WHY PEOPLE CALL THE VERY FIRST RAGTIME OVERPRODUCED ?

Your post is a little unhinged, but I do get what you are saying. It seems like people often feel the need to denigrate the original when praising a revival.

from what i have seen of the original production, i very much liked the expensive well produced show
i tend to like big expensive flashy shows with detail to begin with
andd even though i adore ragtime itself i wonder if the new production is too simple

Saying RAGTIME (1996) was overproduced is like saying SWEENEY TODD (1979) was overproduced. Some who prefer the smaller more intimate stagings may feel that way, but in both cases the shows work well in any sized production because the core shows - meaning the book, music and lyrics - are so strong.

Try doing the same thing with PHANTOM, or STARLIGHT EXPRESS and see what you get.

---

Why? And did you still hate it at New York City Opera, Circle in Square and the most recent John Doyle staging?

---

The original production of Ragtime played beautifully in Los Angeles prior to the Broadway run. The Shubert Theatre in L.A (now gone) felt much more intimate, even though it wasn't a small theatre.

Also, quite honestly, the cast was better. They had more chemistry as performers. I saw it four times.

The Broadway production felt grand, sure, but also isolated and disjointed. And not all of the fault rested on the size of the theatre, and NONE of it rested on the staging or production value.

The casting was "off" in the OBC.

Two of the L.A. cast were in the OBC: Brian Stokes Mitchell and Judy Kaye. Both excellent. I'll go out on a limb here and say that Audra and Marin didn't gel with the rest of the cast. Audra was wrong to begin with. A major theatre star in a supporting role, with her Julliard-perfect voice, playing a simple girl of the streets. Nope. She overshadowed Stokes. She eclipsed him. He was no longer the "star" of the romantic couple. She was. That's completely wrong for the story! If he's not the star, the rest of their saga doesn't work at all. It falls flat. LaChanze was much better in the part, and for the part.

Marin has a gorgeous voice, but she was not the emotional heart of this piece the way Marcia Mitzman Gavin was (who doesn't have the pipes that Mazzie does). John Rubenstein was a brilliant Tateh, going far beyond the acting capabilities of Peter whatshisname. Even the little boy in the L.A. cast was WAY better than his Broadway counterpart (who was actually the understudy in the L.A. production). He broke your heart and sang with the voice of an angel. The Broadway kid was nerdy and weird.

Yes, most of the actors in the L.A. production went on to take over those roles in NY. But by that time, it was too little, too late.

There are a lot of reasons why the "original" Broadway production of Ragtime, as good as it was, didn't quite blossom for some people.

I've just told you several reasons, having seen both. But none of them had to do with the original staging, direction, choreography, or the produced "size" of the production itself.

Bad chemistry with the core ensemble inside a theatre with a proscenium that was too huge for the show.

That was the problem.

---

Updated On: 10/27/09 at 01:06 AM

Every time I see someone use all caps, it reminds me of this.



AND I'M SINGING AND I'M SINGING AND I'M IN A STORE AND I'M SIIINNGGIINNGG!!

I don't think Ragtime is that well written. The songs are great, but the book bothers me to no end. I find it very episodic and disjointed with some very silly dialogue that is both difficult to deliver as an actor and watch as an audience member. I love Terrance McNally's plays, but his books for musicals are among my least favorite.

The Broadway cast was also the premiere cast in Toronto (except for Judy Kaye, who replaced Camille Saviola in the role of Emma Goldman. ) Mitchell, Friedman, Mazzie, McDonald, Jacoby, Perry and Sutcliffe all originated those roles in Toronto. The cast was then split between two road companies, one in L.A. one to tour before being reasembled for Broadway once the Ford Theater was finished.

The show was in excellent shape in Toronto with that cast and remained so in New York. (I saw it both places.) I suspect your distaste for the Broadway cast may be based on the fact that the first cast you saw was the L.A. company. Anybody's first experience with a show is usually considered definitive.

I saw the show at both the opening in Toronto, and Tony weekend in New York.

---

Yet the main reason SWEENEY TODD had that Iron foundry set was to wow the audience, as well as reinforcing the concept. When the massive set was stripped away for the tour (and further reduce for the 2nd tour and NYCO productions) the show still played. SO it didn't need that set to make its point.

Peole keep talking about the Broadway RAGTIME as if it was somehow expanded for the Ford Theatre. No. It was essentially the same production on stage at the North York Performing Arts Centre, where there was no pressure to "put (on) a big spectacle."

Not sure what spectacle in "Crime of the Century" - Just Evelyn on a swing (recalling her vaudeville act) brought into the courtroom merging the vaudeville number with the historical fact. Yet the entire song is just over 2 minutes. The way you write about it it makes it sound like an endless production number. It also provides a musical change of pace from the romantic "Journey On" and contrasts with the recitative that follows when Mother discovers the baby in her garden.

I think you are right that Garth Drabinsky wanted a big show, but if you take an epic story like RAGTIME, and you have the resources, why not do it large? As Sondheim said of SWEENEY when Hal Prince brought the concept to him , It can always be done small later. And both shows have been.

---

"The cast was then split between two road companies, one in L.A. one to tour before being reasembled for Broadway once the Ford Theater was finished."

frontrowcentre2---Not exactly accurate. As I said, the L.A. production (known as the "American Premiere" production) opened while the Toronto production was still running. They were an entirely different "sit-down" production that kept running past the closing of the Toronto run, and straight through the Broadway opening. It was strange to have the show already up and playing in L.A. while it was getting ready to open in NY with the original Toronto cast.

The strategy didn't work, either. They struggled to keep the L.A. show running at least long enough to see it through the first few months of the Broadway run. I think it ultimately ran close to a year at the Shubert, but they didn't want it closing first. So the extensions and blocks of tickets were not well promoted, and they would often go from sold-out houses one week to half houses the next. Livent lost a lot of money in L.A. while they were trying to open the show in NY.

But, back to my point, there was no "split" cast in a road show. Stokes was the only cast member to be taken out of the Toronto production while it was running to open the show with the "American Premiere" cast in Los Angeles. Then he left L.A. after about 3 or 4 months, along with Judy Kaye, to join the rest of the Toronto cast in NY while they began their rehearsals for the Broadway opening.

---

Though Mazzie was a better singer, I thought that overall, Bullock was much better. However, I prefer Noll to both of them.

When Noll was announced as Mother in the DC production, I will admit that I was very disappointed with this choice. Her performance in DC changed my opinion. Christiane Noll is Mother. Definitely my favorite out of any of the prior actresses I have seen in the role. She radiates warmth, strength and compassion.

b12b, who replaced Brian Stokes Mitchell as Coalhouse in LA? Thanks.

By the way, I was in the 2nd row the first time I saw Ragtime.

---