Is the running time still around 1:45? I really want to rush their Sunday night performance, but would only do it if I would still be able to catch a 10:05 train out of Grand Central.
BroadwayGuy12: Right after curtain call as I was waiting to exit the mezzanine, I saw it was just about 10 p.m. Granted, the show did start a few minutes late, but you'd have to be a sprinter or something to make it to Grand Central for a 10:05 train.
I was there last night as well and thought it was friggin' fantastic. The staging is exquisite and the performances were amazing. I don't think I stopped gushing for like an hour after the show was over. I can't wait to go again!
I was a bit sad that they weren't selling the OCR in the lobby...I would have snapped one up in a second!
First of all I have to say that I have not seen the show since it was at the Vineyard. However, I know many people who saw it in Minneapolis as well as the Vineyard (the show transferred directly to NY after it's Minneapolis run without much rehearsal) and said it has not changed extensively.
I want to start by saying that I applaud the effort that was made to create this show, and I do think it is a wonderful concept, but ultimately I think it was poorly executed.
Let me break down exactly why I think this show doesn't work.
I believe the Scottsboro Boys, and more importantly Susan Stroman is attempting to do the following: use a offensive median of story telling to illustrate just how terrible and offensive that medium actually is. Here is why I fell like, off the bat, that is a bad idea: I always feel like if you are going to try and change an audience members perspective, you must first draw them into the world you have created, make them feel comfortable, and then hit them with the message. In other words, if you are attempting to create a piece with political weight you must keep your target audience members (those you wish to show a different point of view to) engaged long enough to actually be taken on a journey and end up in a different place. The stupidest, but most effective example of this I can think of to illustrate this is Avatar. Every right-wing, war-loving, republican that saw that movie was so engaged with the action, color, 3D spectacle of AVATAR, that by the time it turned into the most leftist, tree-hugging, anti-war film of the year, they were too engrossed to get up and walk out. I feel like the Scottsboro Boys did exactly the opposite. It alienated the audience that it was attempting to have "see the light" in the first few moments of the play. To be specific: this show is attempting to use the genre of a minstrel show to tell the story to the audience. The minstrel show was a degrading form of entertainment that white and black actors performed in blackface, making fun of black people, to entertain the white masses. In this production, black actors use the Minstrel show to make fun of white people in order to illustrate just how terrible the form was in the first place. Having said that, I honestly believe that the staunch republican who loved Avatar and can trace his family line back to his plantation owning relatives, would shut down almost immediately during this show; not allowing for any message to be fully delivered. I guess now I am wondering into the realm of what is art? Should art cater to only people with the same views as the creator? Does art need to hit it's audience in the face with a baseball bat repeatedly for 2 hours to get it's point across? I really hope you say no. And that is why i feel this show fails. The Scottsboro Boys is so obsessed with its agenda of showing the world how terrible white people used to treat blacks, that it ceases to be art.
I also feel like tap dancing electric chair numbers & songs called "Jew Money" are relying so much on shock value that it hides the fact that there really isn't much intellectually going on. The show sets up the audience in such a way that if someone is offended by what they are seeing, they could be considered a racist. It's almost a not-so-subtle form of blackmail. You have to think this is brilliant, or you are ignorant/stupid. And I feel like, unfortunately, that isn't how you make a successful piece of theatre.
Well. There you have it. My first entry on this site, and I decided to make it a BIG one. I hope no one is offended and this opens up a great dialogue.
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the argument you lay out. Stories that "spring" political messages come off as cheap and manipulative. In fact, Avatar was one of the worst movies I've ever sat all the way through for just that reason. The entire plot was an illustration of what Cameron wanted to say, hidden in a narrative that wasn't particularly compelling and had no drive from within the characters. He used his characters as puppets to say what he wanted without alienating people without letting them leave and breathe on their own, all so the audience could be 'comfortable'. I would pick Fern Gully over Avatar anyday; you got something to say, say it.
What Scottsboro did was brilliantly use Brechtian alienation. It was not the point of the piece to make you comfortable, and while some people will shut down in moments of discomfort, many others will become in a heightened state of awareness of what's going on around them and really take in their surroundings, letting the reality of the evening sink in instead of merely leaning back and enjoying the singin' and dancin'.
