One small thing: I always saw the inclusion of the racial slur said by Booth as a way to keep the audience from having that pity and emotional connection to him that the song - and especially what he’s saying - up to that point is trying to do. From his point of view, he’s making a compelling argument and he’s good with his word choice and so passionate that it’s easy for the audience to be swayed by him. Having him say the word he says always reads to me like a wake up call to the audience like a “remember. These are bad people. They had layers and were complicated people, but at the end of the day, they’re not good.” That moment, to me, really sets the tone for the rest of the show and how I feel and emotionally connect to the rest of the assassins.
There’s a stage direction in the play *Inherit The Wind* that describes a judge’s verdict causing a law to “explode with the pale puff of a wet firecracker”. With a single word, that’s exactly what Sondheim does for Booth-our sympathy for him vanishes. Because he’s not a patriot, he’s just a small-minded racist. I really do get not wanting to use offensive language in a production, but I also think it’s dishonest to censor a single instance of a word that is meant to show you the ugliness and wrongness of American racism in particular.
Yep--the n words comes right at the most lyrical part of the entire score (perhaps Unworthy of Your Love, aside) when, maybe, the audience is actually starting to feel sympathy for Booths' lofty ideals. Then that word shocks you out of it. However, if I'm playing the cast album loudly (as I tend to do) I always turn down the volume at that part in case anyone might hear and wonder what I'm listening to...
This is a great point. I remember seeing a production of Assassins in a really small theatre as a teen, and seeing this intimate audience leaning in, becoming empathetic and almost enchanted by Booth during his song, only then to jolt back with revulsion as you're reminded what he really is, stuck with me as one of the most powerful parts of the show. I understand the arguments for removing/censoring the slur, but I don't think it's used lightly or for cheap shock value, it has a valuable function.
@@evilgayjester2997 Very well said--I think as ridiculous as some of the assassins are presented (and in most of those cases that seems... fair) it's also important to show how one can be seduced into their way of thinking, and this is a great example of that. And then the jolt of revulsion that, yes, using that word brings to (hopefully all) audiences is a sharp wake up call.
Very surprising to hear they cut Boothe's racial slur. I think that's so important to the scene, because up to that point he's been only talking about how he had to stop Lincoln because he was a warmonger who quashed freedom of speech and the right to a trial, but then when he drops the slur you see that no, his sympathy for the South and hostility to Lincoln is actually about something far simpler than all that.
I was surprised the racial was censored. No point to leave it out when you are telling a historical narrative! I saw this production as a with and a as a member of the Sondheim Society. We loved the production and had a great talk with some cast members and other creative members of the production about the show. Sondheim is believed to have signed this show off before he died as it was originally scheduled for 2018-2019. Peter Forbes is there to portray “Trump “ in the production and the show ends with image of jan 6th! Harry was amazing!!!!
As a black person i never liked it and always felt it was unnecessary and didn't allow me to enjoy the rest of the show because of racial trauma, its art there can be other ways to convey it.
Guiteau actually did dance up the steps to his noose, and "I am going to the Lordy" is something he actually wrote and performed right before he was hung.
Classic Stage Company/John Doyle did Assassins off-Broadway last year. They brought it into the now by showing pictures of January 6 in Everybody's Got The Right. It was chilling.
@@SM-BSW I was in DC that day. The live coverage was harrowing, and it still sometimes hits like a truck to see those images and remember what happened. I feel like I might have some kind of actual physical reaction (negative) if I saw that combined with the work of my favorite musical theater writer of all time.
I can also say that, having worked on a production of Assassins in the past, that it can also be an incredibly confronting show, especially in a small theater. Having the assassins and their guns that close to the audience can be startling and unsettling...which isn't necessarily bad for the show. But if you're running this show in a tiny theater, you do need to be aware of that fact. I mean, I love this show, but it can be troublesome.
“Something Just Broke” was added for the first UK production because it was thought that British audiences might not understand how monumental an act assassinating a President is and what effect it has in the country when something like that happens. It’s a great song, but sticks out like a sore thumb because it’s the only moment of the entire evening that isn’t from the assassins’ point of view. I’ve never thought it was necessary and I think the ending of the show would be more effective without it.
I think the genius of "Something Just Broke" is that it suddenly reverses your perspective. After an evening of identifying, more or less, with the warped perspective of the presidential assassins, you are suddenly given the reactions of ordinary people whose lives are impacted by the assassins' actions, and in identifying with them you become alienated from everything you've just seen, implicity rejoining the mass of common humanity. I think it's a very important number, and that the show is incomplete without it.
