Shuffle Along previews- Page 6

[Tom-497]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 2:14am

I bought a ticket to this first preview because I figured I'd be seeing the show at least twice and didn't want to miss out on any songs that might be cut later on. However, now I'm not sure I will be back. In my view it was quite weak -- far worse than the above-mentioned first preview of Women on the Verge.

 

Shuffle Along is mostly just a highly episodic bunch of cliches and Wikipedia-like blurbs interspersed among songs that, fairly often, are interrupted by commentary from other characters or otherwise broken up. The closest Shuffle Along comes to a coherent, compelling storyline is the love-story between Eubie Blake (Brandon Victor Dixon) and Lottie Gee (Audra McDonald), and even that is the sort of thing that nearly everyone has seen many times before.

 

The original Shuffle Along's book, which involves two crooked shopkeepers who become crooked politicos, has been totally tossed out -- despite being far more coherent, much funnier, and less sentimental than the new book. 

 

Particularly annoying to me was the big speech by Brian Stokes Mitchell's character toward the end, where Wolfe engages in a maudlin attempt to get "inspirational" about the impact of the original Shuffle Along's comical, cynical story even though he's completely eradicated it -- like, take our word for it, it was a really moving thing to experience.

 

To end on a positive note, probably the highlight of the show for me was "Swing Along," which Mitchell's character begins a cappella, in a melancholy manner, but which grows more upbeat as Audra's character and the rest of the company join in. The audience also really liked Billy Porter's big number, which I think is called "Low Down Blues."

 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 2:26am

"This structure creates four lead characters out of Brian Stokes Mitchell and Billy Porter (the team that wrote the book) and Josh Henry and Brandon Victor Dixon (responsible for the lyrics and music respectively). Audra plays the leading lady, Lottie, who also has an affair with Eubie (Dixon)."

 

Thank you. I feel like just with this I already know so much more about what they're going for. I mean, all the artwork is great but I've been wondering what the story was going to be about. Just to clarify, even not knowing the original Shuffle Along, did any of the music seem like it was written for this show or was it all music from the original? Thank you!

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 2:29am

There are definitely a ton of new situational lyrics, which surprised me. 