However, what I think you have also missed is that The Scottsboro Boys is not political theatre. I see no political message in the show at all, only very human themes about America's relationship with race. These include: *The fashionable nature of activism; attaching yourself to a cause that you can drop for the next one with the change of the seasons. *The dog eat dog instinct that has fueled much of the lingering racism in the south: poor white people pitted against poor black people. *The casual nature of minstrelsy that we still have, where the majority is only comfortable with the minorities in specific contexts, while putting on stock characters.
I don't think the show relies on shock value, as seeing it for the second time, I loved it even more and found more depth and layering to the brilliant work. It's not about "how terrible white people used to treat blacks", it's about the exact same crap that's happening in 2010, which is not a white thing or a black thing, or a Southern thing or a Northern thing. America is still grappling with its original sin (not that racism is a strictly American problem--ask a Muslim in France) and learning how to cope with our tortured history of continual oppression and segregation and ignorance.
"The Scottsboro Boys" is not a white guilt vehicle, and to see it that way misses so much of what the show is about. White guilt is not going to help anyone, and is exactly what is being derided in "Not The Way We Do Things In New York". These characters are human, emotional, and actually 3-dimensional unlike our blue friends in "Avatar". If you open yourself up to the story that's being told, without just squirming at the discomfort in watching a real part of American history, I think the show would unfold at a new level.
(Please note: the 'you' throughout is a general 'you' not a direct appeal)
I just got back from the matinee. I won tickets so it was free. I was not a fan. I have always been very interested in this story, but this show just didn't do it for me. It didn't keep me interested. I feel like it was the same thing the whole intermissionless hours.
I saw the matinee today and I thought it was brilliant. I didn't see the Off-B'way production (I couldn't get a ticket) and I can't wait to make a return visit. I thought the play on minstrel themes and structure was innovative and compelling. The music is tuneful and, at times, quite beautiful. The performances were outstanding and I loved the directorial choices. It was part minstrel show, part musical, and very Kander and Ebb. It may not be everybody's cup of tea, but if you are at all curious, I urge you to get a ticket. I just hope that Scottsboro can find an audience to sustain a commercial run.
Anyone on the board who has bitched about never seeing anyone try anything new. It's all jukebook musicals and movie adaptions should see this show. It deserves to be seen by the people on this board. No one can say they did this for a quick buck. This is a labor of love and it shows. I loved it at the Vineyard and I find the new leading man Joshua Henry gives the show a darkness and weight it didn't have before. Just wait till you hear him sing the word "nothing". I found the "needing honey" story more moving. James Lane as the new Ruby/Ozzie doesn't quite have Ruby down yet BUT when he does the " they have no intention of giving us a trial" speech , it's chilling.The new Eugene of Jeremy Gumps has the advantage of reading and sounding much younger then Cody Ryan Wise did at the Vineyard but he's not quite there yet acting wise. I love this show and saw both Thursdays first preview and Sat night and it's getting tweaks and changes and getting even better.Gumps was already better and more relaxed as Eugene tonight. And his electric chair tap is one of the highlights of the show.Take a chance on this show and I think you'll find , at worst , you'll enjoy the songs and their staging. I think the song " Go Back , Home" is worth the price of admission.
I don't get how people can not be impressed with the staging, the cast and the score. The show itself is off-putting, yes, but the quality of the production is just remarkable.
For those asking about the balcony, do NOT sit in the front row. Much of the stage is obstructed by a bar, and it was incredibly frustrating trying to see around that. I assume the view from the rest of the balcony is fine. Despite my viewing issues, I enjoyed and was moved by the show.
The stories of CABARET & CHICAGO are also off putting, but they both have off-kilter stories that told through the musical format that are arresting, as is SCOTTSBORO BOYS. I loved this musical, I thought it was original and beautifully staged. The leading man, Joshua Henry, was just terrific, as were all nine "BOYS. That Susan Stroman found nine men who could sing, act, dance just goes to show that NYC has an amazing pool of star actors. John Collum, always classy and with a voice made for telling stories, gave the interlocutor role real gravitas. When Rodney Hicks started singing "Commencing in Chattanooga", the tone and story of the show really kicked in, after being somewhat distanced by the first two numbers "Minstrel March" and "Hey Hey Hey Hey", the show finally turned the corner from presentational, for me, to being able to identify with this very difficult story. People were arguing with Barry Weissler about the black face in the show after the curtain, but it was so great to actually have a show where people responded strongly. In that way, SCOTTSBORO BOYS resounded with me as RAGTIME did. These stories of race and conflict are communicated though musicals in a way that no other media can - wonderful and provocative. Go see it!
.gif?width=300)
