TONI STONE previews

"For all the barriers she broke down, Toni Stone remains a relatively unknown figure in history."

So says Todd Haimes in his Playbill message.

Sadly, after 2 1/2 hours spent with her, Toni Stone still remains a relatively unknown figure in history.

I was really looking forward to this for a number of reasons. It's a new play so that's always exciting. I've loved baseball since I was a little kid and I love to learn about lesser-known historical figures who have done interesting things.

Lydia R. Diamond is not a great playwright, but long stretches of this commission by Roundabout, are like watching paint dry. I had to work really hard to focus. At times, I found my mind wandering and there were a large number of empty seats after intermission.

April Matthis plays Toni Stone, the first professional women's baseball player, who played for the Indianapolis Clowns in the Negro Leagues. I think she could be very good, but the material is so superficial and weak that it's hard to tell. As for the supporting cast, no one is given strong enough material to stand out so everyone sort of blends together. They're all one-dimensional character "types" and I feel bad for the cast because they have to be better than this.

The play seems more a snapshot of a time in her life, rather than the whole story of Toni Stone, so we never learn enough to become truly invested in her, aside from wanting her to succeed in the male-dominated sport. Add to that, that most of the piece is just told to the audience by Toni Stone. There is no fourth wall. After a while, it becomes alienating and distances us from the character.

Pam McKinnon is a hit-or-miss director for me. This time, it feels like she didn't show up at all. I hope, for the actors' sake, they get some direction during the preview period.

Interestingly, as you leave the theater, there is a poster that's easy to miss. It provides a sort of epilogue to the life of Toni Stone and you learn more about what happened to her from the poster than you do from the play you just watched.

I'm sad this is a misfire because, on paper, this should be a really interesting story. Now, we just need a different group of people to bring this story to the stage.

Updated On: 5/24/19 at 12:28 AM

Huge bore and total misfire. Cartoonish interpretations, boring documentary-style presentation, and a total waste of time. The theater was pretty empty to begin with, and got even emptier after intermission. Of course it got a standing ovation since it was mostly a "friends and family" audience. If you're thinking of leaving at intermission, trust me, do it. It does not get any better. The only thing of any action that happens in Act II is someone slaps someone else in the face. I couldn't wait to get out of there. Many people were asleep.

Updated On: 5/24/19 at 09:59 AM

JBroadway said: Not that the subject matter doesn’t have value, but something about it struck me as the kind of show that would have a lot of narration (which I hate), and nothing really of value to say that a quick read of Stone’s Wikipedia page couldn’t.

JBroadway, you actually get more from the Wikipedia page.

I give them credit for trying to not be one of those biographies that does one bullet point after another, but this is an unsalvageable mess.

Like you, I hate narration, but this was more like just talking to the audience. At one point, somebody even asked the audience a yes/no question to which we were supposed to respond as a group.

They couldn't even get the baseball caps right. They used the Indianapolis Clowns colors with the letter 'C' from the Cincinnati Reds. This was just lazy. I even looked it up when I got home because it bothered me. If you can't get the baseball caps right in a play about baseball, ya got a problem.

The set was just the baseball variation of the set they used for the tennis play from a few years ago called The Last Match.

The script needs a dramaturg, desperately. There are nine people in the cast, all African-Americans, who double and triple up their parts. It's interesting that the African-American actors play the Caucasian parts. I wonder what would happen if that were reversed. That's the silliness that happened when my mind wandered during the play. Several times I got lost who was playing what role.

And, "It is what it is" wasn't a big saying in 1953.

I have no idea why Uzo Aduba dropped out, but if I had to guess, it had to be clear that this was a disaster.

I do think this subject would make a great movie. Maybe Uzo Aduba could do that, instead.

I also was at the second preview and truly loved it.

Saw a preview this weekend and it's definitely clear they're using those previews to do work.

The lead actress is onstage the whole time with tons of short scenes - so, it's a LOT of material. And her dead pan humor can be fantastic. Some scenes land with terrific power or comedy and others are clearly rough and you can actors stumbling a bit on lines. So, it seems they're using these previews.

What works right now is charming, enlightening, and very entertaining. That said, definitely needs at least 10 cut from Act 2, and the ending of Act 1 needs a LOT of work. It's ambitious and provocative, but for a play that hasn't been using such a mix of tones and riding the edge of aggressive almost-satire, it's a big lift and instead lands on the crowd with a confused thud. I can't imagine they aren't working on it.