WHY PEOPLE CALL THE VERY FIRST RAGTIME OVERPRODUCED ?

[willrogers2008]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:53pm

OH PLEASE ! MR. GALATI STAGING WAS ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL MOMENTS IN BROADWAY HISTORY ! OK , YOU PREFER THE ARIMA OR THE BROADWAY REVIVAL ONE.THAT'S RIGHT. BUT CALLING THE MAGNIFICENT PRODUCTION OF MR.GALATI RAGTIME OVERPRODUCED IS AN UNFAIR PROCEDURE.DON'T YOU THINK SO ?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:56pm

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.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 9:56pm

POOR MR. GALATI! POOR POOR MR. GALATI! MY HEART, IT BLEEDS FOR MR. GALATI!!

[musicalbluemirror]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 10:11pm

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

[B3TA07]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 10:11pm

IM SO ANGRY

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 10:13pm

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.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 10:17pm

I hated the original production of Sweeney Todd.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 10/26/09 at 10:22pm

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

[B3TA07]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 12:06am

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


A badly written show.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 1:06am

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

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 1:08am

Oh, and PLEASE DON'T USE ALL CAPS.

You're shouting at me. Learn the rules of capitalization, and you won't have to lock your caps key all the time.

Thanks ever so.

[I<3bway]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 1:17am

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!!

[adamgreer]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 1:17am

Was Stokes the only member of the original Toronto cast to perform in the L.A. company?

Is there any reason why Mazzie and McDonald didn't repeat their roles from Toronto in LA, but then returned to open the NY production? Was it always the plan to have most of the Toronto cast repeat their work for Broadway?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 1:20am

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 1:39am

adamgreer---the Toronto cast was first.

Then the show opened in L.A. at the Shubert, while the Toronto production was still running. For the L.A. production, they pulled Stokes out of the Toronto cast and had him headline. Everyone else in the L.A. cast was different, and it was running simultaneously with the Toronto production.

Then, while the L.A. show was still running, they closed the Toronto cast and moved them all to Broadway. Stokes then left L.A. to rejoin the rest of the cast in NY. But they also replaced Camille Saviola, who had played Emma Goldman originally. They used Judy Kaye from the L.A. cast instead.

Stokes was the only one who did all three productions: Toronto, L.A. and NY (in that order).

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 2:11am

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.

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 2:18am

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.

I think that's a bit unfair. I don't remember the Sweeney Todd production having sets, costumes and special effects just for the sake of wowing the audience. Even if big, it felt they had just the necessary.

The original production of Ragtime, IMHO, felt the huge pressure to put a big spectacle to open the the Ford Center. Those sets and costumes kept coming out of nowhere, and didn't add much to the already convoluted plot. I remember thinking when watching The Crime of the Century how completely unnecessary all the huge spectacle felt, even the number itself. And this kept going on and on. Perhaps at the moment Livent wanted a huge production and didn't trust the material much.

Well, that's how it felt to me.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 4:12am

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.

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 4:43am

Perhaps being at the very back of that large house didn't help for me. The musical numbers just felt like they were trying too hard to impress, or have a "big Broadway" feeling. The solos had this "grandiose" feeling that I just couldn't buy, and I found them tiresome. I just couldn't wait for the book scenes to start again, which I thought were much better.

And, as I said in another thread, Father's reaction to Coalhouse's fate was performed so big it was laughable.

I truly thought that The Lion King, with a much inferior book/score, was a much better spectacle.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 5:59am

"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.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 6:15am

b12b, thanks for your wonderful insight. I saw the OBC of Ragtime and was absolutely blown away by the show and the cast. I loved Marin as Mother. As much as I liked Audra, I felt that LaChanze's voice was the better fit for the role of Sarah. I saw three different Sarah's during the original Broadway run, and defintiely preferred LaChanze.

Donna Bullock was an excellent replacement for Marin. I also saw the role played by two understudies - Patty Goble and Anne Kanengeiser, and was extremely disappointed with both of them.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 6:18am

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

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 6:37am

Thanks, Dottie. I know plenty of people who were blown away by the OBC. Most of them were sitting fairly close in that (large) theatre. The further back you sat, the less impact the show had. Those who sat near the rear of the theatre had similar experiences to blaxx. They were only left with the superficial "spectacle" and the show itself didn't pull them in.

As far as Marin, her acting and her singing were/are terrific. But after seeing Marcia Mitzman Gaven, who played the role in the L.A. company, I saw what was missing. Marcia had a strong belt voice, but she didn't have either the acting or singing range of Mazzie. However, she was better in the part, simply because she radiated an unspoken warmth and grace in the role. She was the "heart" of the piece. Stokes was clearly the "star" and it broke your heart to see wide-eyed LaChanze fall for him and then watch him crumble. And again, while Audra is a terrific actress and singer, this was a case where she overshadowed her leading man in a role that not only doesn't need that, but it can actually lessen the impact of those two characters and their chemistry together.

I really wish I could see Noll now. It sounds like it's "her show." When I first heard how good she was, I was actually wondering how that would skew the focus of the entire show. Coalhouse Walker is the dramatic center of the play, even if Mother is its heart. If she gets the dramatic focus as well, where does that leave the other characters?

The only time I thought Ragtime was well balanced with the trio of stories (Coalhouse, Mother, Tateh) was with the L.A. cast. Which is why I liked it better than the OBC. Individually, they may or may not have been as strong as their counterparts, but as a whole the balance was right.

Updated On: 10/27/09 at 06:37 AM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 6:42am

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 6:56am

Dottie, I believe it was Kingsley Leggs. The fourth time I saw it in L.A., both Stokes and Kaye had left for NY, so I saw their replacements. I can't remember who Kaye's replacement was. I'm sure I have the program buried somewhere.

There was a real shift in the balance and focus after Stokes left, too. Which is why I began to understand how important the casting of core ensemble was.

Kingsley was very good as Coalhouse, but he didn't have that "star wattage" that Stokes has. It made the rise and fall of the character have less impact. If he starts out with his "movie star" charisma and charm, and then he is stripped away of all his dignity, it makes for a much better dramatic arch for the character. Kingley's acting, singing, and dancing were all good, but it was a noticeable difference. The stakes just didn't feel as high.