Question For Those Who've Seen SHUFFLE ALONG

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 12:33pm

When I saw the show a few weeks ago, I was really impressed by what I saw. But I find that ever since that night, I haven't really even thought about it once and when I look back on it, I find it hard to remember why exactly I enjoyed it as much as I did.

 

I'm curious if anyone else has the same experience I did with the show. 

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 12:54pm

I do remember why I liked it. It is a good show but I can kind of see where your question is coming from.

I think I was so impressed by the talent and the choreography. What impressed me is that with that powerhouse cast, nobody "took the spotlight". It was also in the back of my mind that Wolfe was directing. I saw it on the 5th and knew going in that it was still being worked on. I think knowing that added to my enjoyment because even though I wasn't seeing the frozen show, I was possibly witnessing a great piece of theatre in progress.

Would I see it agaIn? Yes. Why? Because I did enjoynwhat I saw and would like to see the finished product. Off the top of my head I can't remember a show that has had a preview period like this one. (Playbill changes, illness, many changes to the show and a week off). Those things seemed to generate a bit of excitemet and hope that when it opens it could be an incredible piece.

Just my random thoughts.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 12:56pm

I saw both Shuffle Along and Tuck Everlasting on Saturday.  I'm thinking of both shows but for very different reasons.  I'm kind of disappointed that Shuffle Along didn't include a song list in the Playbill, as that helps me remember what I saw.  The tap numbers are what I recall first, and then snippets of individual performances.  Brandon Victor Dixon's performance stands out with me, as I was impressed that he was playing the piano.  He was utterly charming and I loved the expression on his face when he turned to the audience from the orchestra pit.

After seeing the photos of Shuffle Along that appeared on this site today, Darlesia Cearcy didn't have nearly as many costumes as Audra!

Updated On: 4/27/16 at 12:56 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 1:24pm

I will also say that the evening I saw it there was something in the air. I felt like the bulk of the people there were avid theatergoers. Of course people wanted to see Audra but it felt like mostly people wanted to see the show itself. The conversations around me were about theatre.  And also, as a black man, it was thrilling to see an all black cast do what they did on that stage. Also I felt like I was seeing a good old fashioned Broadway show. JMO

[Patash]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 2:16pm

Yes, my experience was similar to yours.  I absolutely loved and enjoyed the singing and the dancing, but never got involved in the story itself.   If the original show Shuffle Along was just half as good as they told is it was (about 50 times, by the way) then I'd much rather have been watching an actual revival of the real Shuffle Along, not this dull story about the people who first made it.

 

By the way, I keep thinking of After Midnight, with somewhat similar music and lots of great dancing.  I LOVED that show, but it didn't pretend to be anything more than just a big fun show.  I guess that's why I didn't get absorbed into Shuffle Along -- I wish it were just a "big fun show" without trying to sell us on the story and hit us over the head with what a turning point in theatre the original was. 

 

 

 

 

 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 2:19pm

I do wonder if the tap dancing has anything to do with that response. The dancing is absolutely sensational, to the point that it dominates the evening. And while none of the dancing feels out of place, I think it's possible that the flash and spectacle of the choreography overshadows the importance of the story that's being told. I don't think I have quite the same response as you, Jordan, but I can see where it's coming from. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 2:36pm

I saw the very first preview, so the show may be much better at this point.  But your experience was much more positive than mine.

Patash, for me a serious and thought-provoking exploration of the historic show might have been very rewarding.  But the libretto - at least when I saw the show - never effectively connected with that goal.

Updated On: 4/27/16 at 02:36 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 2:41pm

Patash, I had no problem with the story. I am actually glad we didn't get a revival of the original. I very much enjoyed getting the backstory. The two things I hoped for after seeing it was tightening up act 2 and not having the guy tap dance during the scene where they talked about the band players style being copied. (Clainetist? Someone refresh my memory) His tap dancing was very distracting and not needed, in my opinion and verged on tap overkill.

