SCOTTSBORO BOYS closing December 12? — Page 6

My thoughts exactly, jv92. Sorry-grateful.

There is a lesson to be learned from SCOTTSBORO BOYS: Black history deserves something better than musical comedy cliches.

Why didn't PARADE, about injustice done to a Jew, resort to Yiddish theater mannerisms? Because Hal Prince and Jason Robert Brown wanted the story to be done with dramatic integrity. The creators of BOYS sold history down the river with dated, outmoded, staging and writing cliches posing as "irony." Unfortunately, the show's potential audience saw through it...and rejected it.

I can't speak for most 'AUDIENCES" and for that matter, neither can you. I can only speak for myself, I firmly stand by my comments. And for the record, 1970's-style/Walk Him Up the Stairs (Purlie) tambourines are quite a cliche.

"I can only speak for myself"

Orlandog, when you say you can speak for yourself, does that mean you've actually seen the show? Your arguments don't convince me you've actually seen it.

Nor have most who protest it.

In that case, I am shocked that you didn't find the minstrel show framing device effective. That is, however, your opinion.

Just out of curiosity, which bits did you find gimmicky and which bits did you find effective?

That's a fair opinion, orlandog. Let me share mine. I felt that the minstrel show is something that has been somewhat "forgotten" in today's society. It is a shameful tradition and is not one that people constantly refer to. Most of my non-theater friends have no idea that such a form ever existed and are horrified that it did. I think that in The Scottsboro Boys, the minstrel show puts the audience members back a century and makes them feel as if they're actually "enjoying" a minstrel show. As an audience member, you are forced to come to terms with the fact that you are being entertained by a degrading art form and figure out what that means to you. I think that it evokes stronger feelings and reactions, for me, as a minstrel show, than it would as a straight-play telling the story. The minstrel show further highlights the racism and stereotypes that made the injustice of the real Scottsboro Boys story possible by taking you to a time in which those stereotypes were considered entertaining. I confess that the first time I saw it, I wasn't exactly sure what to think after. Seeing it a second time helped me "get" it as much as I could and I found it even more powerful. I plan on going a few more times this week if I can just to soak up every last minute of a wonderful, powerful show.

So it seems this was a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont choice. No, I havent seen it yet -- I will on Tuesday -- but I think the choice of the minstrel show was inspired for its sheer audacity: an art form that was done specifically for the amusement of a predominately white audience. It's taking the irony of CABARET and CHICAGO and pushing it to a *really* uncomfortable level, and I applaud them pursuing the concept as much as they apparently did. But while we apparently love the "irony" concept in shows such as CABARET and CHICAGO, once it's applied to something as touchy as race, I gather it makes everyone *so* uncomfortable that we just dont want to deal with it. Instead of embracing the show for turning the stereotype on its head, we protest it... which, to me, suggests the protests that many churches ran against LIFE OF BRIAN when that film opened. None of them had actually *seen* it; they just didnt like someone *supposedly* making fun of what they saw as *their* turf. Then folks actually saw it, the protesters were left with egg on their faces, and life continued on.

So I'm gonna ask the question: is it the fact that this show was written by a couple of white guys that makes those against it so uncomfortable? Spike Lee, after all, trod the same ground with BAMBOOZLED in 2000 -- it wasnt a great film by any stretch, but neither did it have any protesters when it opened. So is it the fact that the creators of SCOTTSBORO are playing in turf where they werent invited?

---

Optimist2 -- I couldn't agree with you more. I loved the contrast of what the Minstrel Show brought. I thought it highlighted the absurdity of the times beautifully.

Even WHILE I would laugh, it was an uncomfortable laughter -- and one that almost embarrassed you to have -- which I suspect was thier intent.

---

Orlandog,

Can i just poke a few holes in the gimmick idea? In 1931 the most popular form of entertainment was the minstrel show. This show takes place in 1931. Gimmick or truth? In 1931 if this show were to be done, it more than likely would have been minstrelsy, otherwise IT would not have sold tickets.

Rosa Parks was an avid activist for the Scottsboro boys. She worked i believe for the advocacy groups that helped raise awareness to get the Scottsboro Boys funding. GImmick or Truth?

Minstrel shows did not have Spiderman type budgets. Often it was a bunch of poor performers traveling in a bus and truck type tour with rag-ma-tag props and sets. Minimal to say the least. I think tambourines fit into that category. I wont ask again...

So much misconception shrouds this show, the format, the actual case, and history. Im so sad the show didn't have more of a chance to educate. Oh ive talked to some folks associated with the show. People jump to their feet every night. They are just as confused about it not selling as i am.

Anyone find it a little weird that the protestors only protest the matinees (as far as I have heard/seen). If it was really that big a deal for them, wouldn't they try to go to all performances?

I was at the performance tonight and was deeply moved again. It was a wonderful house. It took several minutes before the crowd calmed down enough to let them make the BC/EFA speech. What an incredible show. I really hope it has some sort of life after Broadway.