Atlanta -- the Musical
Jan. 5th, 2008 01:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fabrisseThere are major spoilers for the play underneath the cut. If you don't want to be spoiled, please don't read. I don't know whether the musical will get another incarnation at any point.
Let me start by saying, I enjoyed this. I have problems with it, but I see where this could be a terrific show.
A quick recap of the plot. A young Union soldier kills a young Confederate soldier. The ground where this takes place is nearer the Confederate lines than the Union's, so he exchanges uniforms with the man he killed. He's about to be hanged as a Southern deserter, when the Colonel's whim let's him audition to be part of the Colonel's household -- three slaves who play Shakespeare for the Colonel's relaxation. He passes the audition, with help from the three, and continues through several weeks to the battle of Peachtree Creek.
Most of the cast was good. The gentleman playing the lead, Ken Barnett, was the weakest of the actors. Some of it was because his character tends to react to everything around him rather than being the agent of change. This is always a harder role to take. His singing voice was good, but I found his speaking voice to be a little light which made him occasionally difficult to hear.
John Fleck, who played the southern Colonel, left no cliche unturned. The company is supposed to be from Louisiana, but he and his lieutenant are wearing the wrong uniform for that. The Louisiana companies didn't wear conventional Confederate uniforms. By the time this is supposed to be taking place, most of the Confederate army was wearing homespun and not grey anyway. I will say his singing voice was fine -- he has no solos, but ably did the chorus work required.
Hamlet was played by Leonard Roberts. His role is the meatiest, and I thought he was very, very good. There were two issues that bothered me a little. The first was that he went seriously flat twice. Last night's performance was on a rainy night toward the end of the run, and this role is arduous. It happens, but it can knock the audience out of the moment when it does. The other... Mr. Roberts lisps when he sings. Most of the time that's not an issue, but several of his songs have lyrics taken straight from Shakespeare. The enunciation needs to be clean because modern audiences have enough trouble with the poetry of Shakespearian language without it being set to music. His voice is lovely. His acting was strong. There is a moment when Hamlet is whipped, and he sold it -- the pain, the resignation, and the dignity. If the play has more opportunities, I hope he's able to continue in the role.
All three of the women have excellent voices. Atlanta herself has little to do as she is present only through her letters.
Puck is an interesting role. Moe Daniels who played 'him' has a marvellous physicality and sings like an angel -- a raucous angel.
Merle Dandridge's Cleo has a little bit more meat to her role. Her singing is excellent. Like the character of Hamlet, she's called upon to sing Shakespeare, and she did a lovely job of it. The Colonel uses the character for sex and Ms. Dandridge managed to convey complex emotions through something as simple as fixing her clothing.
The music suffered from a common problem in many of today's musicals: Every song has to be climactic. At the beginning of the second act, Cleopatra reads one of Atlanta's letters aloud. It begins quietly, and could have been extremely compelling -- and a nice moment of needed quiet for the play, too -- if it had continued that way. Instead the chorus comes in, the music and lead voice get louder to compensate and the beauty of the letter and the moment is lost. Too many of the songs had a similar issue.
Catch the Dog was a chorus number and was terrific. Its humor overcame the squeamishness of the subject matter (dog is on the menu). It worked as a chorus number because every character needs to eat. Both Dixie and Oh, Susanna are reworked and work in context as full chorus numbers.
Hamlet's Soliloquy and Sonnet XXVIII respect their lyrics, but come across more as recitative than full songs.
The Field suffered from what I call "Sondheim Syndrome" rather than finding a way to match the beats of the words to the beats of the music, certain words run over the lines or force feet into a line. In this song, I wanted to scream by about the third time the word wildflowers broke the scansion. It doesn't make the song more compelling; it just sounds like the songwriter didn't care enough to make the music and lyrics complement each other. I'd also like to point out that "baby" as a term of endearment is rare or non-existent before the 1920s. Using it in one of the love songs was a mistake.
Heart and Home was the only number besides Catch the Dog that really worked perfectly for me. It starts out as a solo, but the chorus coming in and expanding the meaning and musicality don't feel forced the way it does in some of the other songs. It's nearly at the end of the first act, which needs a climactic moment, so nothing feels shoehorned.
By the way, the band was wonderful. Every musician got little showcase moments and really made the most of them.
I found the humor of forced marches, and the complexity of the relationships to be very well expressed by the book. There are some nice quiet moments -- like when Hamlet finally confronts the lead "Andrew" about being Union -- that develop beautifully. Leonard Roberts grounds the cast and gives gravitas to some moments that might have felt forced or fanciful otherwise.