Updated On: 3/16/16 at 02:29 AM

[FutureDirector]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 2:47am

I have to say that while it is not a perfect show yet, I am in the group that was incredibly impressed with tonights performance. I have immense respect for the creative team and producers for putting such a ballsy show on Broadway, especially the Scott Rudin Company which has been especially great about producing adventurous shows all season.  The show itself has some structural issues. Not as much so in act 1, that runs pretty well and is slightly more straight forward, though they may be able to trim 10 minutes out. Act 2 tends to be a lot more wondering and less strait forward in how it's scenes are set up. It isn't anything some focusing and trimming wouldn't clean up heavily though. I will say with the 3 hour 40 minute runtime tonight though, I wasn't really ever bored, which is an extremely rare occurrence in shows with half the runtime as this. It is so nice to see a season with so much challenging and engaging work. The score is great, and it's surprising that it's not one that we are at all familiar with today, and the show does a great job of making the songs fit moments really well. It does it better than any jukebox showI've ever seen. I never felt like the show turned into a concert of a review except for the entre'act where they can get away with it. Even with the amount of narriartion the show never talks down to you, it lets itself move fast and often doesn't lay it all out for you, it expects you to keep up, sometimes a little to much so which made a handful of moments a little confusing. For example in Billy's big solo, I missed something and couldn't figure out what he was singing about until after the song was over, so as great of a moment as it was I couldn't tell why it was there while it was going on, it was poorly set up and only felt justified after (but I couldn't tell you if that was the show's fault of mine for missing it in the scene before) There were times when the Narration reminded me a bit of the opening and closing of Ragtime, not at all in a bad way, but on the way out I joked that those moments left me wondering when Coalhouse and Sarah were gonna sing "Wheels of a Dream." The only moment of the show that felt poorly staged was the Josephine Baker sequence, which was rough. It was difficult to follow due to a ton of technical difficulties with sound and lighting which made it feel swallowed and I think of would have been really lost if I hadn't known her birth name going in because I completely missed them calling her by her stage name for the first time until the next scene with her in it. The production lets itself be highly theatrical in it's staging, especially with the introduction and switching of characters and the extremely meta-theatrical "this is a play" moments. It almost feels neo-brechtian sometimes with how aware the characters are of plot events that are going to happen in the future, which really worked for me. The directorl concept is extremely George Wolfe in its sense of style: The production is done as several different types of musicals as it progresses. It starts on a bare stage, then become a cheep community theatre production of sorts, with flats that look cheaply made and hastily thrown together, then it becomes a slightly nicer production with painted drops and highly representational scenic pieces reminiscent of the pre-war broadway musical comedy era when "Shuffle Along" premiered, then for the "All That Fallowed" section the productions becomes a sleek almost modern production with stylized symbolic scenery that is multi purposed. A really great stylized way of showing the progression of where they all are career wise. Throw in the saturated lighting from unique angles and it looks like a George Wolfe production, not that that's a bad thing. The choreography is of course unbelievable, and the production must have at least 2 and a half hours of choreography in it. Savion Glover is serious competition to Hamilton's Andy Blankenbuehler come Tony time. As amazing as it is however, some of the tap can go. Most of it is incredibly purposeful and some of the most organic tap I've ever seen (especially that train, damn!) but some of it was just there and can probably go away. The Cast is on fire. Audra is already so comfortable in the role. She has fantastic chemistry with all of her co-stars, lands every subtle laugh moment, sings beautifully as always, taps so gracefully that if I hadn't known she wasn't a tapper I never would have guessed. Billy Porter has more laugh out loud funny one liners than just about any other role in the musical theatre cannon all of which feel earned in the situation and make sense for the character as opposed to being pure comic relief, and of course sings his face off in act two. The whole cast does so well, those two just got lucky with the showiest roles. Joshua Henry is the most underused of the cast members I'd have to agree, though he does show in his act one staircase song he is clearly the best tapper of the leads. I think the most important thing to look at here is the fact that they have almost two months of previews (which is unheard off as something that is planned for by the production), and that includes a week of rehearsals, and they have a director and writer that is known to completely overhaul a show during this time to give it the work it needs. With that being said I am not at all worried about it getting the work it needs. Not they they are listening to me at all, but my advice to the creative team would be: -focus the show more in plot wise in act 2.
-the narration is fine for the most part but in act 2 gets a bit excessive they can show us some more of that stuff that right now they are telling us.
-The last 10 minutes don't need to be as preachy as they are. It beats us over the head a little to much as to why we see what we've seen and it doesn't need to be in our face so much. All and all though when this show is frozen it will be a lesson to all in how to make a jukebox musical that is bold, unique, challenging and engaging.

Updated On: 3/16/16 at 02:47 AM

[Keiichi2]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 3:21am

So, should I be worried that I will be seeing this in previews?  I know it's always a risk, but it sounds like this show is going to need to go through some massive cuts and changes in order to get into fighting shape for opening night.

 

Hopefully by the time I see it on April 4, it will be a lot tighter.  I know the show is dark the week before, so hopefully they will use that time wisely.

 

To quote Into the Woods, I'm "excited but scared" about this show after reading these reports.

[laughingplace]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 5:26am

Should I see American Psycho instead? It sounds like jack of all trade master of none

[laughingplace]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 5:26am

Should I see American Psycho instead? It sounds like jack of all trade master of none

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 5:46am

Thanks to all that took the time to write.

 

I will try to keep my hopes high for the next week until I go.  Between the length and the narration style, however, I'm wary. (The length, only because I have  a bus to catch!!)

