Posted: 10/28/21 at 4:51pm
Posted: 10/28/21 at 6:19pm
Posted: 10/28/21 at 10:03pm
it is simply HI-larious to see Sutton Rose get all pissed off because people are (wrongly) making assumptions about their identity, background, gender etc. Its just too delicious.
Bway Baby, if you didnt mean to sound the way you came off, listen for a minute: complaining about "too many of THIS kind of show" is tone-deaf and insensitive, but also kinda silly: if there were seven shows on Bway about white Christian men (as there usually are...) and all seven were excellent, engaging productions, would you complain? If Troubled in Mind is awesome, who cares if its in a similar vein to other productions? And if its great, but the "Other Shows" youre griping about are bad, then the issue is with bad shows, not shows about any given topic. Just feels off to declare too many shows about any one thing to be "too much" so long as those shows have been well-received and enjoyed by audiences.
Posted: 10/28/21 at 11:59pm
Actually--I agree with what you just wrote. Personally, I might not want to see several shows relating to one particular theme- but many people do. I like variety- mostly drama and serious fare- that examines human relationships and a variety of cultures- and also classic musicals- from Oklahoma to Mame- but of course, there is a very thorough examination of race and racism in America now, and if that is reflected in a lot of theatrical works- and it is widely supported- that is good.I might now want to see every one- but if many people do- fine by me.
Updated On: 10/29/21 at 11:59 PM
Posted: 10/29/21 at 10:52am
I do worry about so many shows about the (for lack of a better phrase) black experience cannibalizing each other's grosses by all coming out at once. Are there any coming down the pike for spring or next summer, when they could've had time to breathe? And so that "this moment" lasts more than just this moment!
But I also wonder why we haven't heard of any incoming shows that cover Latin or Asian stories? I mean aside from the Bollywood musical coming next season. I love to see more and more diversity on Broadway, but sometimes I think it forgets that diversity is literally and figuratively more than black or white.
Posted: 10/29/21 at 11:36am
I will be there tonight thanks to the $19.57 offer!
Posted: 10/29/21 at 10:41pm
Just got out of the 1st preview. I thought it was quite good. A really solid piece of writing, with a lot of smart satire and serious statements. I laughed a lot throughout the evening! A tad heavy-handed by today’s standards, but it was written in 1955. And as Todd Haimes explained in a pre-show speech, the play notably never made it to Broadway because Childress refused to “tone down the message.” With that important context, and with strong comedic sensibilities, the moments that might seem “heavy-handed” totally work anyway.
I think it needs a bit of tightening up, but I feel confident that it’ll be felt out through previews. There were some punchlines where they still hadn’t quite figured out how to play it, and some cues that were a little slack. But they’ll definitely get there.
The ensemble is pretty strong, led by an effective performance from LaChanze. The supporting standouts for me were Jessica Frances Duke, and Chuck Cooper. Depending on how the season shakes out, I could imagine Cooper winning a 2nd Tony for this. He’s quite funny, and gets a big dramatic moment in act 2. Michael Zegen (of Mrs Maisel fame) does a good job with the main “antagonist” figure - a big role that got the penultimate bow at curtain call. But he seemed slightly miscast to me, and had trouble with diction.
As for other Tony chances: I think it would be a good contender for Revival and Costume nominations - if not wins. But it’s still early in the season. It’s not necessarily a production that re-invents the wheel, but it’s solid (or will be by the time it opens, I’m sure) and it’s aided by the context surrounding it. I don’t mean that in a punitive way at all: part of putting on a great revival is know what material needs reviving, and when.
The show got out at 10:15 - somewhat later than the listed runtime. There was an intermission.
Lots of empty seats in the mezzanine, which was surprising and unfortunate for a 1st preview.
Overall, an enjoyable evening, and an important slice of theatre history.
Updated On: 10/29/21 at 10:41 PM
Posted: 10/29/21 at 10:58pm
Posted: 10/29/21 at 10:59pm
Thank you for your detailed review JBroadway!