To be fair Weidman and Sondheim deny that totally (they doubled down on this when they did a great Zoom chat before the opening of the last off-Broadway revival.) They CLAIM that there was always the intention to put in a Something Just Broke moment but they didn't get around to it in time and saw the opportunity to do so when Donmar did it. But I agree with you and it's too bad it's not optional--they insist it be included. I think it lets the audience off the hook to some degree by switching perspective away from the assassins. It also removes a lot of the tension of the ending. Musically it sounds more like something from Passion (which Sondheim was writing at the time--this often seems true when he adds stuff later into shows, for example Country House written for the 1987 London Follies sounds musically like an Into the Woods piece.) And audiences are always confused by it--it's MEANT to show peoples' reactions to these assassinations and attempts across time, usually costuming the characters in different fashion eras. But inevitably people seem to think it's ONLY a reaction to the JFK shooting.
@@oliverbrownlow5615 Agree to disagree. I feel allowing the audiences that reversal lets them slightly off the hook which seems to negate the shows unsettling purpose.
@@EricMontreal22 I guess I'll have to sadly content myself with agreeing with Sondheim and Weidman. But I wonder what you think the show's unsettling purpose is.
@@oliverbrownlow5615 Agreeing with the creators of the show?? I suppose there are worst things ;) I guess I feel like what makes the show harrowing and effective for me is that you see it from the Assassins point of view (even if you don't sympathize with them.) And that POV is unyielding (initially you have the Balladeer as the voice of the other side but his voice gets less and less assertive as the show goes on until the Assassins basically kick him out--and that POV.) This culminates with the "Book Depot" scene and Oswald shooting where the music builds to an amazing crescendo (as mentioned in this review) and then the finale. There's a reason for no intermission (just like the reason Follies and Passion never had an intermission originally) and that's because that tension is never meant to be broken throughout the show. Something Just Broke breaks that tension. It gives audiences a breather, while showing the effect on, well, everyone (most people?) of these political and violent acts. I think it also kinda lets the audience off the hook--they suddenly see people on stage they are comfortable relating to and can get some comfort for that. And it makes the finale, again only in my opinion, far less intense and disturbing than I think it should be. I'm not explaining myself all that well--and I think it's an interesting discussion (I definitely DO see at least some of the reasons pro including it.) But...
Three of the four successful assassins depicted carried out their crimes *before the Oval Office was constructed* .... This whole production sounds as though the creative team simply didn't trust the material. Thank you for acknowledging John Weidman's brilliant libretto! The original, Off-Broadway Cast Recording gives an unusual glimpse into what a terrific script the show has (by recording the entirety of that climactic scene), but I was _still_ bowled over by the text the first time I saw the show, eons ago. It seems more like a play than a musical; specifically, _Arcadia_ by Tom Stoppard. And I mean that as very high praise.
Yes, so glad to see Weidman get his due--it is telling that both cast albums have large swaths of Weidman's book, the off-Broadway one (which has my favourite cast, orchestrations, and doesn't include the later added Something Just Broke, which breaks the tension for me) has the entire final scene, as you say, but the Broadway cast instead gives us Byck's monologues to Lenny (Bernstein.) Often, as Sondheim himself always pointed out, his book writers don't get their fair credit, and many reviews of this production I've come across do just that, either praising or criticizing Sondheim for things that were more Weidman's doing. Which is especially interesting since the only projects Sondheim instigated himself were Sweeney, Passion and Road Show--all his other shows were either brought to him or at the least (like with Follies) he co-conceived. (Though it has to be said most of his book writers never wrote as well when collaborating with other composers.) The Oval Office setting doesn't totally bug me--the original carnival fairground setting is just as fanciful if, at least, non specific, but I agree that the concept seems too literal to work for this fantasmagorical revue. (That said, I would never call it more like a play than a musical--like any good revue some scenes are brilliantly done entirely in song, some brilliantly done entirely in speech and some a mixture of the two.)
@@EricMontreal22 What you said about Sondheim being the instigating force behind very few of his shows has also always been my understanding. But John Weidman implies that _Assassins_ was also Sondheim's idea. Though he's fuzzy on the details, and it could well be that it arose out of a conversation they had and wasn't really anyone's 'idea'. I would love to have been a fly on that wall.