Now here's where it kicks in that I'm a Virginia girl, and the writers of the play are northerners. The scene leading up to the song Heart and Home has the Colonel whipping Hamlet. When "Andrew" protests, he's handed the whip and is threatened with hanging if he doesn't complete the punishment. Hamlet gives permission, encouragement even (he's been whipped before and knows what he can take), and "Andrew" lives.
The conversation before the Colonel hands "Andrew" the whip involves a discussion about "Andrew's" people owning and needing to discipline their slaves. Most Southerners were not plantation owners. Most small holders either didn't own slaves at all -- not for moral reasons, but financial -- or owned a very few who were often better fed than the daughters of the household (you could get more work out of a well-fed slave than a well-fed daughter). It's absolutely wrong for the Colonel to assume the family of a private owned any slaves. It's not an assumption a plantation owner would make. The contempt for small holders by the plantation class was nearly as great as the contempt they had for their slaves.
The scene is difficult to watch, as it should be, and I noticed that nearly a third of the already depleted audience left during the interval -- I assume because there was a whipping on stage. The scene needs to be there. The reality of slavery needs to be seen. Leaving it out because modern audiences find it offensive would be the worst form of political correctness.
I liked the fact that "Andrew's" motivation for joining the Army was discussed. He makes it clear that he did it for the Union rather than for a burning need to see slaves freed. But not once does a Southerner get to say that he's fighting for states' rights rather than to keep the peculiar institution going.
This means something to me. My father heard stories about the Siege of Richmond from his great-grandfather who, at fifteen, fought in those trenches. He heard about that awful Colonel Custer from his great,great aunts who had to serve him at table as our family farm was occupied by Sheridan's army. We fought on the wrong side (in my ancestral defense, I also have people who served on the Union side in my lineage, they just didn't tell their stories). But the implications of States' Rights versus Federalist tendencies is still relevant today as we sit around wondering how we got to the imperial presidency of one George W. Bush.
The biggest miscalculation is in the title of the play. Atlanta was rarely used as a personal name, unlike Georgia or Virginia or even Florida was in that period. Thanks to Margaret Mitchell, we hear Atlanta and Civil War and our expectations are primed.
I know some of the impact of the play was hurt by the fact the stage was small and somewhat cramped, but I liked this play. I wanted to love it, and I think, given another reworking, it could be a great piece of theater. I'm very glad I saw it.
Let me start by saying, I enjoyed this. I have problems with it, but I see where this could be a terrific show.
A quick recap of the plot. A young Union soldier kills a young Confederate soldier. The ground where this takes place is nearer the Confederate lines than the Union's, so he exchanges uniforms with the man he killed. He's about to be hanged as a Southern deserter, when the Colonel's whim let's him audition to be part of the Colonel's household -- three slaves who play Shakespeare for the Colonel's relaxation. He passes the audition, with help from the three, and continues through several weeks to the battle of Peachtree Creek.
Most of the cast was good. The gentleman playing the lead, Ken Barnett, was the weakest of the actors. Some of it was because his character tends to react to everything around him rather than being the agent of change. This is always a harder role to take. His singing voice was good, but I found his speaking voice to be a little light which made him occasionally difficult to hear.
John Fleck, who played the southern Colonel, left no cliche unturned. The company is supposed to be from Louisiana, but he and his lieutenant are wearing the wrong uniform for that. The Louisiana companies didn't wear conventional Confederate uniforms. By the time this is supposed to be taking place, most of the Confederate army was wearing homespun and not grey anyway. I will say his singing voice was fine -- he has no solos, but ably did the chorus work required.
Hamlet was played by Leonard Roberts. His role is the meatiest, and I thought he was very, very good. There were two issues that bothered me a little. The first was that he went seriously flat twice. Last night's performance was on a rainy night toward the end of the run, and this role is arduous. It happens, but it can knock the audience out of the moment when it does. The other... Mr. Roberts lisps when he sings. Most of the time that's not an issue, but several of his songs have lyrics taken straight from Shakespeare. The enunciation needs to be clean because modern audiences have enough trouble with the poetry of Shakespearian language without it being set to music. His voice is lovely. His acting was strong. There is a moment when Hamlet is whipped, and he sold it -- the pain, the resignation, and the dignity. If the play has more opportunities, I hope he's able to continue in the role.
All three of the women have excellent voices. Atlanta herself has little to do as she is present only through her letters.
Puck is an interesting role. Moe Daniels who played 'him' has a marvellous physicality and sings like an angel -- a raucous angel.
Merle Dandridge's Cleo has a little bit more meat to her role. Her singing is excellent. Like the character of Hamlet, she's called upon to sing Shakespeare, and she did a lovely job of it. The Colonel uses the character for sex and Ms. Dandridge managed to convey complex emotions through something as simple as fixing her clothing.