[stevie3]

Posted: 4/27/16 at 9:25pm

Dude, its not you, it was pretty much a non event like American in Paris,  Both shows tried really hard but was lacking alot

[bear88]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 2:15am

Stray thoughts on my experience, which match some of your reactions:

- The audience (April 4, a Monday) seemed like serious theatergoers. This was a contrast to my first two shows (long-running tourist favorities Wicked and Book of Mormon) or my last one (Hamilton). It was an older crowd and a little more racially diverse. But it was a very enthusiastic group, and everyone around me was in a good mood after the first act. I sensed less enthusiasm after the second act, but people still leapt to their feet and gave a standing ovation to what was clearly a work in progress.

-  What stood out? A lot of the first act, especially what I call the Suitcase Dance, featuring Brian Stokes Mitchell's standout song and Savion Glover's most imaginative tap choreography. They should do it at the Tonys, but seeing it a few feet away was not an experience that can be recreated on television. 

- Uh, the cast? I had never seen any of these performers in person. It was pretty cool to sit in the sixth row and watch Audra McDonald show off her acting, singing and dancing chops. And thanks, Dottie, for mentioning Brandon Victor Dixon, who more than held his own with McDonald and had his own great moments - including the one you mentioned. While I thought Billy Porter didn't quite bring off his big second act song, he is quite a comic presence, and brought down the house with one line in which he tells the audience that he had a wife. While it was a reminder of the problems with the show, I didn't think about that in the moment. 

- While the show gets a bit didactic at times, and one big number (since cut, apparently) didn't work at all, there was something understated that worked for me. 

- But just so I don't come off as too much of an apologist, I should note that my wife had a similar reaction to you, Jordan. Shuffle Along was her least favorite show of the four we saw, and she didn't really have much to say about it later. It didn't help that we saw Hamilton the next night. I guess I appreciated the ambition, the talent, and the chance to see a bunch of Broadway stars sweat it out to put together a show on deadline pressure. And for a work-in-progress, it was a pretty good musical.

Updated On: 4/28/16 at 02:15 AM

[Comden Green]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 6:55am

Patash said: "  If the original show Shuffle Along was just half as good as they told is it was (about 50 times, by the way) then I'd much rather have been watching an actual revival of the real Shuffle Along, not this dull story about the people who first made it."

 

 

I'm not sure they actually said it was a good show.  Rather, I was left with the idea that it was more of a phenomenon.   I suspect that if the show was reproducible it would have been.  

That being said, in response to the OP, I did also love the experience - the tap and other thrilling choreography and the presence of all that incredible talent in front of my very eyes.  

But I have thought about it since. The details of the story were important and memorable.  One thought, in particular was burned in me.  Born and raised in the south, came of age in the 60's and still here, I am not unfamiliar with racial discrimination  and its history.  And yet I had never ever heard AND IM NOT SURE THIS IS A SPOILER OR NOT - that portraying a happy, loving relationship on stage between two black people was not allowed and could lead to riots and death.  

For me the show did a pretty good job of making the time more real in my head.  That's what I want.  

I am so glad that I didn't miss this show.  

 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 7:39am

I was at the second preview when pretty much every single idea was thrown onstage. It was like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what stuck. Very little stuck for me, and I, honestly, remember not too many details about the show at all. I did feel the show was tedious, bloated, and trying to do too many things at once. I am curious to see the new changes (I said I would never go back, but now I am curious), but I am hesitant to pay a pretty penny to go back and see a show that I genuinely disliked the first time around.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 11:05am

Has anyone heard anything about a cast album being made?

[wolfwriter2]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 12:04pm

I saw the show last week and until I started reading this thread, had not given it another thought. I think a show, for better or worse, has a better chance of sticking in your head, when it is shown, not told. This is a story that is mostly told and, for the wealth of talent on stage, it just doesn't resonate as, I think they had hoped.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 12:55pm

I saw the show again last night and boy, a whole lot has changed since the first preview! In fact, I think this show has changed more than any Broadway show since Spider-man.

 

The first act was basically just streamlined and plays better than act two, which underwent a major overhaul. It's better, but still loses steam during The Buzz and never quite recovers. I can't believe how much was gone: Josephine Baker, the European Sissle/Blake concert and song for their wives, the number with all the faces of the famous people who saw Shuffle Along, Brooks' It's Getting Dark on Old Broadway number, Brian's big Follies number, the entire finale with the cast sitting on chairs- it's all very different now, but do all the changes add up to anything other than to make the evening shorter?

