Shuffle Along previews- Page 23

[dramaturg2k16]

Posted: 4/3/16 at 11:55am

FutureDirector, thank you for your measured, thoughtful, and colorful critique. I especially agree that the show is a “ballsy” choice for Broadway, and it’s hard to think of a recent time a musical so delightfully abstruse has premiered on Broadway. Some theatregoers have complained of the “Wikipedia-like” exposition, but this to me seems more a sign that the modern Broadway audience is almost impossible to satisfy universally—not a mark against the show. I liked the degree to which the structure of the show places you in the time and events surrounding the original musical.

 

On this front, the narration is an excellent touch. There are a couple initial twinges of exposition, but these eventually subside, giving way to a feeling of complete engagement—both with the narrative, and with the show’s incredible significance to the history of theatre. The costumes are stunning, as some might have seen from photos in the New York Magazine piece by JJS (a must read: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/magazine/shuffle-along-and-the-painful-history-of-black-performance-in-america.html?_r=0). The outfits feel very true to the style and energy of the period, thanks to the iconic Ann Roth. 

 

I didn't feel the show ran too long as some others have warned.... I think the script must have been tightened somewhat during the hiatus. 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/3/16 at 12:15pm

I think the real reason it has to be shortened is so they do not go overtime every night. I think that was one of the reasons the current Les Miz revival was shortened.

 

I like the bit of choreography where the dancers had flashing lights on their head looking like mini marquees with the names of long lost theaters of that period. The 3 hours did not seem like it although the 2 nd act did drag a bit. It was very hard to top the first act. No one show can satisfy everyone - never did in the past and never will now or in the future.

The little rectangular box above the proscenium announcing the next number or scene (much like a vaudeville annunciator) was not on during Act 2. Not sure if it was not working or intentionally off for some artistic reason.


Updated On: 4/3/16 at 12:15 PM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 4/3/16 at 12:34pm

RogerMoore, Tonya isn't right for the role.

Replacing Audra is going to be near impossible as the part has so specifically been tailored to her. At the very least they're going to have to be flexible in lowering the keys of some of the more coloratura parts of the score. I can't even imagine the women covering Audra could sing that stuff the way she does.

Assuming changes to the score are in fact made, Anika Noni Rose was the only person I could think of in seeing the show who may be up to the role. She's the right age, has the requisite star power, and (most importantly) can play charismatic and vulnerable in equal measure. Given that she did CAROLINE, OR CHANGE with George Wolfe and A RAISIN IN THE SUN with Scott Rudin, I would think she'd be the primary contender.

Updated On: 4/3/16 at 12:34 PM

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 4/3/16 at 12:40pm

Heather Headley? Uzo Aduba? 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/3/16 at 12:42pm

Good luck replacing her. I cannot remember a highly anticipated musical coming in with the main star bowing out during the busy summer months  Why didn't they just wait until the fall to open it especially when it would have at least a good shot of winning Best Musical?.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 11:21am

Thanks for the information about the Josephine Baker character being cut. That character wasn't in it on March 26th either, so that must have been an earlier cut. Who was the actress that played her? I wasn't clear from the posts.

2:40 is down about 20 minutes from when I saw it as well.

To those of you who saw it this past weekend, does Brooks still have two songs in act 2? Because they felt unnecessary to me. The story is not about Brooks Ashmanskas.

Updated On: 4/4/16 at 11:21 AM

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 11:27am

neonlightsxo said: "To those of you who saw it this past weekend, does Brooks still have two songs in act 2? Because they felt unnecessary to me. The story is not about Brooks Ashmanskas."

 

Most of his stuff in Act 2 is either audience/critical commentary on the reception to the original Shuffle Along or are a device to confront Sissle/Blake & Co. with how faded their musical was becoming.  Which songs are you referring to?  

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 11:30am

When I was there, his two numbers were "The Buzz" sequence and "The Original Rag".

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 11:30am

There was no song list, so I couldn't tell you. But both of his numbers seemed to go on for too long. I'm well aware of the point they were trying to make, but if they're looking to trim, that's my recommendation. That's all I meant.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 11:44am

Brooks is absolutely wonderful in the first act. Toward the end of the second act, when he portrays the white gay critic Carl Van Vechten, who complained that Shuffle Along's blackface perpetuated minstrel stereotypes, his presence becomes eminently cuttable.