@@benjaminsagan5861 Yeah, I think Sondheim himself is being disingenuous to some degree (not unusual for him which can mean you can't always fully trust his word as fact--even his two wonderful books are, on a basic level, filled with basic factual errors like things such as saying that Bang! was cut from A Little Night Music during rehearsals, long before previews when we have a Boston audio that shows it was performed lol.) Anyway, I agree that I think Assassins, which came about due to Sondheim, on some sort of panel, reading a play by that name by Charles Gilbert, Jr. Gilbert, (I always feel bad for him) wanted to do the book himself when Sondheim made an agreement to a small few ideas from the musical as well as the title, but Sondheim wanted Weidman. So, yeah, surely that should count as a project Sondheim instigated?? Similarly Follies came from a collaboration between Sondheim and Goldman, the murder mystery The Girls Upstairs. From all I can gleam, they wrote it pretty much together, when both realized they loved mysteries. But maybe Sondheim doesn't count it because it was then Hal Prince who came in with that famous Gloria Swanson in the theatre rubble image and announced THIS is the direction he wanted to take it in. Great points! (Yeah, I'm a nerd and could think and talk about this kind of stuff all day :P )
@@EricMontreal22 First off, may I apologize on behalf of RUclips? [Probably not, since I've never had any affiliation with them, soooo...] Alternatively, may I please implore the privilege of apologizing on behalf of Circumstances Beyond My Control. See: I'm only reading your reply now, sadly. And that's especially bad since you're obviously someone whose perspective deserves to be heard.
@@EricMontreal22 We're both obviously Sondheimphiles. Is there a way we can take our discussion private? I really do hate to bore people with minutiae they'd only mock, at best.
As a massive Assassins fan i was wary of this version after hearing some of the decisions that were made and it was good to get a deeper insight. I think for me the multiple Balladeers loose a lot of what that character represents with usually being the representation of Americana and what the american dream is in the minds of some Americans i think making them newscasters takes away from the, its not the right word but almost niavety of the Balladeer especially when it comes to Another National Anthem where even as the assassins twist this American Dream into Lee Harvey Oswald the American Dream still tries to appeal to them . Then again this is just my opinion, i just dont think having various news sources represented works with this character. I have other thoughts but i hate to see this amazing musical constantly get the short end of the straw But i am glad to hear Ballad of Guiteau was as fun as it usually is But i think my favourite version of that song has to go to an Australian company that had him jumping rope with these lights before the jump rope became the noose. its just beautiful
I’ve always wondered how Assassins would play outside the US. It’s such warning about how our cultural ideals are tainted by their use for sinister goals. It literally is about how the nation has been like this for most of our history so to place it in the moment of now seems to miss the entire point
Totally agree. I played The Balladeer a few years ago in an amateur production and the thought of diluting the role between three actors makes me angry, frankly. 😅
I feel the same about the role of the Chorus in Henry V, which I've been privileged to do. I've now seen two productions in which his speeches are divided between five or six actors.
I’m not sure I like having the balladeer also play Oswald. I saw an excellent regional production in Dallas in the early 90s. The theater was only a couple of miles from the JFK assassination site. By the time Oswald comes in, late in the second act, the audience has gotten so invested in the other characters and stories, Oswald has kind of been forgotten. Then when suddenly the lights come up on that scene, and you see this brand new actor, wearing the white tshirt, it’s really powerful. I’m not sure it would make such an impact if it was the balladeer actor.
I don't like it, it seems like a clever idea but one that doesn't make a lot of sense if you dig into it (so the Assassins finally turn against the Balladeer and run him off stage in Another National Anthem only for him to come back as Oswald?) And it's telling that in the original workshops they did it this way (with Kevin Anderson) but decided it did NOT work and so for the original Off-Broadway production used different actors. Of course Montello wasn't aware of this (so he claims) when he came up with the ideal for the 2004 Broadway premier, and it's more or less stuck ever since. It's not something that's a deal breaker for me--I just don't like it.