 

As to the narration-bio, I really dislike this style. I find it very difficult to feel connected.  (The reason I failed to be enamored with Beautiful)

 

 

 

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 5:55am

laughingplace said: "Should I see American Psycho instead? It sounds like jack of all trade master of none"  

How about you wait until people start seeing that show?  

Updated On: 3/16/16 at 05:55 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 6:06am

Keiichi2 said: "So, should I be worried that I will be seeing this in previews?  I know it's always a risk, but it sounds like this show is going to need to go through some massive cuts and changes in order to get into fighting shape for opening night.

 

Hopefully by the time I see it on April 4, it will be a lot tighter.  I know the show is dark the week before, so hopefully they will use that time wisely.

 

To quote Into the Woods, I'm "excited but scared" about this show after reading these reports.

 

"

LOTS will change by then, as I'm sure will have by  the time I see it on the 26th of March.  

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 6:24am

3 1/2 hours is simply insane. 

[Smaxie]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 7:35am

It's not "insane".  As others here mentioned, like with most shows starting performances, you start with everything and then you cut.  

As it stands, it's a very big, very ambitious show dealing with the ephemeral nature of the theatre itself.  That there were these artists who had no opportunities or were denied them, so they made their own. That the original Shuffle Along could be considered so influential in how Broadway musicals look, sound and dance inspiring dozens of copycat shows, while the original show has been relegated to a footnote in most musical theatre volumes, never mentioned alongside the Show Boats or Oklahomas. Wolfe is providing necessary context, I feel, to support and protect the original show, and show why it all matters.  A word too about the ending: it is hauntingly quiet, and after watching an evening filled with astonishing talent, becomes a paean to the art of creating and performing itself.  

I'm definitely with ScaryWarhol and FutureDirector.  It will be interesting to see the show in a few weeks time, but even in its current unexpurgated state, it's pretty essential viewing.     

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 7:58am

I'm worried this may be a show that I admire for its parts more than I actually like. Curious to those that've seen it, do you think there's a lot of extra material because they're trying to give enough meaty stuff to justify casting these heavyweights? To avoid the "they didn't give Billy/Brian/etc enough to do" criticism? When they start cutting, whose material do you see getting cut?

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:11am

Smaxie said: "It's not "insane".  As others here mentioned, like with most shows starting performances, you start with everything and then you cut.  

As it stands, it's a very big, very ambitious show dealing with the ephemeral nature of the theatre itself.  That there were these artists who had no opportunities or were denied them, so they made their own. That the original Shuffle Along could be considered so influential in how Broadway musicals look, sound and dance inspiring dozens of copycat shows, while the original show has been relegated to a footnote in most musical theatre volumes, never mentioned alongside the Show Boats or Oklahomas. Wolfe is providing necessary context, I feel, to support and protect the original show, and show why it all matters.  A word too about the ending: it is hauntingly quiet, and after watching an evening filled with astonishing talent, becomes a paean to the art of creating and performing itself.  

I'm definitely with ScaryWarhol and FutureDirector.  It will be interesting to see the show in a few weeks time, but even in its current unexpurgated state, it's pretty essential viewing.     

 

"

Smaxie,  I appreciate your comments and believe you make a fair point.  Your points considered, this show should have come in under 3 1/2 hours.  The creatives behind this show are not first timers. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:11am

At this stage I definitely admired it more than I actually enjoyed it (on the whole); as Smaxie so eloquently points out, Shuffle Along has the best of intentions and is exposing an important and overlooked/unknown part of Broadway history to both theater aficionados and the general public alike. 

 

Where I think the show struggles most is by telling us how influential and important the original production was without showing us many examples to see for ourselves. What are the specific musical innovations that Shuffle Along brought to the art form and how did they affect Porgy and Bess or even Purlie. (Hell, you have Audra there- have perform a "Duet For One" type scene where she alternates between Bess and her character in Shuffle Along to show us the influence.) 

