![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficThis week I went to see Newsies as a sponsored work event for the interns. This meant I got to leave work when it was still light out...but still didn't get home until 11.
I'm a fan of the movie Newsies, which was kind of a bust financially, so was interested to see the stage version, which has been a huge success.
The stage version mostly follows the movie--it keeps almost all fo the music, and adds a few numbers. I think it probably should have been a Broadway play to begin with. Big song and dance movies weren't much of a thing by the early nineties, and musicals about New York always play really well with tourist audiences. Tourists seem to love feeling all in-joke-y about being in New York. And it is a fun show--great dancing, good singing.
That being said, it has some pretty big problems.
The first is that, like the movie, it really requires some knowledge of history to make any sense. Like, during the scene where Pulitzer is raising the price for the newsies, he refers to the war that just ended (Spanish America), and the war he's embarking on (his circulation war with Hearst). If you don't at least know about the circulation arms race of yellow journalism, I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense. There's also a line about Brooklyn being the sixth largest city in the world, which got a huge laugh. I'm guessing because the audience didn't know that, in 1899, Brooklyn was a different city. Then there's the end, Deus ex Teddy Roosevelt. If you don't at least know that Roosevelt was governor of New York and a populist, I'm not sure how much sense any of that makes.
The second big problem is structural. The first act starts with "Carrying the Banner," a big song and dance number, then has "The World Will Know," a big song and dance number when they decide to strike, and ends with "Seize the Day," a big song and dance number that turns into a general riot. The second act starts with "King of New York," a big song and dance number, and then...nothing. Then it's plot, plot, plot, and the strike ends with a negotiation. The only big song and dance number left is the encore. There's a reason why the people next to me were checking their phones through the last hour.
There are a couple of big changes from the movie. The biggest is the reporter, played by Bill Pullman in the movie as a sort of avuncular advocate, is a woman in the stage version. They beefed up her role a little by giving her a song--about her insecurities as a writer. And making her Jack's love interest. And making her the daughter of Pulitzer, which leads to Jack having an outburst about her betrayal--and I'm sorry, you could not make a succincter case for how women are defined by the men in their lives. Plust the romance weirds the ages of the characters. Pullman's report was a decade and a half older than the strikers, who were clearly kids (Jack's 17). Making the reporter the romantic interest makes Jack seem older and detached from the actual kids on the strike.
The other big difference is the elimination of all the scenes with David's family. In the movie, Jack's longing to leave for Santa Fe is clearly, clearly about his longing for a family. The song "Santa Fe" is right after he has dinner with David's family, showing that he can only process that experience by transferring his feelings to a dream of going to Santa Fe.
In the play, he sings "Santa Fe" at the end of act I, after the riot that gets Crutchy thrown in the orphanage. It makes emotional sense there--but it completely changes what the song is about. Sung there, it makes his desire to go to Santa Fe about running away from the responsibility of the events he's set in motion. So rather than having his arc be about letting go of the fantasy of family that is Santa Fe and realizing he's surrounded by a real family, Jack ends up coming off as wishy washy and flighty. His struggle about whether to follow through on the strike is about his being able to bear up under pressure (and failing at it a lot) rather than being about letting go of a long-held dream.
And of course the deciding factor in the play of him staying in New York and giving up Santa Fe? The love interest. Yawn.
There are also a couple of little changes that I felt lessened the overall urgency of the plot. For example, in the riot, scabs show up to sell the newspapers. In the movie, Jack knocks the papers out of their hands, which leads to a brawl between the strikers and the scabbers. In the play, Jack...talks them out of it, and they voluntarily join the strike. Sure, it makes Jack a more sympathetic character, maybe, but it also completely undermines the difficulty of what they set out to do by striking.
Overall, a fun time, but I don't think it's quite tight enough to enter the Broadway canon.
Also, though it was free for me to go, it meant I worked about four hours less. Since those were overtime hours, that's an opportunity cost of about $160. No free lunch, eh?
I'm a fan of the movie Newsies, which was kind of a bust financially, so was interested to see the stage version, which has been a huge success.
The stage version mostly follows the movie--it keeps almost all fo the music, and adds a few numbers. I think it probably should have been a Broadway play to begin with. Big song and dance movies weren't much of a thing by the early nineties, and musicals about New York always play really well with tourist audiences. Tourists seem to love feeling all in-joke-y about being in New York. And it is a fun show--great dancing, good singing.
That being said, it has some pretty big problems.
The first is that, like the movie, it really requires some knowledge of history to make any sense. Like, during the scene where Pulitzer is raising the price for the newsies, he refers to the war that just ended (Spanish America), and the war he's embarking on (his circulation war with Hearst). If you don't at least know about the circulation arms race of yellow journalism, I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense. There's also a line about Brooklyn being the sixth largest city in the world, which got a huge laugh. I'm guessing because the audience didn't know that, in 1899, Brooklyn was a different city. Then there's the end, Deus ex Teddy Roosevelt. If you don't at least know that Roosevelt was governor of New York and a populist, I'm not sure how much sense any of that makes.
The second big problem is structural. The first act starts with "Carrying the Banner," a big song and dance number, then has "The World Will Know," a big song and dance number when they decide to strike, and ends with "Seize the Day," a big song and dance number that turns into a general riot. The second act starts with "King of New York," a big song and dance number, and then...nothing. Then it's plot, plot, plot, and the strike ends with a negotiation. The only big song and dance number left is the encore. There's a reason why the people next to me were checking their phones through the last hour.
There are a couple of big changes from the movie. The biggest is the reporter, played by Bill Pullman in the movie as a sort of avuncular advocate, is a woman in the stage version. They beefed up her role a little by giving her a song--about her insecurities as a writer. And making her Jack's love interest. And making her the daughter of Pulitzer, which leads to Jack having an outburst about her betrayal--and I'm sorry, you could not make a succincter case for how women are defined by the men in their lives. Plust the romance weirds the ages of the characters. Pullman's report was a decade and a half older than the strikers, who were clearly kids (Jack's 17). Making the reporter the romantic interest makes Jack seem older and detached from the actual kids on the strike.
The other big difference is the elimination of all the scenes with David's family. In the movie, Jack's longing to leave for Santa Fe is clearly, clearly about his longing for a family. The song "Santa Fe" is right after he has dinner with David's family, showing that he can only process that experience by transferring his feelings to a dream of going to Santa Fe.
In the play, he sings "Santa Fe" at the end of act I, after the riot that gets Crutchy thrown in the orphanage. It makes emotional sense there--but it completely changes what the song is about. Sung there, it makes his desire to go to Santa Fe about running away from the responsibility of the events he's set in motion. So rather than having his arc be about letting go of the fantasy of family that is Santa Fe and realizing he's surrounded by a real family, Jack ends up coming off as wishy washy and flighty. His struggle about whether to follow through on the strike is about his being able to bear up under pressure (and failing at it a lot) rather than being about letting go of a long-held dream.
And of course the deciding factor in the play of him staying in New York and giving up Santa Fe? The love interest. Yawn.
There are also a couple of little changes that I felt lessened the overall urgency of the plot. For example, in the riot, scabs show up to sell the newspapers. In the movie, Jack knocks the papers out of their hands, which leads to a brawl between the strikers and the scabbers. In the play, Jack...talks them out of it, and they voluntarily join the strike. Sure, it makes Jack a more sympathetic character, maybe, but it also completely undermines the difficulty of what they set out to do by striking.
Overall, a fun time, but I don't think it's quite tight enough to enter the Broadway canon.
Also, though it was free for me to go, it meant I worked about four hours less. Since those were overtime hours, that's an opportunity cost of about $160. No free lunch, eh?