As an American seeing this show, I will say that just walking into the lobby of the theatre was an experience. Seeing the American flag everywhere and seeing the ushers, concessions, and orchestra wearing red baseball caps with 45 stitched into the side was triggering. That might not be the case for everyone, but I know the show quite well and knew where the pre-show was going. Seeing everyone doing The Wave (I don't know why Brits call it the "Mexican Wave") and dancing with the mascots was... an experience. I, however, really loved the show. The Propieter being a stand in for Donald Trump was wonderful. Bringing people up from the audience to be the assassins was a great twist, I thought. And then, especially the ending, was a great moment on stage. I saw the production at Classic Stage Company where they showed pictures from January 6th. I thought this was more powerful (I don't want to say more, because I feel it will transfer to bigger stages). I'm excited to see the future for this show. Wonderful review, as always!
@@SM-BSW Yeah… I mentioned it to the people sitting next to me, and they didn’t even notice. I think, as an American, I’m just hyper aware of red baseball caps and what they say 😬
Even though it was around long before, the Mexican Wave came to prominence during the 1986 soccer world cup in Mexico, hence it's name. It's not just called this in the UK. In Australia and NZ and with other English speakers outside of North America, we call it the Mexican Wave.
They took Assassins out of the Carnival setting? What? You don't need to do anything to the original material to make it pertinent to the present day! In a US context at least, the show as written is more important than ever IMO
There is nothing to contextualize John Wilkes-Booth to make him layered to a modern audience. He was a Confederate, not some disenfranchised antihero…. plain and simple.
@@ChienaAvtzon I wasn't talking about Booth. The show isn't just about Booth, but also Czolgosz, Sam Byck, Squeaky Fromme, Sarah Jane Moore, Guiseppe Zangara, John Hinckley, Charles Guiteau, and Lee Harvey Oswald... And gun culture/ social upheaval in general. I was talking about the theme of the show. The show feels more relevant now than it did when it premiered.
Here's the creative team talking about the show when it was first written. The themes hit differently post Jan 6 than they did in the late 80's/early 90's. ruclips.net/video/SUvqniHrW90/видео.html
@@SM-BSW - The themes do not hit any differently. Had someone been stupid enough to assassinate Trump, they would have martyred him. Especially, since he is basically a cult leader.
@@ChienaAvtzon Removing him saying the N word doesn't give the audience the shock of "Oh right he is a racist monster." By doing that, they change the entire tone of his character. This version MAKES HIM more of a disenfranchised anti-hero.
Assassins is one of my favourite Sondheim show, i love his concept musicals i think they are genious, it really puts musicals in a different level of art, and the music is just phenomenal cant wait to hear this review!
On whether the show works on a large stage, I got to see John Doyle’s revival at Classic Stage Company and a huge part of what made the production work was that it felt like an audience of 200 people were locked in a room with a bunch of lunatics and I think it’s very difficult to try to get that feeling with an audience of 1200. It takes some tension out of it.
I had a feeling that it would be a bit off when I saw your vlog on it. I feel like when this show is produced in Americans tend to make decisions that evoke the edginess of the material, but non american productions try to make this show more over the top and "fun". I saw pictures of an austrailian production that had neon signs and plastic flamingos and a swedish production where the proprietor was an emo-ified uncle sam.
@@bigjedimullet I found it a cold, cold show and the film is cold. Then I saw a very accomplished amateur production in which Desiree made common cause with Henrik at the dinner, showing compassion when she handed him the glass. "Smash this one if you like." After that, the book made more sense to me. I think more warmth has been bleeding into it. The Catherine Zeta Jones / Bernadette Peters satisfied me emotionally. I think it is a tough show to pull off. The music is, of course, glorious. What does it mean to you?
@@rgmrtn I saw it on the West End as a teenager-I was lucky enough to see the production with Dame Judi Dench and Sîan Phillips-and I loved it. (Unfortunately I still haven’t seen the movie it’s based on, and I should probably fix that…) Ironically I think we had polar opposite experiences; my experience of it is as a show that feels warm and human in a way I appreciate and am comforted by. Maybe this was the strength of the performances I saw, maybe it hit me at a formative time, but it’s quite dear to me.
