Was Audra's 1998 Tony win unexpected?- Page 2

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 11:30am

Yes, as I noted in an earlier post I saw Rubenstein when he replaced Friedman and thought that he was leagues better. Had he originated the role he might have given Cumming a run for his money. I believe that Scott Carollo eventually became a Broadway replacement as well, no?

Updated On: 8/16/11 at 11:30 AM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 11:30am

AC, how interesting that you mention Donna Murphy. I swear I remember Donna leaving the revival of The King and I to participate in Ragtime. When Marin Mazzie was announced as Mother, I was a bit confused.

I also had the advantage of seeing the original production for the first time from the 2nd row. That seat made all the difference in the world, as I saw it my 2nd time from the mezzanine and felt a bit disconnected from the proceedings on stage.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 11:45am

I think just about all of the major players in L.A. replaced on Broadway, with the exceptions of Marcia Mitzman and Blake Ewing who both publicly said they wouldn't go to NY. I think Marcia had a toddler in L.A. (and a husband!) and didn't want to uproot her whole family for it. Blake had the role in L.A. and his understudy was the kid who played the part on Broadway.

And actually, that's ANOTHER cast member who was light-years better than his NY counterpart. Blake McIver Ewing as the Little Boy. His voice was fantastic, but his acting and "being" the character were the best. There was a sadness in his portrayal. He was a a prissy and proper (and clearly effeminate), trying so hard to be the perfect son. I thought the other kid sort of blended into the background in a nerdy way. But Blake broke your heart. He was an eager, engaged misfit. It made the second act baseball game a little melancholy, too. Watching the dad try to bond with his son that he so obviously couldn't relate to on any level. It was really good casting. And WOW, that voice. I know the Little Boy doesn't sing much in the show, but when he did, it was terrific.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 2:30pm

How was Marcia Mitzman as Mother? I've tried looking for "archival footage" of her performance, but have always been unable to find it. I saw her light years ago in Tommy and loved her voice. I imagine she'd be a good Mother.

Speaking of Mothers, I was never enamored with Marin Mazzie's take on the role. Yes, she belted Back to Before for all it was worth, but there was a coldness to her portrayal. Her Mother didn't come across as warm at all. I found her replacement, Donna Bullock, much better suited to the role (and ultimately, thought Christianne Noll in the revival was the best of all).

I enjoyed Audra as Sarah a great deal, too. I wasn't upset she won the Tony, but I felt she was almost too regal to play that role. It needed someone who could play "earthy" better. LaChanze was out the night I saw it when she was in the company (and her understudy, Tonya Dixon, was dreadful). Darlesia Cearcy, who I later saw, sang well, but her acting was boring. Stephanie Umoh made no impression on me in the revival. Call me crazy, but after seeing her in The Color Purple, I bet Fantasia would make an outstanding Sarah.

[aliceripleysnumber1]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 2:44pm

1998 was a great year for the Tony's...there were so many stand-out performances. Wasn't that also the year that Alice Ripley and Emily Skinner were nominated together for Side Show? At the time, I remember thinking that they were robbed. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Audra McDonald - but I have a feeling if Side Show ran longer (and at the time of the Tony's broadcast) the girls would have been more of a contender for Best Actress.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 2:50pm

"How was Marcia Mitzman as Mother?"

I have to say that Marcia was a bit cold in the role too, but her voice was warm and deep. Marin is a belty soprano with a wonderful low range, but it's not the same as having a mezzo in the role. Marcia's comfortable notes were all in her lower register, and her belt was terrific ... until she got to the highest notes (at the end of Back to Before, etc.). She couldn't sustain it without using her head voice occasionally. It didn't sound bad at all, but it was a bit of a letdown after hearing Marin on the Toronto recording. I saw Marin after Marcia, though. And toward the end of the L.A. run (which I saw four times), the notes at the end of Back to Before had been altered. She didn't go up on the last "Back." She repeated the previous note instead, since that wasn't out of her belt range.

As far as acting, they both brought an aloofness (or otherworldliness) to the role, which I found wonderful. It made the initial contrast of Mother's superficial demeanor and her actions all the more surprising. You don't expect her to take Sarah and the baby in. It comes as a shock. I might have felt that more from Marcia, even. Then as the story progresses, she begins to show her emotions more openly. I think Marcia played her more "composed" at first, where Marin was more obvious with her feelings.

