Who actually saw RAGTIME?

[BroadwayBoy2]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 11:33am

Sooo many people would give anything to see RAGTIME, but who actually saw it live on broadway?
Any interesting stories?

Opinions?

[Marlothom]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 11:40am

I saw it, everyone but Evelyn Nesbitt were original cast members. I was a mess, I was so happy to see it that I would cry BEFORE the sad songs would come on, and bawl during the actual songs, people thought I was high. It was very good.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 11:41am

I saw it, I don't believe with the OBC, but some replacements. The production was spectacular, and even at 12 I was bowled over with how powerful the show was. We'd had to read Doctorow's novel for a class before seeing it, so I appreciated it much more than I probably would have otherwise at that age. I wish that I remembered it more clearly, but I do remember getting chills during "Wheels of a Dream" and being in tears at intermission. Sorry, not very helpful with regards to your question!

[Patronus]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 11:44am

I saw the LA company before it opened on Broadway.

La Chanze as Sarah, John Rubenstein as Tateh.

I enjoyed it.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 11:48am

I saw the original production of Ragtime a week after it opened and went to the final Broadway performance as well. I saw this show a total of 5 times during its run. It ranks as one of my all-time favorite musicals. The performances were stellar with the exception of two ocassions when I saw two "Mother" understudies. They were just "ok". But, the performances of both Marin Mazzie and Donna Bullock were amazing.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 11:50am

I saw the original cast, only at the performance I attended, Brian, Audra, Marin, Peter and Lynette were all out. The understudies were poor, the sound was poor, and I felt the musical as a whole was poor.

[HOUFlip04]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:02pm

I saw the show in '98 or '99 I think. Pretty much the original cast but had an understudy for Emma Golman and I think maybe Evelyn Nesbitt. I liked the show, but it didn't bowl me over. I thought it was good, not great. I agree with someone who said it had too many endings.

Side note - I worked on a music revue with one of the original swings and later in the ensemble, Mary Sharon Dziedzic, who understudied Evelyn Nesbitt. I'm still trying to figure out if it was her I saw go on.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:05pm

I saw it 4 times in L.A. first (Premiere American Cast), and once on Broadway (OBC).

A brilliant show, and one of my all-time favorites.

And the Los Angeles company (as a whole unit) was better than the Broadway company.

[kyle.]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:17pm

Did you talk with Mary Sharon Dziedzic about the show? Did she share any stories or have any comments about working on it?

[HOUFlip04]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:23pm

"Did you talk with Mary Sharon Dziedzic about the show? Did she share any stories or have any comments about working on it?"

We actually just talked about it in passing, when I saw it on her bio on opening night, but she never went into any detail - because I simply didn't ask - sorry! But I believe she said she was in the entire Broadway run and she had a pleasant experience.

She moved from NYC to Texas and is having a great life as a wife and mother. Her son is just adorable. She still does shows, but just every now and then. Last time I saw her, she came to a benefit production of FIORELLO! I was in a couple months ago.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:30pm

Princeton, I'm so sorry your experience with the show was less than stellar. I couldn't even speak about the show without getting choked up, after my initial viewing of this musical.

[Patronus]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:31pm

And the Los Angeles company (as a whole unit) was better than the Broadway company.

I agree b12b.

Obviously, not having seen the Broadway Company makes my comments somewhat one sided, but vocally I preferred the LA company.

I absolutely adore Audra McDonald, but I really prefer listening to LaChanze as Sarah.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:34pm

Patronus, I agree. Audra and LaChanze could not be more different vocally, and although I'm a huge fan of Audra's, I preferred LaChanze as well.

[StephenSondheimWHOO]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:35pm

I saw it on broadway OBC. Fantastic! everyone was amazing

[liotte]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:37pm

I saw it on Broadway with the OBC, it really wasn't my style of a show and I barely remember it now. I wish I could revisit it now that I am older.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:48pm

I'm in the same boat as liotte.

I saw it what seems like ages ago. I just remember it was a really cold day, I was sick, and I loved some of the music. It never gripped me or made me feel anything special. I do think that if I saw it again now, my feelings would be completely different. I just don't remember anything about the physical production, other than the giant binocular things in the beginning.

[lite2shine]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 12:50pm

Ragtime is the show that inspired me to make a trip (via plane) just to see a show. Until then I only saw a show in my town or in SF (driving distance).

I've seen it at LA first (after OBC left to prepare for the Broadway run) and it was amazing but I really wanted to see Stokes, so I went to Broadway after opening. Marin was out but everybody else was there and I was a mess throughout the show, sobbing. I sold my J&H tix and grabbed the last seat available at Ford Theatre (partial view) and still enjoyed it tremendously.