First previews usually go overlong anyway. I'm sure Randolph-Wright will tighten up the production in the coming days to go down to that 1:45 runtime.
Posted: 10/30/21 at 10:53am
Posted: 10/30/21 at 11:13am
Posted: 10/30/21 at 7:11pm
appreciate this review, JBroadway. Got a free ticket for tomorrow and going to grab it even though I'm also seeing the Visitor tomorrow night. Looking fwd.
Posted: 10/31/21 at 10:04pm
I saw the fourth preview, and i think this show is in pretty good shape. i have two lines of thought: the first is the production, which moves well, and overcomes some dragging dialogue nicely. its a simple single set that is utilized well, and i'd say its directed pretty simply and effectively.
LaChanze is fantastic, though I thought her character wasn't as Leading as this production wants it to be. Its the central role, don't get me wrong, but I think she's meant to be one of varying voices, and this production oversells it as her show, if that makes sense? Chuck Cooper is also doing simply brilliant work, alternating between funny and silly and then landing a devastating blow in Act 2. (FYI, both Cooper and especially LaChanze get the chance to sing, and the choir said AMEN).
I also enjoyed Brandon Michael Hall's Broadway debut, and hope he returns. It pains me to say this because I am a fan, but I thought Michael Zegen has been totally miscast here. He's been directed to be smarmy, which he does well, but the character calls for someone older? Sharper? He's wearing a ridiculous moustache that reminded me of a young boy pretending to be an older man.
My other line of thought is about the play itself. I am THRILLED to see this on Broadway (or at all) because I know nothing of Alice Childress, and I should. That this play works as well as it does in 2021 is simply astounding--both a commentary on our societal ills and Childress' incredible abilities. Its an engaging work, and I wasn't bored for a minute. What is irking me, I think, is the story behind the work: Todd Haimes introduced the show by explaining that Childress wrote this show, it was a big hit off broadway, but Broadway producers wanted her to "tone down" the subject a bit, and she refused, and so the play has been shelved for the past 70 yrs. So first of all, I am just curious what they wanted to tone down-- the very subject matter of the play strikes me as controversial for 1955, so was it certain language? And if it was one or two certain heavy-handed lines, I hate myself for thinking maybe those big bad Broadway producers were right in thinking they could improve the play... But MORE interesting to me is that if Childress was outraged at the notion of someone else telling her what she should or should not be saying, then how can we overlook the irony of the main character here trying to do that very thing? Been talking about this back/forth all afternoon, so mark that down as a Win for this production right there, but there seems to be at least some irony in Childress refusing to change her play (and good for her!)....a play about an actress who (very understandably) seeks to make changes to her play....
that little rant aside, this is fine work from Roundabout, and includes some beautiful performances. Its funny and sadly topical. Don't miss it.
Posted: 11/1/21 at 12:08am
JDonaghy4 said: "What is irking me, I think, is the story behind the work: Todd Haimes introduced the show by explaining that Childress wrote this show, it was a big hit off broadway, but Broadway producers wanted her to "tone down" the subject a bit, and she refused, and so the play has been shelved for the past 70 yrs. So first of all, I am just curious what they wanted to tone down-- the very subject matter of the play strikes me as controversial for 1955, so was it certain language? And if it was one or two certain heavy-handed lines, I hate myself for thinking maybe those big bad Broadway producers were right in thinking they could improve the play... But MORE interesting to me is that if Childress was outraged at the notion of someone else telling her what she should or should not be saying, then how can we overlook the irony of the main character here trying to do that very thing? Been talking about this back/forth all afternoon, so mark that down as a Win for this production right there, but there seems to be at least some irony in Childress refusing to change her play (and good for her!)....a play about an actress who (very understandably) seeks to make changes toherplay....
that little rant aside, this is fine work from Roundabout, and includes some beautiful performances. Its funny and sadly topical. Don't miss it."
