THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS Reviews — Page 3

Clearly Isherwood is uncomfortable with being made to feel uncomfortable. There's a sort of lingering squeamishness that indicates he would rather have a straight, serious play that never flirts with its subject matter, or a neutered spectacle like Memphis (as Roscoe pointed out). Disappointing. I maintain the show is absolutely brilliant.

I am shocked that the reviewers aren't kneeling down and totally servicing this show! It certainly seems like many don't grasp the concept.

For me, the music, and the minstrel show concept, was to constantly remind us of how utterly ridiculous these young men (and so many like them) were treated: socially, politically, etc. It never wants us to forget the absurdity of mankind, of AMericans, in our history.

While a straight play might be 'interesting' it would be void of much of the emotion and the judgement.

---

"A friend who likes SCOTTSBORO BOYS said that evidently folks are more comfortable having Broadway confront racism via things like MEMPHIS."

What, do you mean that racism didn't end in the sixties and all the bad racists learned the error of their ways during a big ensemble finale?

---

Thanks for the reminder about the negative reviews MEMPHIS got. It only tends to emphasize the weirdness of the lukewarm response that SCOTTSBORO BOYS has gotten.

Of course, if the show had originated at the Menier Chocolate Factory the critical response would have been very different indeed.

---

I think that BBAJ got better reviews because it had a message that people can really get behind. It did what theatre does best, it skewers conservative politics and shows us how little has changed in that world (a bit of a generalization, but I bet you get where I am coming from). On the other hand you have the Scottsboro Boys which presented the facts of the story in a very in your face way that makes people uncomfortable i.e. the Minstrel show. And the thing that I just don’t understand is did the reviewers just not get it? It was presented in this fashion because it is an accurate representation of what theatre was in the 30’s in America. They even say that three of them went into Vaudville after the whole thing. When I read the reviews I couldn't help think of the critical reception the NYT had to Nine to Five where Brantley basically blasted the show for being fluff and fun, and when presented with a piece that actually makes you think the reviewers run for the hills. Typical right? I don’t know if that makes any sense, but the short of it is, I am very disappointed in the reception of this show that easily ranks as brilliant Cabaret or Chicago.

^ BBAJ got raves almost exclusively. Scottsboro Boys got a bunch of mixed reviews.

Not an exact science, but with 22 reviews, Stage Grade rates the Scottsboro with 10 A's, 5 B's, 3 C's and one F for an average of B+. With 26 reviews, They rate Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson with 11 A's, 6 B's, 3 C's, 2 D's and 4 F's for an average review of B.

Scotsboro: http://www.stagegrade.com/productions/495#
Bloody Bloody: http://www.stagegrade.com/productions/614#http://www.stagegrade.com/productions/614#

---

Updated On: 11/3/10 at 11:11 PM

The problem is you won't succeed on Broadway if you haven't any Jews!

Can't wait to see it.

I'm also completely perplexed why Brantley didn't re-review the show. Was there a scheduling problem? Don't they always try to have the same person who reviewed the show off-Broadway review the show when it comes to Broadway? Maybe this is a new trend.

Regardless, I was also surprised how Isherwood's review took a turn at the end. (And that he blasted BBAJ a little.) I think the show, especially the concept and staging, is amazing. I hope it does well, it's got so much going for it. I just wonder if it will find an audience on Broadway. Times are tough out there for a smart and audience-challenging musical these days.

Oh, Wayman Wong, puh-reeze.