other topic.

[Runner1B]

Posted: 2/14/06 at 10:13pm

Margo, remember I did say a few days ago that I had tickets to "The Pajama Game." I also would like to squeeze in Chita's show before it closes. I haven't said very much about other shows because this portion of the board is for "Ring of Fire." I would like to see "Ring of Fire" break the "I Love My Wife" curse at this theatre. "Wife" has held the Barrymore's house record for 27 years, at 864 performances. The show coming closest to overtaking wife was "The Tale of the Allergist's Wife."
Beth Fowler--could she take over the part played by Cass Morgan at some point, or is she too old? Has Cass Morgan returned to the "cast" yet?? I thought Beth was great in "Bells are Ringing."
Let's see--what else is on my mind on this week night? Did anyone see Claudette Colbert in that comedy she starred in at the Biltmore in 1981? Is it true that she was using a teleprompter built into the set?? That sounds a bit fantastic!
One more point--I've always thought that the "pecking order" for Broadway theatres among producers is a complete waste, especially for the smaller theatres. Most of the Broadway audience doesn't care what theatre they are seeing something in.
Does the average person care that they are in the Barrymore versus the Atkinson versus the Schoenfeld versus the Cort versus the Jacobs, Nederlander, etc.? --P.

[teresa2]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 11:51pm

after reading all the posts on here regarding ring of fire and how terrible people were saying it was, i was dreading going to see it. i saw it this past tuesday nite and it was a very enjoyable show (and no i am not a newbie nor a shill). no one walked out at intermission (as had been posted) and there was a good size crowd who seemed to enjoy the show also. it may not be the best thing to ever hit broadway but it is by far not the worst either and it doesn't deserve all the negativity that is being said about it on this board.

[nycdncr]

Posted: 2/17/06 at 7:11am

I went to Ring Of Fire with an open, yet skeptical mind. I grew up listening to the music of Cash. My grandfather was a big fan. I, too had heard the negative comments on the board about the show, so I was curiously skeptical.

In my opinion, this isn't a musical, it's not a play, it's not a review, it's not even a concert. It doesn't really appear to have a story, yet it has a story arc to it. If that makes any sense. It's a unique enigma. There were times I was content looking at my program and just listening to the AMAZING voices in the show.

The performers not only sing Cash's songs beautifully, they ALL play multiple instruments. My favorite moment of the show was seeing the cast around the perimeter of the stage playing identical guitars singing 'I've Been Everywhere'.

People need to go into this with an open mind, expecting nothing more than an enjoyable evening of music. Granted, this show isn't for everyone. If you don't like the music of Cash, don't go. If you like country music, I think you'll enjoy it. I had a great time.