Fascinating review. I love the boldness of the concept but this review does make me think what the released clips and images do--that it kinda muddies things and doesn't work. The multiple Balladeers concept really doesn't seem to work (especially ruining the way he plays an audience surrogate in the original--as you imply. I'm NOT a fan of Something Just Broke, but Sondheim and Weidman insist every production use it now--and dressing the people in it as heavy patriots makes... no sense. Still, I appreciate they tried. One thing that does seem like a great idea that doesn't work is the pre-show as a presidential rally--getting people to sing along to crowd rising songs like Don't Stop Believing and Ain't Seen Nothing Yet is well and good but then the audience has to sit back down and settle in for the way more nuanced, even initially slightly subdued, Sondheim score which (and the Sondheim and the score are faves of mine) is kinda hard to pull off. I also really appreciated that you give John Weidman his due (and some of Assassins best moments, despite the score's brilliance, are book scenes.) Sondheim of course always bristled that his book writers were so often not even mentioned when his shows were discussed (despite the fact that they often were involved in the shows even before Sondheim,) and I've read both positive and negative reviews of this production that go as far as to give Sondheim credit for book material they like or hate. Obnoxiously, I'm gonna push back against Mickey Jo calling Assassins an underrated show and one that even many Sondheim fans aren't familiar with. This may have been true 20 years ago, but certainly no longer is. In fact if you look at the licensing website, while not remotely as popular as Into the Woods or Sweeney, it's almost always in his top 5 most licensed for performances shows now and not just in the US--here in Canada it's the one show of his I've had the most opportunity to see live (thanks partly to how many colleges like to do it,) and it's had a number of high profile (limited run) UK revivals over the years. It's also one of his shows that is ALWAYS analyzed in recent Sondheim discussions while some of my other favourites (Pacific Overtures and Passion come to mind) are often bypassed. This also rings true for the Sondheim zoom classes I've been lucky enough to help teach over the past few years and audience familiarity. Maybe it's just not a Sondheim show that has been so much on the radar of fans you know, but for whatever reason it has become one of his better known shows. Random tidbit--while combining the Balladeer with Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't done in any major production until the 2004 revival, and is now pretty common as mentioned, it WAS done in the original workshops before the Off-Broadway production (Kevin Anderson played both roles) though at the time they decided it didn't work. I... remain unsure about it.
I saw a revival with Neil Patrick Harris as Lee and Denis O'Hare (one of my favorites) as Charles Guiteau and it was phenomenal. All of the roles are well written, but Guiteau in particular gives the actor the most dramatic and comedic range. When played well, that role will stand out, and it certainly did then. The small space was very effective, and I remember how powerful it was when the troubadour narrator unexpectedly became Lee. You do lose that throughline if you break up that character into 3 people. I love this musical. It was my first introduction to Sondheim and I didn't realize it was one of his lesser known works initially. It really stayed with me.
@MickeyJoTheatre it was incredible and yes, I'm such a fan of his! I feel really fortunate to have been able to see it (and to have grown up in NYC with parents who love musical theater and Sondheim in particular, haha).
@@MickeyJoTheatre To be fair the Roundabout revival played in a theatre that was only 100 seats smaller than the Chichester theatre (but it wasn't a thrust stage which may have made it seem smaller?)
It's too bad. I LOVE Assassins. It is one of my most favourite Sondheim shows. Having lived in the US for many years, it resonates with me, especially with the discourse over guns and mass shootings in that country. I've seen the Broadway revival and the recent CSC off Broadway production. I am quite protective of it since I feel the nature of the show is such that any staging or casting choice is a commentary and message that the creator wants to convey. The addition of Something Just Broke definitely was a positive addition. But what I hear about the Chichester Festival production is that choice were made that muddied the message. Unfortunate.
I have see this show probably more than any other musical (including the original off-Broadway production. I thought this was a phenomenal production. This is a director's piece, allowing directors with a vision to have their way with it. I thought everything worked within this concept, actually surprised it worked so well. Even the American Idol "Unworthy of Your Love"! I thought this was all brilliant (as even Idol has taken on a political wash in the US). Also, it was a delight to see a theatre spend so much money on this show, it's always small, and that Menier Jamie Lloyd production is my favorite. But seeing a show this great get the big staging it deserves made my heart happy. I hope it transfers, as a matter of fact, I think THIS is possibly the only production of Assassins that could be commercially successful...
Also, traditionally, Lee Harvey Oswald does is not played by the Balladeer. I thought this also kept who is the "leader" of the show clearer. Is it The Proprietor? Is it The Balladeer? Is it John Wilkes Booth? One of the show's few innate problems.
As an American, I would love to know how often Assasins is produced typically in the US. I know it was on Broadway at some point, and two revivals were mentioned in the video. I think the new staging might be an intriguing political commentary, I can not help but wonder if inserting footage of JFK being assassinated is still too raw, perhaps more so for Americans. Additionally, I think even sound effect gunshots, even in a theater in America are still cause for alarm. My high school struggled when having to use the nosies because several times we had people complain that they thought they were real.