The Washington Post article from a few days ago, which is a very good read, details the change the producers wanted--a happy ending.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/10/30/debut-trouble-mind-reveals-progress-enduring-racism-broadway/
"After casting the play and rehearsing for weeks, the producers of the 1955 production threatened to cancel the show if Childress did not provide a happy ending. The original and published version of the play ends with Mayer and Manners in a standoff that threatens to doom the show. Mayer refuses to play the part as written and Manners, frustrated, ends rehearsal early and sends the cast home. Childress acceded to the demand, and revised the script to conclude with a reconciliation between the characters. The off-Broadway production changed Mayer’s act of self-determination to one of reconciliation.
The production of “Trouble in Mind” opened on Nov. 4, 1955, at the Greenwich Mews Theatre, located in the basement of the Village Presbyterian Church. With Clarice Taylor, Childress directed the play, which ran for 91 performances. Although it received rave reviews and garnered interest from Broadway producer Edward Eliscu, Childress felt regret.
She recalled in an interview with theater historian James Hatch, “They had me rewrite for two years until I couldn’t recognize the play one way or the other. … Then after one person dropped it, I think another person dropped it and then it just sat there and I felt like I didn’t want to do it anymore.”
Childress reinstated the original ending to help restore her vision — but at the cost of reaching Broadway. The play was abandoned as a poor commercial risk."
Updated On: 11/1/21 at 12:08 AM
Posted: 11/1/21 at 12:17am
thank you so much for providing this context. from Todd Haimes' talk, I thought it was more about toning down the overt racism in theater/society-- which would mean erasing the content of a show that did so well off bway-- or taking out the direct accusation against the director (which did not ring true to me...). Forcing a happy reconciliation ending would ruin this piece. Again, thanks for context.
Posted: 11/1/21 at 4:24am
JDonaghy4 said: "(FYI, both Cooper and especially LaChanze get the chance to sing, and the choir said AMEN)."
Interest piqued
Updated On: 11/1/21 at 04:24 AM
Posted: 11/1/21 at 3:41pm
I am seeing this play this weekend, along with Caroline, Or Change. Really looking forward to it.
Posted: 11/3/21 at 10:48pm
Posted: 11/3/21 at 10:48pm
Posted: 11/3/21 at 10:56pm
I have tickets for this Friday from TDF. For those who got tickets via TDF where were you seated?
Posted: 11/4/21 at 10:09am
What’s the runtime looking like? Trying to see if I have time to get to another show in this week.
Posted: 11/4/21 at 10:25am
Been thinking about this all morning. It really resonated with me - everything from the casting to the simple yet extremely effective direction/costume design/set was such a narrative of fresh air to see on the same stage that’s sort of become synonymous with a revolving door of early 20th century “drawing room” shows.
LaChanze is honestly as good or better than I’ve ever seen her and this show lets us see a completely new side to her, which is what a great comedic actress she is. Don’t get me wrong, the character has her dramatic moments in act two but man-oh-man, is she FUNNY.
Another cast member who needs to be singled out is Jessica Frances Dukes. Making her Broadway debut here, I sort of demand she becomes a regular on Broadway. Her character reminds me of (in the best possible way) Jennifer Lewis and again, is showing what a talented comedic actress she is, down to tiny little side-eyes that require close seating to fully take it in.
Chuck Cooper. Man, Chuck. Cooper. Seeing this man’s name in any casting announcement is enough on it’s own to make me take out my credit card and click “buy”. If I could change one thing in this show, it would be to add about 20-30 minutes of him singing, but we can’t have everything we want.
I still can’t believe this play was written almost 70 years ago. It must have been fascinating having that mirror held up to an audiences face back then, when they were still in the thick of the themes this story tells and of the play-within-the-play. I’m going to take some time later today and try to find original reviews/articles from the show. The show is going to be playing in London later this month and I hadn’t planned on including that production into my trip, but now I feel like I have to, to see how they do it.
I just can’t recommend this one enough. And for those asking, the show ran exactly 2 hours 15 minutes.
Updated On: 11/4/21 at 10:25 AM
Posted: 11/4/21 at 10:36am
Posted: 11/4/21 at 10:39am
Posted: 11/4/21 at 11:01am
