Scripps, I'm not evaluating the show in its historical context because, quite frankly, it's inaccurate (look at Grace O'Malley's life, for example, when compared to the musical: historically, her marriage to Donal led to three children and ended when he died in battle; the "I dismiss you" comes from a legend behind her second marriage to Richard Burke, with whom she had another child; her meeting with Queen Elizabeth was under different circumstances, and there's more, I'm sure, but I don't claim to be a scholar on her life), and the musical was based on a historical novel rather than a biography or another piece of pure history (though O'Malley's biographer was used as a "consultant" for the show). Ultimately, though the show may be based on history, it exists independent of history, as its own work. I'm evaluating the text of the musical and looking at the characters
as they are presented in the show, and the parallels drawn between them
there (also, I saw the show in Chicago, so there may have been some differences in the version I saw versus the version that opened on Broadway, but what I said in my previous post were observations I had when I first saw it). I'm quite aware of the historical significance of the actual Elizabeth I and what a strong woman and leader she was (by the way, when I say that in the musical she wasn't "hands on," I mean that she's in her court in England while Grace is out there on the high seas showing the British what-for and all that jazz). I'm saying that I was extremely disappointed by the way she was depicted
in the musical (and Grace, too).
It's like JRB's Parade -- when putting the text of the show in a historical context, you become aware that the show gets a lot wrong, both about the case itself and the people involved. But that doesn't mean that the show on its face, independent of that, has touched me. Musicals are rooted in emotion; otherwise, why would the characters sing?
(yeesh, teal deer much?)
Updated On: 9/3/08 at 12:59 PM
