Posted: 6/27/15 at 3:25pm
I don't know much about it and have listened to only a few songs, yet I'm absolutely enchanted by the Original Production's opening number. What are your thoughts on the production ? It looks like such a profound piece of theatre.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 3:35pm
Search Function should answer your question.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 3:52pm
It was the first Broadway production I had seen and it was definitely overwhelming because everything was so large.
Looking back at it now, I can see why some may have been left cold by it because it was such a massive and constructed effort but I loved it very much and still do.
That score is absolutely wonderful! It has a few weak spots but for the most part, I would consider it of the best scores of the past 30 years.
What a cast, too! I can still vividly remember Audra McDonald's Your Daddy's Son, which was so emotionally intense and then that was my primary discovery of Brian Stokes Mitchell as a singer since due to my young age, I only knew him as Trevor from Fresh Prince.
I had seen a couple of shows at that theatre over the years, more recently On The Town and it was the first time I had been in there in years. It felt good to be back there.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 3:52pm
There are going to be lots of good folks in this thread who will say the production was overblown, unnecessarily large.
I'm not one of them. That original production remains one of the top 3 productions of anything I've ever seen. From the brilliant performances, to the staging, to the pageantry. Simply magnificent.
I enjoyed the revival a great deal as well, but most of the performances (with the exceptions of Noll and Steggert), didn't compare.
Updated On: 6/27/15 at 03:52 PM
Posted: 6/27/15 at 4:00pm
You were so enchanted that you made time to start a thread before listening to the rest of the album. Okay. Profound. Sure.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 4:05pm
Looking at pictures, it doesn't look that massive but of course I didn't see the original so I don't know. Audra's song and the opening are what really attracted me to find out more about this show. I also happen to be a fan of Lynn Ahrens, and Stephen Flaherty. I always end up loving their music. Thanks Aj88 and Adam for your thoughts on it!
Posted: 6/27/15 at 4:06pm
A good way to find out more about the show would be to listen to the rest of it.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 4:15pm
That opening number was indeed wonderful, as were a number of other songs. And of course there were multiple career-making performances. The show's shortcomings were in the cardboard characters McNally provided and a series of big anthems in the second act that caused a lot of people to get tired.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 4:21pm
big anthems in the second act that caused a lot of people to get tire
^ How funny. I'm noticing the same thing as I listen to the show right now. But even so, no wonder the score took home the Tony. It's very rich.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 6:00pm
I saw the LA production, which was revised somewhat before it opened on Broadway, but I agree that the opening number was enormous and magnificent!
I think the plethora of anthems in Act II is a mistaken attempt to compete with the anthemic second half of Act I. But nothing competes with "Wheels of a Dream" and "Till We Reach that Day"--and that's the problem with the second act: it never really competes with that brilliant first act.
I know a lot of posters here love "We Can Never Go Back to Before", but no matter how well crafted, it's still a song telling us what we already know, what we have in fact been seeing for 90 minutes. The review of that which we still remember can never compete with the Act I anthems that look FORWARD rather than BACKWARD.
And that is but one example.
"What a Game!" is a wonderful way to start Act II and, for me, "He Wanted to Say..." is dramatic musicalization at its best. But none of that changes the fact that, dramatically, we are basically waiting to see what Colehouse will do to avenge the death of Sarah. The rest is filler. Interesting filler, of course, but still filler, and not the sort of momentum that sends patrons rushing to their phones to tell everyone they know that they MUST see the show!
All that being said, it's still my favorite large-scale musical of the past 20 years. But it probably belongs in opera houses rather than on Broadway.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 6:16pm
Then there was the problem Ahrens & Flaherty faced when Audra McDonald's Sarah is killed at the end of Act I. I think Lynn Ahrens said something like "We had Audra McDonald and no song for her in Act II!" So they shoe-horned in "Sarah Brown-Eyes"
Posted: 6/27/15 at 6:57pm
Exactly, ggersten! There's nothing wrong with "Sarah Brown Eyes" as a song, but it does nothing to advance the plot. It simply panders to the audience's desire to see Audra McDonald (or in LA, La Chanze) come back again. "Sarah" and "Back to Before" are I want/I am songs, respectively, that would work fine in Act I--except that Act I is so tightly constructed there's no room for them there.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 7:02pm
To be clear, I have nothing but respect for Ahrens and Flaherty. And while I can take or leave McNally, I love his libretto for Dead Man Walking.