I would rate them almost equally as "Mothers." But I'll give the edge to Marin, because she sang it better overall (and I'm admittedly biased where Marin is concerned). Still, Marcia's belt voice was great. She has a bit more "rock and roll" in her tone (i.e., Tommy), and even though she sang Mother legit, there was a "color" every now and then that took it in a different direction. I liked it. But she just couldn't hit or sustain the high notes like Marin.



Marcia Mitzman Gaven and John Dossett in the American Premiere of "Ragtime."

Updated On: 8/16/11 at 02:50 PM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 3:20pm

".....and ultimately, thought Christianne Noll in the revival was the best of all."

AdamGreer, having seen Marin Mazzie, Donna Bullock and Christianne Noll as Mother, I feel the exact same way.

Alton White and Lachanze performed Wheels of a Dream on the Today Show during the run in Ragtime. I had a VCR tape of it and absolutely loved Lachanze's voice (that was before I saw her in the actual show). I was hoping that YouTube would have the same clip, but they don't.

Updated On: 8/16/11 at 03:20 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 3:24pm

I am partial to Noll's interpretation, too. I saw Marin on Broadway and Donna Bullock's understudy, about whom I remember nothing (not even her name) she was so bland. I've also heard Julia Murney and her vocal performance--both singing and acting--is superb. I'd love to see her in a full production.

Did anyone here see Rachel York's Mother at Paper Mill?

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 3:31pm

I saw the Papermill production and did not like it one bit. I really don't remember anything about Rachel's performance at all. That being said, Quentin Earl Darrington grew so much as Coalhouse from the time he performed it there to DC and then Broadway.

[musikman]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 3:34pm

I had the privilege of seeing both the original and replacement casts for the original Ragtime. My memory is a little fuzzy about both unfortunately, however, I do remember the original cast being far superior to the replacement cast. I felt this excitement and buzz with the OBC, and then when I saw the replacements, it seemed tired and not as exciting. Maybe I was just so used to listening to the cast recording that I had trouble hearing (or seeing) anyone else play these roles.

I do remember Donna Bullock being the strongest one of the replacements.

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 3:58pm

I still can't believe that Audra won her first Tony for Carousel- for a role that is usually so overlooked... It's amazing!

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 4:00pm

That was the magic of Audra's performance: She took secondary character and made her, essentially, the character that everybody was talking about. And it really felt like a discovery to everyone who saw it.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 4:15pm

I know and love Ragtime from the LA production and I enthusiastically second Best12's account of LaChanze.

But with reference to another poster, I don't think the casting of MacDonald alone caused Ragtime's second-act problem: that arises from the book. Despite some brilliant songs ("Baseball", "He Wanted to Say"), the second act's focus on Tateh and Mother just can't compete with the first act's "Wheels of a Dream" story.

I suspect the creators knew this, but bringing Sara back briefly in Act II only reminds us of what we are missing. And despite the general affection for "Back to Before", to me it brings the show to a halt to tell us something that is already painfully obvious to us as well as the characters.

I've thought long and hard about it and I don't know how to fix the problem. I don't see where you take the break except after that gut-wrenching funeral--but after the funeral I'm just waiting to see Colehouse respond. For me, at least, it's too late to care how Tateh got into the movies.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 4:55pm

For me, the the problem in the second act is toward the end. It's just WAY too "power ballad" heavy.

My solution would be to cut "Make Them Hear You." It's out of step for Coalhouse to sing anything at that point. He has been the heart and soul of the music until then, but right then is where it all comes to a halt. His time runs out. It's as bad as having Maria sing at the end of West Side Story. They wisely decided to make that a dialog-only scene. And they should have done the same in Ragtime. If you doubt it, watch the Milos Forman movie again. Those final moments in the library are MUCH more powerful than the same moments in the musical. Particularly when Booker T. comes to visit Coalhouse. He asks him to forgive and move on, and Coalhouse can't do it. He's too filled with rage. And Booker T. looks at him and says, "Then, my son, you are damned." If they could only put that moment into the musical, and then have the rest of this scene play without music until he is gunned down on the steps, it would take things to a whole new level. Then bring the music (and reprises) back in after he's gone to finish out the show.

