Why did RAGTIME close?- Page 3

[Cutielyricist]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:15pm

I Must disagree with this months old post..Ragtime was one of the few Perfectly written shows. Each lyric was perfect in charachter, rhythm and rhyme. The music gave me chills..enough to take everything out of my cd player for months. And listening to this show you can hear one thing behind every person involved. Passion. Ragtime is what made me want to get into entertainent. It follows a theme. follows a feeling. Ahrens and Flaherty are brilliant writers, whos songs never fail at touching someone.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:23pm

Thank You, CutieLyricist... I agree with you wholeheartedly!

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:37pm

I never saw it, as I had Doctorow as a teacher in college.

What a pompous a**hole.

He didn't last long at the college (Sarah Lawrence) either.

[johny0828]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 12:00am

i think it closed because it opened around the same time as the lion king and also lost the tony for best musical to the lion king. and it couldn't survive with the hype surrounding the lion king. it was a very good show and brain stokes mitchell was very good.

[son_of_a_gunn_25]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 1:41am

Costs, Lion King, and the Livent fiasco are what closed it. It'll be back much to the enjoyment of many and the horror of a few. It is one of my favorite musicals, and my taste ranges from early broadway to the present.

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 4:13am

I really regret coming into this thread so late, because it's nice to finally read comments from SOMEONE ELSE WHO DIDN'T LIKE RAGTIME!

Horrah! MusicMan, I commend you.

I found the entire show overblown, impersonal, cold, and the score was a bunch of sub par attempts at creating a new American national anthem strung together by a flimsy plot.

The only good thing was the cast.

[brdwaybaby17]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 7:30pm

It seems like some of you people didn't get the message of the show/book. I was in the show just a few weeks ago, as if you didn't know cause I talked about it ALL the time, but we got amazing reviews. People loved the show. We had an amazing show, but the whole thing can't run on that, especially in community theater. But, anyway, the whole point is that people can come together, no matter if they are white, black, christian, jewish, it doesn't matter. When the time comes we are all people, and we all have to make JOURNIES in our lives. We are all bonded. I think this show had so much heart and feeling behind it. The only thing I think was a little shaky, BUT ONLY A FEW TIMES, was the book..... some of the lines just didn't flow. But, I love it, and I am glad there are others who do as well. But, going back to what I was saying before again, it is a very difficult show to put on, with cast size, extravagance of costumes, special effects, etc. But, it is all worth it when you see this terrific show!!

[bob8rich]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 7:47pm

Musetta, I'm afraid I have to diagree with every word in the paragraph you wrote:
"I found the entire show overblown, impersonal, cold, and the score was a bunch of sub par attempts at creating a new American national anthem strung together by a flimsy plot."

I don't think "Ragtime" was overblown - it simply deals with huge themes. Far from being impersonal, each character is very finely drawn and some very personal stories are told, all of which an audience can easily relate to. It was full of burning passion, not cold at all. The score was full of a succession of high quality, simply stunning songs - and the plot is one of the strongest I have ever seen in a musical. The description would fit something as overblown, flimsy and totally lacking in musical substance as "The Lion King" - but not a masterpiece such as "Ragtime".

Posted: 2/25/04 at 8:05pm

Bob, I believe you would find that many theatre professionals would strongly disagree with your description of RAGTIME as a "masterpiece." That may be your opinion, however the odds are slim that you would find others in the profession who would agree with that assessment.

Masterpiece could be appropriately used for musicals like SHOW BOAT, MY FAIR LADY, PORGY AND BESS, OKLAHOMA, GYPSY, WEST SIDE STORY, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, A CHORUS LINE and others at that level of quality.

RAGTIME isn't even in the same paragraph, in my opinion, in any discussion of the upper echelon of the Broadway musical. Well intentioned? Surely. Masterpiece? Surely not.

Broadway Bulldog

[MusicMan]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 8:23pm

It's a personality-free score and show.
Updated On: 5/1/08 at 08:23 PM

[brdwaybaby17]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 9:22pm

MusicMan, if you hate RAGTIME so much, what shows do you like???
I am incredibly interested in knowing!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 10:00pm

1. Reviews were mixed
2. Operating costs were high
3. Lion King won the Tony. Ragtime was the better show but thems the breaks