But I was recently wondering what would happen if you ended Act I with "Wheels of a Dream" and then the fireman saying "Where you goin' in that fancy car, n-----?" Fast curtain. Or bring down the curtain right after Sarah is killed.
Then begin Act II with "Till We Reach that Day". Doing so would better balance the two acts.
But I trust the creators considered the idea and had a good reason to reject it.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 7:25pm
It's not a perfect play - as noted above. But the strengths are extremely strong and the performances from the original cast were just amazing. I still get chills thinking of that original production.
I liked the revival and I know some people liked it better, it didn't leave the same impression on me as the original cast. It's still a "wow" memory for me..
Posted: 6/27/15 at 7:52pm
@Gaveston-in order for me to have "nothing but respect" for A&F, I would have to ignore Rocky at a minimum.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 7:56pm
Does anyone know why La Chanze did not transfer to Broadway? Also, I just finished Act 1 and it was great.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 8:14pm
LaChanze was only brought in for Los Angeles. Audra originated the role in Toronto before the production opened in L.A. and was always set to open the show in New York. So the question is really "why didn't Audra do the L.A. production?"
Posted: 6/27/15 at 8:57pm
I am just wondering was did deserve the Tony over Lion King.
And I am aware that The Lion King did win the TONY.
So I am saying was this a better show and was the show that SHOULD of won
Updated On: 6/27/15 at 08:57 PM
Posted: 6/27/15 at 9:05pm
"LaChanze was only brought in for Los Angeles. Audra originated the role in Toronto before the production opened in L.A. and was always set to open the show in New York. So the question is really "why didn't Audra do the L.A. production?""
Marin Mazzie didn't do the LA production, either (but did Toronto). Marcia Mitzman Gaven played Mother in LA.
In fact, Stokes was the only Toronto cast member to appear in the LA production.
Updated On: 6/27/15 at 09:05 PM
Posted: 6/27/15 at 9:43pm
Ragtime should have taken the Tony over the Lion King. Ragtime is the far superior show. I believe that there is a b**tleg video of the OBC of Ragtime on youtube. I don't feel bad sharing that considering that it's been closed for quite a long time.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 9:56pm
Ragtime was not the first show I saw on Broadway, but it was the first show I remember seeing and just being shattered by it. All out sobbing for reasons you can't really explain other then you know you were moved. I was only 13 or 14, but it felt perfect. For a long time, it was my definition of theatrical perfection.
17 years later, I still find the show to be amazing. I also now realize there is flaws in the show, particularly in the second act. The first act is so big and soars to such great heights that it's almost impossible to reach that again. It, like the book it's based on, tries to cover so much that it's hard to do it all. But I still see it as a powerful piece of theater that is incredibly meaningful to me.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 10:28pm
Echo what someone said above. It should have won the Tony. Tony many times gets it wrong.
Posted: 6/27/15 at 11:33pm
In response to the whole discussion about whether or not Ragtime should have won the Tony Award for Best Musical over The Lion King, I'll say this:
It's kind of liked how Jesse Green described both Kinky Boots and Matilda on Theater Talk's Tony Wrap-Up two years ago, where the two shows had things that were great about them as well as things that weren't so great about them.
Please keep in mind that the award for Best Musical is never given for the material, it's given for the overall production. Ragtime was still recognized for the material by winning both Book and Score. The Lion King clearly has such a mind-blowing production, where some people felt the original production of Ragtime was overblown.
It also seemed that there was a trend back in the day to vote for the big commercial juggernaut (The Phantom of the Opera, Thoroughly Modern Millie, Jersey Boys, etc.) because people wanted shows like that to bring business to Broadway. But since business has been doing very well within the past few years, voters are apparently starting to feel free to vote for the more artistically crafted show (Once, Gentleman's Guide, and Fun Home).
Posted: 6/28/15 at 1:01am
^Yes, but trying to watch The Lion King past it's opening number is a chore.
I actually like how overblown the original Ragtime production was. It felt so epic and larger than life. It makes me wish that more shows on Broadway would take on larger orchestras and ensembles. Ragtime sounded absolutely lush and spectacular.
Posted: 6/28/15 at 1:22am
LaChanze was only brought in for Los Angeles.
She was also in the Chicago sit-down production opposite Hinton Battle's Coalhouse.