But to have "Back to Before" followed by "Make Them Hear You," it lessens the overall impact, because it's one too many heartfelt "anthems." It's like ending a very rich, satisfying meal with two desserts. You may like them at the time, but in the end (no pun intended) you'll feel the weight of it.

Updated On: 8/16/11 at 04:55 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 5:06pm

I'd like to see the book scene as you describe it, Best12, and I agree that the late part of the show seems "anthem heavy" (great phrase).

But if you cut "Make Them See It" you have a different problem: Colehouse has no major musical moment in Act II. ("Sarah Brown Eyes" doesn't cut it for me. "He Wanted to Say" puts my attention on Goldman and Younger Brother, so I don't think that's really Colehouse's number either.)

Unlike Maria, say, who sings "Somewhere" and "A Boy Like That" before the final scene.

Perhaps the unmet challenge is to write a number that brings the various characters together dramatically, even though they have grown apart in the plot. Sub that new number (I have no idea what it would say) for both "Back to Before" and "Make Them Hear It", and place it before or after your book scene.

But now Mother doesn't have a big solo in the entire show...

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 5:20pm

I don't think Coalhouse needs a big musical number in Act II. His dramatic arch is the climax to the entire show. It's like saying Paul needs a big song to go with his 12-minute monologue in A Chorus Line, or Maria needs something weighty to sing after Tony dies.

Ragtime needs to be balanced with impact, not with music or musical numbers. The Wheels of a Dream is when the music soars for Coalhouse (and Sarah). Neither Mother nor Tateh have a moment like that in Act One. In Act Two, they both have numbers (and they find their way as characters, too), and Coalhouse's music should stop completely for that library scene.

For me it would be symbolic as well as literal that "the music has run out" for him. He's the one who introduces this strange New Music to the white family, and at his big moment in the second act ... he has no music. It would be so much more powerful. Just play the scene as if it were in a play. No underscoring, no songs. (Add that powerful exchange of dialogue with Booker T. Washington.) Let it feel claustrophobic at that point. Then he ultimately leaves the library and we see/hear him get gunned down. Then bring the music back in and finish the show.

Updated On: 8/16/11 at 05:20 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 5:35pm

Interesting approach. As I said, I'd like to see your version of that final scene, done without music.

But leading characters who "stop singing" (after having sung a lot) tend to take a step back in musicals. Colehouse already has a problem in Act II in that he has to wait for the other characters to catch up before he takes action. (This is true in the novel, as well, but that's an entirely different form.) So he's already stopped moving and now you want him to stop singing as well. I understand the metaphorical impact of having "lost his (singing) voice" and that's fine for the last scene, but not for most of the second act.

(It's not a perfect comparison, but let's imagine Gypsy without "Rose's Turn." I don't care how great the final scene, the show and Rose's character would be harmed by the omission.)

Paul in ACL isn't the leading man. Maria, as I pointed out, has not one but two show stoppers in the scenes just before the climax.

***

I don't mean to pick, but is that a typo or did you intend to write "dramatic arch" instead of "dramatic arc"? I've seen "arches" for "arcs" elsewhere on this board and I assumed it was some sort of crazy slang the kids are using nowadays.

Obviously, the two words share the same root, but an arc can indicate motion in time, such as the arc of an arrow in flight. An arch is solid and usually heavy: not a great metaphor for a character's journey.

So if "dramatic arch" is what the textbooks are calling it now, I think that's unfortunate. But if I've just offered three paragraphs in response to a typo, I apologize; I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't seen it several other places from other posters.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 5:54pm

No, it's a typo. I've done it before, too. I'm always messing up you're and your when I go too fast, too.

(At least I get "too" right.)

I understand the metaphorical impact of having "lost his (singing) voice" and that's fine for the last scene, but not for most of the second act.

Oh, I agree! I wouldn't cut anything but Make Them Hear You. All of his other singing in Act II is fine. He's full of rage and emotion, and musicalizing it is fine and very effective.

And I think if the show wasn't structured the way it is, Make Them Hear You, could work. And I have nothing against the song as a stand-alone ballad. But in the context of the show, it's "one too many," and it's not needed. He has lost his hope, his voice, and his rage. He is numb. He sends the other men out into the world, telling them to keep his story alive ... but for him, the story is over. And he knows it, as he leaves the library with his hands raised over his head.