 

 

[Peter2]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:21am

Thank you so much for the interesting comments about the first preview. I would love to know what songs are done and by whom. Do you get all of them from the original show? Did they add others by Eubie Blake? (I would love to hear McDonald do "Memories of You," but that's just wishful dreaming on my part.)

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:32am

Audra does perform Memories of You as an 11 o'clock number. There are other Eubie Blake songs that augment the score and someone definitely provided some additional lyrics here and there. Judging by the Wikipedia song list for the original Shuffle Along it looks like most of the songs make some sort of appearance in this production with quite a few other Blake songs added to the mix.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:33am

A lot of the influence is covered. There's the section about the women's hoofing chorus as never having existed before. (And that the Shuffle girls were hired to teach Ziegfeld's showgirls how to dance). The whiff of operetta still was the norm before Shuffle's syncopated jazz score. The section about future opera composer William Grant Still, who played in Shuffle's pit, covers Gershwin using one of Still's riffs as the foundation for "I Got Rythym".  I also was moved by the section about "Love Will Find a Way" being the first love song between an African American man and woman on stage, where Audra performs the number as is, but also with a sense of nervousness about how the audience will respond, and while the creative team looks on, anticipating an audience riot. There's a lot more, but those elements jumped out at me. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:44am

I thought the love song scene was very well done too. Again though, they told us about the Ziegfeld stuff rather than showed it too us. Would have been great for the four creators to attend a Follies show only to realize he borrowed from/stole the dancing style from the Shuffle Along dance line. Let the black Shuffle chorus girls also play the white Ziegfeld girls like the way black actors played white characters in Passing Strange. I think that would be more theatrical and effective than just having the info narrated to us. 

[Smaxie]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:54am

My understanding is that 'white society' embraced the Shuffle cast and creators. The Shuffle dancers were hired to teach the Ziegfeld showgirls. It isn't so much that the work was stolen, so much as an example of willing cultural appropriation. 

Updated On: 3/16/16 at 08:54 AM

[myk]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:04am

Just to put it out there, this WAS the first preview. I believe I must have seen Jelly's Last Jam (one of the most theatrically stunning shows) in previews because I remember there was a second female romantic interest that was dropped so the focus was on the Tonya Pinkins character. George is known for needing to see the production up and running so he can prune and focus. Let's be constructive and supportive and not eat our own. I'm sure they know they have work to be done and will do their best to make that happen. That's why they're called PREVIEWS.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:16am

Yes, the did mention they were hired to teach the Ziegfeld girls, so maybe it was more appropriation than stealing, but they could have still attended the Follies show and been amazed by the influence they were having on other artists and shows. Even if it wasn't outright stealing did they take imitation to be the highest form of flattery or did they think the Ziegfeld hoofing was a watered down, whitewashed version of what they created? I still would have liked to see the Follies number rather than be told about it, and although we got to see some incredible hoofing from those incredible dancers, I would have loved to see more of the hoofing production numbers within the context of Shuffle Along. 

 

myk, I think everyone is being constructive and supportive in this thread. 

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:18am

Tuesday can't get here fast enough! I kind of hope not a lot is cut yet when I see it. Really wish I had been there last night. Even with the amount of time that was said will be shave off, it will still be a long show. But with that talent onstage, I am ok with that. I feel like it was a "should have been there" first preview.

 

If it is true that there will be no merchandise until opening, I will have to go back! I want tat window card and I never buy them. I buy the magnets. (You should see my refrigerator doors!)

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:35am

laughingplace said: "Should I see American Psycho instead? It sounds like jack of all trade master of none"

 

I mean, that's apples and oranges.

 

[Peter2]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:36am

Audra McDonald performing "Memories of You"! Thanks, WhizzerMarvin, you made my day! And in an interview she mentioned she also gets the great "I'm Craving for that Kind of Love," so I'll be happy no matter what the problems may be. (An additional funny up-tempo song for her like "Hit the Road" would put me in seventh heaven.)