 

Audra was on fire, especially in act one, and the piece now feels much more like a star vehicle for her than it did before. After the first preview I felt like the four males were all co-leads and Audra had more of a featured role. The men all saw their parts reduced while Audra's seemed to be left untouched. She dominates every moment she's onstage; it's thrilling, but throws the show a little out of whack by allowing Lottie to steal so much focus.

 

There is still far too much telling vs showing, and some of the interesting aspects Stokes Mitchell brings up in his final monologue really should be delved into during the piece rather than tacked onto the ending. For example, he talks about how Shuffle Along dealt with elections and voting at a time when many African Americans couldn't vote and/or were threatened with physical violence when they attempt to. Because we still are never given much of a plot synopsis or explanation of who the characters are in Shuffle Along this very valid and interesting idea is left completely unexplored. We get to see Sissle and Blake at work composing songs several times during act one, but we never get to see Miller and Lyles wrote a book scene or discuss the book.

 

The strongest moment is still Audra's performance of the first African American love song- a moment that is shown and not told btw- and actually demonstrates the revolutionary nature of the piece that we are constantly reminded of.

 

The dancing is still thrilling, as are the costumes and lighting.

 

Shuffle Along gets the nomination for greatest unrealized potential this season. There are flashes of brilliance, surely, but oh what this piece could have been...

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 12:57pm

It's interesting, Whizzer, that the changes you mention were almost all made in the last week or so (according to people in the previews thread). What were they doing between a month ago, when I saw it and all that was still there, and now?

(Josephine Baker was gone by the end of March when I saw it.)

Updated On: 4/28/16 at 12:57 PM

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 1:40pm

We saw the show last Friday night. While standing in line to enter the theater at 7:45, we were first informed that Audra would be out that night and Darlesia Cearcy would go on instead. So you can imagine our mood upon entering the theater to take our seat. Nevertheless, the show took off like gangbusters, Darlesia held her own admirably, and the spectacular first-act curtain sequence sent us off in to intermission on cloud nine.

But Lordy, how they squandered all that good feeling with what was left of Act II. From Whizzer's re-review, it sounds like there was at least twice as much show in Act II before the editing started, and I for one felt cheated by the paltry entertainment value that remained after those draconian cuts. Most of all, I felt cheated out of any catch-in-your-throat emotion that this story was MADE to impart. How could such a heartbreaking history leave so little room for tears by the time we got to the finale? Maybe Audra's presence would have made all the difference-- we'll never know. We still ended up deeply impressed with the dance sequences, the gorgeous Ann Roth costumes, and particularly Brandon Victor Dixon's dazzling turn as Eubie Blake. But I second everyone else's comments mourning the lost opportunity this ambitious show represents in its current  eviscerated state.

[Peter2]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 2:08pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "Audra was on fire, especially in act one, and the piece now feels much more like a star vehicle for her than it did before. After the first preview I felt like the four males were all co-leads and Audra had more of a featured role. The men all saw their parts reduced while Audra's seemed to be left untouched. She dominates every moment she's onstage; it's thrilling, but throws the show a little out of whack by allowing Lottie to steal so much focus."

 

How interesting! It's funny how it didn't even occur to me that an obvious solution to try to fix the problem of too many characters/story lines/themes would be to make their biggest star the central attraction. When I saw the show, she was still just one among many. I wonder if it makes the show cohere more? Dixon is so appealing, I'd love it if their love story was expanded--he deserves more to do than he's given.

It's not a perfect show, but it has so much going for it I hope it gets a good run. I'll certainly see it at least one more time (as long as it doesn't close early).

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 2:16pm

I've been thinking about it frequently since I saw the show. It made interesting points about the collateral damage of cultural appropriation and how societal oppression prevents groups of talented minorities from working together to rise above their circumstances. I didn't mind the "telling" because it seemed important these unknown ghosts from theatrical history were literally speaking to us. It was maybe not as emotionally fulfilling, but I didn't have a problem with that.  And the talent and the spectacle were all quite remarkable too! 

