SOFT POWER still aiming for Broadway

Thanks for that! Here's the podcast: https://liveatthelortel.com/interviews/david-henry-hwang

I also saw the show in SF and NY and felt that nearly everything I did't like in SF was fixed in NY. (I saw it fairly early in the run, but I don't think it was in previews.)

I love almost everyone involved and very much want more AAPI-led shows, but I don't think I've ever spent more of a show cringing than I did seeing this at the public. And it felt dated and insufficient in its political content at the time.

I don't know what changes were made by the time the show got to New York, but boy did I hate that show when I saw it in San Francisco. I liked most of the cast, especially Francis Jue, and the concept was intriguing. It was the "soft power" aspect of the show that was far more interesting than the clumsy, self-satisfied Hillary stuff.

I guess Hwang can keep trying to rewrite it, but he already got nominated for a Pulitzer, and I can't imagine how the show - unless completely reimagined - would work even off-Broadway at this point. It felt dated even when it was a brand new show.

After SF, I think it helped that we were a little further away from the election. In SF it was in that uncanny valley where the election had just happened and jokes weren't offensive but the event wasn't far enough away that you could always laugh. (A friend of mine who hadn't seen it before was at the first preview in NY and thought it was still too soon, though.) I'd surprised Hwang would want to set it more in current day. Now that the administration is different I imagine the 2016 election would feel even further away, in a good way.

After SF, what stood out to me most was Good Guy With a Gun — it struck me as less like a weird SNL sketch and got way more chilling.

But yeah, I don't know what a more Broadwayish audience would think of the show as a whole.

Count me in the camp that really wanted to love it but very much didn't.

Felt like a overplayed sketch, where I didn't care about anyone and the writers felt they were more clever than their characters. For instance, what's the point of the Act 2 ballad between him and Hillary if it's all an implausible joke? Fine, let it be an SNL satirical pretend trailer, but don't make me sit through an entire unfunny joke ballad. Had they made you believe their alternate reality and care about it, much like the R&H shows they're exhaustively spoofing? That would've been impressive. But they want to make sure you get their point and how clever they are for making it. Again, and again.

@BJR Regarding the love ballad: Completely disagree. Not only do I think it’s one the most beautiful numbers in the show, I also disagree about it being inconsistent with the device. I’d say about half the songs in the show are satirical, with the other half being played sincerely, with some being a slight mix of both. Those sincere songs are what give the show its depth IMO, and on top of that, they’re also essential to the reverse K&I concept. It’s not that Hwang is just sh*tting on K&I - he’s examining and re-appropriating its form, or “delivery system” as he calls it. The point is that King and I is a gorgeous show that sweeps the audience away with grand emotion, and he’s asking the question: what if you have a show that does the same thing, but with the opposite premise? I guess I can see the argument that the goofy satire of America doesn’t mesh well with the sincere examination of the “delivery system,” but I would argue that the latter is somewhat more central to the show, and the sincere songs, including the love ballad in act 2, are absolutely fundamental to that.



@Kad - I agree with your sentiment, but I would’ve solved it the opposite way. I tend to think that Hwang putting himself in the show was a mistake to begin with. It should’ve been Xu Xing’s show through and through, and that might’ve helped raise the stakes for his journey. Though I disagree that Xu Xing wasn’t an investable character. I found him to be the emotional core of the show in a lot of ways.



@ErmengardeStopSniveling - Regarding LCT putting this on: I think it’s a fascinating idea. I actually think LCT might really be into it. It would be a great opportunity for them to demonstrate their willingness to be more socially conscious, which is very “in” right now, in this age of public accountability. Imagine all they could do with these 2 properties in contrast: all the talkbacks, retrospectives, dramaturgical program notes, etc. They could even do screenings of their version of K&I followed by a panel discussion, before certain evening shows. And it’s not like Hwang vilifies LCT in the show. It’s just some very mild criticism, and even that’s mostly indirect / by association. LCT could definitely take it. It doesn’t sound like that’s the direction the show is going in, but it would be very interesting.

@JBroadway I had no issue with the content not meshing with the "delivery system." My issue was they seemed more interested in the delivery system AND satire than being as successful at moving us as R&H ever were.

The number I mentioned is an extended, joke with a lovely melody. I don't understand or care about their love affair. No one even mentions she has a famous and powerful husband, but they aren't getting into any of that because none of this is real, so who cares about that and literally, who cares?

R&H used KING AND I as a "delivery system" too. And you could argue, as SOFT POWER does, that is has a pro-Western, anti-Eastern message delivered by that system. But the show is still effective and moves you. They could have done the same and I felt it was a missed opportunity to use so much real estate on repetitive extended jokes. Reminds me of Sondheim criticizing his own work on ANYONE CAN WHISTLE, saying it sound like the authors think they're the cleverest in the room. But more accurately, Kander & Ebb were masters are the content vs "system": you get a system clearly defined, and you understand and care about every character presented in it.