[Cutielyricist]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 10:32pm

ah the ongoing battle....i shoudl have never started this thread again..but I must again disagree..(personality free) ahrens and flaherty? thats harsh..I think they are filled with both,..lyrics totally match the characther..and dont just rhyme for the sake of rhyming ( ahem Sideshow, I still roll my eyes every time I hear freaks/geeks/speaks) and the music isnt a rehash of every other show they've done ( ahem Webber..I cringe every time I hear ANYTHING He has done.) their shows are origional..and have one thing in common..they have HEART. Which is something alot of the shows on broadway dont. Lion king had flash and great puppetry..but couldnt decide what it wanted to be. A kids show? A african folktale told in dance and chant? or a puppetshow? so it constantly switched back and forth..it doesnt take much to follow..perhaps thats why it was successful..or why cats ran forever and ever..Ragtime takes a little more intelligence to watch..unfortunatly not alot of people have that or the attention span to follow an emotioal thread for so long.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 2/25/04 at 10:51pm

Regarding your questions about what THE LION KING is:

Yes, it was all those things--WHICH IS THE POINT.

THE LION KING's theatrical conception brilliantly incorporates every kind of world theater arts and crafts to tell its mythic story. Which is why it's stunning and original and plays to capacity houses, compared to the pedestrian RAGTIME (which is a pleasant memory).

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 1:34am

Not to contradict anyone (especially my pseudo-hero MusicMan), but I wasn't entirely enthralled by The Lion King, either...

[Cutielyricist]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 5:43am

througout the entire production of that show..which i was thankfully glad i didnt pay for..I kept thinking that it was childrens theatre..perhaps childrens theatre at its best. I actually got to attend a discussion with some of the collaborative team of lion king and they explained what the lion king was..and to me..I understood what the lion king was trying to be..unfortunatly its not that.

Honestly..could the lion king be done ANYWHERE other than Broadway, london or on tour? anywhere but a massive stage. Can you listen to the CD without knowing the story, or without reading the synopsis and understand where its going? Without the flash and lights of the show..the Lion King is nothing other than the same thing you can rent from blockbuster for $3.50. And I am much more impressed by the passion put in by the animators than any of what Ive seen on the stage. The fact that it took move than one person to write that book baffles me. Did they take turns copying from the screen play? Disney has more than enough money to actually pay for something good.

Shows should be well written. The material should START that way. You should feel emotion in the material. Laugh and cry with the characters. " Wow the cheetah head moves with the actor does" is not the emotional epiphany i was looking for either. Lion King is a big show but that doesnt mean its a good show.

The Lion King is a success. Im not denying that..but for a few reasons.
One: its produced by the Powerhouse disney..where even the most mediocre products..(have you seen any of the lame as hell direct to video sequels) gets the media attention.
Two: its based off of a movie that everyone knows
Three: Honestly..the most idiodic person could follow it. The audience will never ask a question. They will never be inclined to think or wonder what the theme is..other than "gee that stampede scene was just like the movie" or "wow the puppets were just like the animals in the movie". Want a movie? see a movie..

Want Art? Want a well written show? See something else.

[Princess MimiChica]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 9:46am

well it's been close to 5 years since i've seen Ragtome or, is that Gagtime?) but, count me as one of the ones who weren't overly impressed. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a horrible show, but I felt it was too dragged out. The music was entertainign at the time, but very little of the score is memorable. It's just not one of my favs..

On a different note, Builldog, I have to dissagree with some of the shows you call "mastpieces". I don't think that term applies to Show Boat, My Fair Lady, or Choklahoma. Just because it's old, doesn't mean it's brilliant!! thats jmho of course.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 10:54am

I love the Ragtime score, but was extremely disappointed in the book and hated the staging. I read the novel and though the film left out quite a bit, it still managed to remain focused on the stories they chose to tell. The musical tried to include more from the novel, but sacrificed quality for quantity. Thus, many characters were introduced for a scene or two never to be heard from again with no real connection to the plot. It was a major disappointment for me.

I completely disagree with cutielyricist's comments on The Lion King. Ragtime is the show I felt didn't know what it wanted to be. Was it spectacle or minimalist? It had no focus or center. The Lion King was built around a vision for transferring the film to the stage, which was constantly ridiculed until it actually opened. Like the film, it is a family show designed to entertain both adults and children. Unlike Ragtime, I knew exactly what to expect from the book and it lived to my expectations and I was quite impressed with the additions in the score. I don't believe that every musical has to top the last in every single aspect of artistic integrity. But The Lion King was incredibly artistic in its use of costumes, lighting and scenic design and choreography. Of course the most idiotic person can follow it and the same could be said of countless musicals like 42nd Street, Forum, Phantom, Fiddler, Oklahoma, My Fair Lady, etc. The visual beauty of The Lion King did move me and if anyone is moved emotionally from a show, regardless of which aspect moves them, isn't that the point?