All that said... it was more of an intellectual success than it was an emotional one. Regardless, I thought it was a really terrific accomplishment.  

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 2:24pm

Whizzer,

Thanks so much for chiming in!  I was curious as to what you thought of the changes that have taken place since you first saw it.  I hope that George C. Wolfe continues to work on this show post opening, as there is definitely something there.

After seeing the production photos posted on this site yesterday, it appears that Audra has a lot more costumes in comparison to the one's worn by Darlesia Cercy when I saw the show last Saturday.  That's the one thing that stuck out was that Darlesia was wearing the same blue dress in mostly every scene.

I also felt that Joshua Henry really didn't have much to do, and I was wondering how much was cut.

Did Darlesia originally play Josephine Baker before the role was cut?

Updated On: 4/28/16 at 02:24 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 2:30pm

I plan to see it again. One of the things I liked the most is that it wasn't a star turn performance for one actor. I liked that they came off as a real ensemble and how well they worked together. JMO

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 2:35pm

Someone in a Tree,

Act Two original had a "Loveland" section, of which only two parts now remain: Aubrey's "Low Down Blues" and Lottie's "Memories of You" (Losing My Mind). Sissle and Blake had a section called "Les Ambassadeuers- Paris" where they performed "Musical selections with Sissle and Blake" joined by their wives, Harriet and Avis. It was the "You're Gonna Love Tomorrow/Love Will See Us Through" section, but instead of the two couples ending on a hopeful note things fell apart and the duo split. 

 

F.E.'s section was the grandest moment, but it was so ambitious that it never quite worked. Aubrey came to the dressing room to tell F.E. that he was moving to Africa and their partnership was over. In the final version Stokes Mitchell narrates that they finished out the week in Philadelphia together, but after that Aubrey just vanished. In the original version Aubrey left before finishing the run and F.E. was forced to go onstage alone to complete the performance. He was in half black face and there was an empty spotlight night to him where Aubrey was supposed to be performing. The song started out as an angry reprise of Shuffle Along with F.E. attempting to tell jokes and make patter playing both parts of now broken team. It was part "I Can't Do It Alone," part "Duet For One," part "Rose's Turn" and part "Live, Laugh, Love" ending in a complete breakdown. If they had been able to pull it off it could have been the 11 O'Clock to end all 11 O'Clocks, but as much as I intellectually understood what they were trying to do it wasn't coming together and the sequence basically bombed. I so wish they had been able to work it out rather than scrapping the whole idea as it now leaves Stokes Mitchell with very little to do in act two. Plus, with 3/5 of the Follies numbers gone the other two seems all the more out of place. 

[Kad]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 2:35pm

I saw the first preview following their week hiatus a few weeks ago and I, too, found it to be a wonderful piece of theatre- challenging, stunningly staged and choreographed, and willing to probe the dark recesses of American culture. It was never intended to be a joyous diversion of a show.

It has a central flaw, of course, in that the show it is about can no longer be staged. Shuffle Along, despite  being groundbreaking, would be considered wildly racist today, being strongly rooted in minstrelsy. Yet its innovations and its sounds have been used- heck, Truman used "I'm Just Wild About Harry" as a campaign song! Society has not just progressed past Shuffle Along- it took the good stuff and ran.

In this production, the first act is the good stuff. The second act is the running.

Can a show really capture that at a level that is emotionally and intellectually satisfying? I think this is the most intellectually audacious Broadway show this season, and in a long time.

 

Updated On: 4/28/16 at 02:35 PM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 2:43pm

Dottie, 

Audra has costume changes galore, so they just most not have them for the understudy yet. 

Josh Henry unfortunately did pull the short straw. He used to have a number dancing on a small staircase that was mirrored upstage (and towards the back wall) by two ensemble dancers. It was a nice musical moment, but ended up on the scrap heap. I really enjoyed his scene where they wouldn't let him in the front door of The Cotton Club last night. With both his lone solo and Loveland sequence cut it does feel like he's been pushed further to the sidelines than the other three male leads. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/28/16 at 3:22pm

Side note - Am I the only one who waited for and hoped the whole night that Audra would say "F.E., you're goin' crazy!"