Updated On: 8/16/11 at 05:54 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 6:32pm

So very sorry to put so much focus on a typo, Best12. Suffice to say I've only been here a few weeks and my typos already outnumber yours, 100 to 1. (I do know the difference between to/two/too, but that doesn't mean my fingers always obey. Yesterday I actually typed "write" for "right" and didn't catch it. Imagine my shame!)

Technical concerns as to who sings and who doesn't aside, I suspect the show wants us to believe that Colehouse is more than just defeated, that his act of defiance lives on and influences later civil rights resistance movements. (Metaphorically, of course; Ragtime isn't a history book.)

How does the show convey that if Colehouse has lost everything including his hope, his rage and his voice? I see how your version completes his personal tragedy, but I think the show wants something more.

Maybe Ragtime needs an ending equivalent to "Next" in Pacific Overtures.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 7:28pm

I know we've totally threadjacked here, but ... one more comment!

I suspect the show wants us to believe that Colehouse is more than just defeated, that his act of defiance lives on and influences later civil rights resistance movements. (Metaphorically, of course; Ragtime isn't a history book.)

And it's there already. I hate to go back to WSS again, but we get a glimmer of hope that things can change when the Sharks help carry Tony's dead body out of the playground at the end. To do anything more there, such as a "Next"-type number, or something "positive and hopeful," negates the power of the murder we've just seen.

In Ragtime, our glimmer comes at the end, when we see the new family formed out of love and respect for each other. We have the immigrant Jewish father and daughter, the white Anglo mother and son, and the African American Coalhouse III. A true melting-pot family, formed out of the hatred that killed Coalhouse Walker Jr. and Sarah, but transcended to form a family unit for the future. I remember when that little kid ran across the stage into Mother's arms the first time I saw it, I totally lost it. Cried like a baby. So the ending is there already, and we (IMO) don't need a "Next"-type number to hammer this point home.

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 7:35pm

Threadjack away - it was a very interesting discussion guys :)

Next question though:

Will Audra and Norm be nominated for Tonys for 2012? Will THE GERSHWINS' PORGY AND BESS be the clean sweep of 2012....??
Will Audra take home her fifth Tony Award for Actress in a Musical?

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 7:39pm

It's been 10 years and I'd forgotten that last tableau. Shame on me: as a gay man with stepchildren and grandchildren, I am all about "constructed" families!

I was almost as moved as you by that moment (I admit a little voice in my head was saying, "Not in that time period. No way."). You are right: that new family is Colehouse's legacy.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 7:53pm

Well, they all-but-say that Tateh is a Hal Roach of sorts. He talks about watching Little Coalhouse, Mother's little boy, and his own daughter playing together, and he gets the idea for a group of real children in the movies. A bunch of "ragamuffins," aka "Our Gang" or "The Little Rascals." Crossing racial and social barriers.

Hal Roach started Our Gang in 1922, so it's not too far off from the end of this story.

Tateh and Mother's "constructed family" is without question ahead of its time, but I'm sure there were such families in existence back then. Not that they wouldn't have faced adversity and all kinds of battles (some are still going on today). It helps if your Jewish immigrant dad happens to be a hugely successful film director and entrepreneur, as he is at the end of this story.

Updated On: 8/16/11 at 07:53 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 8:00pm

Musicaldudepeter---glad you enjoyed the threadjack.

As for your questions, it remains to be seen how successful the new Porgy & Bess will be. I"m sure with all this talent involved, it will be given careful consideration.

And I would find it hard to believe that even if some of these creative decisions prove to fail that Audra would turn in a lousy performance. She'll be a wonderful Bess, even if the rest is a mess. I would expect the same from Norm Lewis. Of course, aside from the creative brouhaha, a big question will be "do they have any chemistry?" That also remains to be seen and could affect their success in the roles.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/16/11 at 8:42pm

I agree, Best. End of thread-jack.

If anyone can successfully predict Tony Awards a year in advance, I will be very impressed. I loved the scenes in "Show Business: the Road to Broadway" where the expert critics made their predictions--and they were mostly talking about shows they had actually seen.

That said, I don't see how Audra MacDonald singing Gershwin can fail to offer many moments of pleasure (even if they add a damn accordion to every number).