The music suffered from a common problem in many of today's musicals: Every song has to be climactic. At the beginning of the second act, Cleopatra reads one of Atlanta's letters aloud. It begins quietly, and could have been extremely compelling -- and a nice moment of needed quiet for the play, too -- if it had continued that way. Instead the chorus comes in, the music and lead voice get louder to compensate and the beauty of the letter and the moment is lost. Too many of the songs had a similar issue.
Catch the Dog was a chorus number and was terrific. Its humor overcame the squeamishness of the subject matter (dog is on the menu). It worked as a chorus number because every character needs to eat. Both Dixie and Oh, Susanna are reworked and work in context as full chorus numbers.
Hamlet's Soliloquy and Sonnet XXVIII respect their lyrics, but come across more as recitative than full songs.
The Field suffered from what I call "Sondheim Syndrome" rather than finding a way to match the beats of the words to the beats of the music, certain words run over the lines or force feet into a line. In this song, I wanted to scream by about the third time the word wildflowers broke the scansion. It doesn't make the song more compelling; it just sounds like the songwriter didn't care enough to make the music and lyrics complement each other. I'd also like to point out that "baby" as a term of endearment is rare or non-existent before the 1920s. Using it in one of the love songs was a mistake.
Heart and Home was the only number besides Catch the Dog that really worked perfectly for me. It starts out as a solo, but the chorus coming in and expanding the meaning and musicality don't feel forced the way it does in some of the other songs. It's nearly at the end of the first act, which needs a climactic moment, so nothing feels shoehorned.
By the way, the band was wonderful. Every musician got little showcase moments and really made the most of them.
I found the humor of forced marches, and the complexity of the relationships to be very well expressed by the book. There are some nice quiet moments -- like when Hamlet finally confronts the lead "Andrew" about being Union -- that develop beautifully. Leonard Roberts grounds the cast and gives gravitas to some moments that might have felt forced or fanciful otherwise.
Now here's where it kicks in that I'm a Virginia girl, and the writers of the play are northerners. The scene leading up to the song Heart and Home has the Colonel whipping Hamlet. When "Andrew" protests, he's handed the whip and is threatened with hanging if he doesn't complete the punishment. Hamlet gives permission, encouragement even (he's been whipped before and knows what he can take), and "Andrew" lives.
The conversation before the Colonel hands "Andrew" the whip involves a discussion about "Andrew's" people owning and needing to discipline their slaves. Most Southerners were not plantation owners. Most small holders either didn't own slaves at all -- not for moral reasons, but financial -- or owned a very few who were often better fed than the daughters of the household (you could get more work out of a well-fed slave than a well-fed daughter). It's absolutely wrong for the Colonel to assume the family of a private owned any slaves. It's not an assumption a plantation owner would make. The contempt for small holders by the plantation class was nearly as great as the contempt they had for their slaves.
The scene is difficult to watch, as it should be, and I noticed that nearly a third of the already depleted audience left during the interval -- I assume because there was a whipping on stage. The scene needs to be there. The reality of slavery needs to be seen. Leaving it out because modern audiences find it offensive would be the worst form of political correctness.
I liked the fact that "Andrew's" motivation for joining the Army was discussed. He makes it clear that he did it for the Union rather than for a burning need to see slaves freed. But not once does a Southerner get to say that he's fighting for states' rights rather than to keep the peculiar institution going.
This means something to me. My father heard stories about the Siege of Richmond from his great-grandfather who, at fifteen, fought in those trenches. He heard about that awful Colonel Custer from his great,great aunts who had to serve him at table as our family farm was occupied by Sheridan's army. We fought on the wrong side (in my ancestral defense, I also have people who served on the Union side in my lineage, they just didn't tell their stories). But the implications of States' Rights versus Federalist tendencies is still relevant today as we sit around wondering how we got to the imperial presidency of one George W. Bush.
The biggest miscalculation is in the title of the play. Atlanta was rarely used as a personal name, unlike Georgia or Virginia or even Florida was in that period. Thanks to Margaret Mitchell, we hear Atlanta and Civil War and our expectations are primed.
I know some of the impact of the play was hurt by the fact the stage was small and somewhat cramped, but I liked this play. I wanted to love it, and I think, given another reworking, it could be a great piece of theater. I'm very glad I saw it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 07:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 07:29 pm (UTC)Ak. That's a real shame, indeed. I was just saying to someone not ten minutes ago that a good 50% of the enjoyment I get from art in any form is shring it with someone else so I know what you mean.