Here's an incredible video clip of 92-year-old Alberta Hunter and 100-year-old Eubie Blake reminiscing about the original production.

 

 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 11:48am

I agree completely, PJ.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 11:52am

"The Buzz" does go on for a very long time. I thought his second number was far more effective, actually.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 12:24pm

Brooks is absolutely wonderful in the first act. Toward the end of the second act, when he portrays the white gay critic Carl Van Vechten, who complained that Shuffle Along's blackface perpetuated minstrel stereotypes, his presence becomes eminently cuttable.

I would argue that the Van Vechten number is one of (if not THE) most important things in the entire show.

It contextualizes why the accomplishments of the original production of SHUFFLE ALONG were all but erased from history. It also encapsulates the conflict the original writers and performers faced- the very thing that defined their legacy as artists was used to further marginalize them.

Updated On: 4/4/16 at 12:24 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 12:31pm

It also presents an interesting critique of academics/critics and attempting to analyze past works through the lens of contemporary values. Shuffle Along is, by contemporary standards, a racist musical. But it was written and performed by black artists and was a highly influential accomplishment- Langston Hughes credits it as the opening shot of the Harlem Renaissance.

It's a very heady number, something I've never seen before in a musical, and, as you say, somethingwicked, an important number in the show.

The first act is the accomplishment, the joyful and thrilling creation of black writers, composers, performers, artists.

The second act sees that accomplishment copied, stolen, and ultimately denigrated and rejected.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 1:11pm

somethingwicked said: "Brooks is absolutely wonderful in the first act. Toward the end of the second act, when he portrays the white gay critic Carl Van Vechten, who complained that Shuffle Along's blackface perpetuated minstrel stereotypes, his presence becomes eminently cuttable.

I would argue that the Van Vechten number is one of (if not THE) most important things in the entire show.

It contextualizes why the accomplishments of the original production of SHUFFLE ALONG were all but erased from history. It also encapsulates the conflict the original writers and performers faced- the very thing that defined their legacy as artists was used to further marginalize them."

 

I understand its capital I-Importance but I thought it brought the show to a halt. Just my opinion.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 1:13pm

Wolfe will make the right decisions which some will agree with and some will not.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 1:20pm

 

I would rather those "contextualizations" come from another African-American critic rather than from a gay white man, especially since he is being played as a bitchy gay white man.

The politics and aesthetics at that late point in the show are too muddled to make sense.

 

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 1:21pm

Interesting how divisive that scene/number is. I thought, "Ah, yes, finally, here we go." I'm not sure what the show means without it. 

 

The Brooks number I would cut (has it been cut already?) is "Things Are Getting Dark on Old Broadway." It's interesting because it was an actual Follies number, but it seemed like fat to me. 

[Kad]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 1:23pm

That number still existed in the show as of Friday./p>

Updated On: 4/4/16 at 01:23 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 1:52pm

Maybe if that "Getting Dark" number were gone, I wouldn't mind the Van Vechten as much. But it does seem to be one too many times that Brooks comes out as yet another unidentified voice of gloom and doom, when all I want to do is connect with the growing disappointments of the five characters I have come to love.

 

[seaweedjstubbs]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 8:23pm

A friend of mine just posted a pic of her at the show tonight with the first (better) Playbill! Guess they switched back?

[hedwigbway]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 8:27pm

I'd be surprised if they switched back so soon (2 playbill changes before the show even opens!) but really hope that's the case! I'm seeing the show in May and that original playbill is beautiful!! 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 8:39pm

I was at the second preview... I still have ZERO interest in going back to this show even with the reported changes. Besides the choreography, I was vastly underwhelmed and disappointed in this show. I'm glad to read that people are enjoying this and getting more out of it than I did, though. I guess the show just didn't work for me personally (I was just not engaged).

[seaweedjstubbs]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 8:41pm

Yeah, it does seem strange to change them back so soon, but if you search the #ShuffleAlong hashtag on Instagram, there are multiple pictures from tonight of the original Playbill.

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/4/16 at 9:01pm

Now I want both Playbills! Seeing it tomorrow evening.