[Cutielyricist]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 1:57pm

I agree with you comment on lion king..for if you are not expecting much from a musical you will be pleasantly surprised..as for the technical aspects of the show, lights, scenic design and staging was wonderful..it really was, as were the costumes..But take that away...and you got nothing..a cringeworthy bad book, recycled music, and lacking lyrics. The staged reading of that show would be laughable..A musical is a collaborative effort...shouldnt be based on flash alone..special effects are nice..but if thats where the so called ART is..is only a matter of time before " Hulk" the musical or " Godzilla" or " independence day" opens..

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 2:26pm

AND the book was better....

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 2:38pm

Cutielyricist,

You simply cannot take away the costumes or sets from ANY show. it is an essential part of the show. Even the shows with 'no set' are designed, for goodness sake.

If you want to say that RATIME was better written, the fine (though I will contend that 'He Lives In You' is just as moving as anything in RAGTIME).

Ancient forms of world theatre are extremely simple in their narrative. Does that make them less valid? Absolutely not. In some ways, the essence of a story can be boiled down and told simply. For all of its grandeur, LION KING is essentially simple. Masks and puppets used to tell a story. And beautifully, I might add.

And bdwybaby17,

I, and many of use, did in fact get what RAGTIME was about. We just didn't like the way the story was told.

[marincrazy11]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 3:27pm

I for one am a big fan of Ragtime and I'm not going to defend my position or shoot anyone down cuz they don't like it-who cares?-it's their opinion and if I like it that is what's most important to me, not someone else's opinion although I do value and respect it. On the topic of The Lion King, I saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it, wasn't blown away, but I am glad that I saw it. I think it should be applauded for the idea and the physical work it took to make it what it is, but I don't feel the need to see it over and over, but I enjoyed it a lot.

What really made me wanna post though is MimiChica's response about the classics. While I don't think the revival of Oklahoma was good at all I definatley think it is a classic as with all the others Bulldog mentioned. It brought a new idea to the public, it challenged conservative ideas about the theater when it FIRST opened, as did most of Rodger's and Hammersteins musicals. Those things may not seem like a big deal today but they sure were when it opened on broadway. But like I said everyone is enititled to thier own opinions and I'm not going to try and change their minds, but I for sure felt I needed to put this down in writing.

[Cutielyricist]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 3:47pm

Have you ever seen a staged reading? or a musicals in mifti production? or listened to a cast recording. The material should stand on its own..not on the crutches...or in some case forklift of special effects...the behind the scenes action should add too not overpower the show.

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 4:08pm

Cutie,

Not only have I seen staged readings, I've been in staged readings. But there's a reason staged readings are not long runs or even cost much. They're not full productions.

We're talking about Broadway shows here. Not theoretical staged readings of both shows going head-to-head. Tonys are given to the best production of a musical. That's why there are separate score and book categories.

Let's face it. PIPPIN and A CHORUS LINE would make crashingly boring Mufti productions. The staging for those shows (and even a show like FIDDLER as David Leveaux is about to find out) is just as essential as the script. Julie Taymor, like Jerome Robbins, Michael Bennett and Bob Fosse, was the driving force behind that production.

I'm not saying that there isn't a production of RAGTIME somewhere that could win me over. I'm saying the production as done on Broadway left me cold, whereas LION KING did not.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/26/04 at 4:31pm

With regards to Ragtime, I absolutely loved it (saw it numerous times). But I will say that where you sat in that theatre made all the difference in the world. The first time out I was in the 4th row and was afraid that it might be too close. I was pleasantly surprised by how drawn into the story and performances I became. I also sat in the top tier and felt that being in those seats were a disadvantage. I wasn't as wrapped up by the production that time around and the friend I was with didn't really like it either (she later went on to audition for "Mother" and came to appreciate the material and gave it a 2nd chance and loved the show).

Three of the five times that I saw "Ragtime" I was seated in the orchestra area (including final performance) and felt those were the times I most enjoyed the show. I even saw the pared down tour in Baltimore, and though the music held up well, I didn't particularly like many of the actors in that production. To this day the score gives me chills and remains one of my favorite shows.

I also saw "Lion King" that same week and didn't like it at all. I could appreciate the concept and the imagination behind what they were trying to do, but it did not move me. I even got rid of the CD after seeing it.