After that I've seen it in DC (national tour), and a couple of regional productions. The best show was when I saw it on Broadway for the first time.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 1:03pm

I saw the Broadway production of Ragtime with the replacement cast--Alton Fitzgerald White, John Rubinstein, LaChanze, etc. The performances were all great. However, I feel that the show was very much hurt by "over-production". It was done in an enormous theater with a tremendous amount of elaborate scenery, and the entire production subsequently had a certain sense of "coldness" about it, I think (this was also pointed out by several critics). They made it a very grandiose physical production when the story really should be told more intimately.

[All_For_Laura]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 1:06pm

I saw it in 1996, pre-everything in Toronto. I was six years old and I am pretty sure I cried!

[wexy]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 1:09pm

I saw it but don't remember a thing other than there were lots of people in it,

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 1:09pm

The L.A. cast was a better balance of actors in their roles. They were also better suited for the roles than their Broadway/Toronto counterparts, and more compelling as characters.

It was a totally different energy and mood in L.A. More heart, more passion... less pageantry and posturing.

L.A. Cast (aka, "The American Premiere Production"):

Coalhouse - Brian Stokes Mitchell
Tateh - John Rubenstein***
Mother - Marcia Mitzman Gavin
Sarah - LaChanze***
Father - John Dossett***
Mother's Younger Brother - Scott Carollo***
Harry Houdini - Jason Graae***
Booker T Washington - Allan Louis
Evelyn Nesbit - Susan Wood***
Emma Goldman - Judy Kaye
The Little Boy - Blake McIver Ewing***
The Little Girl - Danielle Wiener
Henry Ford - Bill Carmichael
JP Morgan - Michael McCarty
Willie Conklin - Wade Williams
Grandfather - Robert Nichols
Sarah's Friend - Jewel Tompkins***

Brian Stokes Mitchell headlined all three companies (Toronto, LA and Broadway), and Judy Kaye left the LA production to open as Emma in the OBC.

While several others you see listed ultimately joined the Broadway company during its run, this particular cast as a cohesive unit yielded a superior, fresher and more "impacting" show than the OBC.

I put stars next to the actors' names that particularly helped in the overall balance and impact, bringing the show to a higher level than the Broadway company.

And it helped that the Shubert in L.A. (sadly, no more!) wasn't an enormouse cavern of a theatre.

Updated On: 12/10/06 at 01:09 PM

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 1:13pm

So why did the show fail on Broadway? Was it the over-production, or the fact that the theater was to cavernous that you couldn't connect with the intimate story at the center of the epic?

It is a beautiful score, with a literate book, so what happened?

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 1:22pm

From what I remember reading at the time of the closing, they simply weren't selling enough tickets to cover the (ridiculous) running cost of the show. Ironically, the over-production that caused its artistic problems also killed the show financially. Livent (the main producer I think) had also gone bankrupt at that time, although that was for other reasons.

[yellibean2]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 1:24pm

Actually, I believe the company got sued or something along those lines. It didn't flop by any standards, if that's what you mean.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 1:25pm

Primarily due to financial mismanagement.

That's the main reason... but they should never have opened the show in that huge theatre. It would have helped rein the cast in, so they didn't come off as so isolated and disjointed.

The Broadway company was very good, but very uneven. Audra threw the balance of the Coalhouse story completely off, because she overplayed Sarah, and as a result, she got her Tony and tipped the ensemble of principals completely off-balance. LaChanze was a much better and more appropriate Sarah. Rubenstein was SO much better than Peter Friedman as Tateh. It wasn't even close to compare them. Rubenstein can act circles around Friedman, and did. Susan Wood was much prettier (she is FRIGHTENINGLY gorgeous) and funnier as Evelyn (in her Crime of the Century number).

And one of the main differences that you wouldn't necessarily think would tip the show off so much was the young boy! The kid in L.A. was fantastic, very touching, had a gorgeous singing voice and broke your heart, as he observed everything that was going on around him but was constantly brushed aside. He was offered the role in the original Broadway production but turned it down because he didn't want to leave L.A. So they gave the part to his understudy who opened it in NY... and was no where near as effective. You would be surprised just how much that role affects the balance of the entire show. After all, it opens with him center stage, and he's the first character to speak. He sets the whole tone of the show in the first 30 seconds. And believe me it was a huge difference in the two kids.

Updated On: 12/10/06 at 01:25 PM