As to theatre size, I do think the show benefits from an intimate theatre. That said, the Broadway 2004 production was in a theatre that seats a bit over 1000, and highly regarded by most. The Chicester Theatre isn't much bigger at 1206, so I think it CAN work.
Saw the original off Broadway. A hot ticket. Still have that program. Saw it in London at Menier with A. Tveit and the OBC at Studio. 54. I always tend to prefer Original casts.
Wow I would love to see a production of this less than known Sondheim musical. Just you mentioning dark humor and its already something I don't mind watching especially given the concept and storyline. I wanna check out the soundtrack foremost. Meanwhile, loving the attire here in this video Mickey, especially the hair style!! Slicked back looks good on you.
I thought this was a five star production of a three star show. The songs are great but for me the book lets the show. I loved the concept and found it very exciting. It also felt like it packed a punch. I like Sondheim but have never seen this before so was glad to.
I just started the video but I'm gonna say right off the bat I despise the graphic design of this production. That font is throwing me off entirely. I'm a graphic design student it just really bothers me
I saw another reviewer say at the end "Why was I convinced to assassinate a prezident?" (I misspelled on purpose so don't flag me RUclips lol) And as a huge Assasins fan, that really soured my opinion on this production. Things like removing John Wilkes saying the n word doesn't remind the audience that this man was a racist monster. It also feels like the show is conflating presidential assassinations or attempts with mass shootings. And that is not only misunderstanding the material, but also those are NOT the same AT ALL. "How I Saved Roosevelt" literally contradicts this, because NO ONE knew anything about Zangara. I am all for the United States getting criticized and dunked on in theatre productions, but this just doesn't seem to understand the material at all. Which is unfortunate cause this show is such a thought provoking piece.
Booth was a Confederate sympathizer. That's it. If the central idea of the play makes his motivation anything else, then the whole blasted thing is misguided from point one.
@@ryanwagner7980 And yet, he advocates killing Kennedy, who wasn't part of that? Yeah, really seems the play has a "narrative", everything must be made to fit that.
@@chuckoneill2023In that song, he’s more an abstraction of his character, like he’s a personification of the “legacy” of Booth and his assassination and how that ripples through the other assassins. So not literally Booth arguing for Kennedy’s assassination but the belief that assassinating a president will change the world to the assassin’s desires.
I'm curious if/how the show contends with whiteness. The assassins featured were what we now consider white--the show even jokes about how assassins are always some redneck with three names. And I feel like their disillusionment with the American dream in the text stems from not getting things they feel owed to them as white Americans. This is on top of the historical racism of some of the characters: Booth was a Confederate, Fromme was in a racist cult. This isn't to say that actors of color cannot play these roles. I could see the framing device for this production opening up interesting opportunities. I wonder if there were moments where the "audience members" chafed at portraying a historical person who likely would have hated them? Was there ever a sense of discomfort or unease in inhabiting a character who believes they deserve a prize for being a white American?
You make an excellent point and sadly there's really nothing in the material to foster any kind of substantial dialogue about race - the moment in which the attendees become the assassins is almost instantaneous and there is little if any opportunity for them to respond to this. In this production Fromme is played by a black actress, though the racist implications of the mansion cult aren't addressed, simply her obsessive dedication - a more purposeful tackling of this would be to cast a non white actor as Booth but again with nothing in the material this may not be entirely effective.
I recently read "Zero Fail" about the secret service that tells many of these stories from the perspective of the Secret Service Officers, so I'm skeptical this show could work from the perspective of the criminals.
@@Poppleworks I guess take issue with the idea that every person who has tried to assassinate a president was doing it because they were unhappy with America as a country. Guiteau shot Garfield out of personal revenge.
@@Poppleworks Co-signing all of this, especially the last paragraph. We have a very serious gun problem in the US that has, over my lifetime, been getting a lot worse-and it’s worth noting that *every single assassination of a President* or major attempt on a President’s life has been made with a gun. Additionally, though, the brilliance of it is that it can *almost* make you empathize with these killers and attempted killers. Booth’s song is a great example of this-he waxes poetic about the tragedy of living in a broken country, and then just when you might be willing to agree with him… he calls Lincoln a “[racial slur]-lover”, and you realize, yeah, this guy is using all this beautiful rhetoric to justify his own short-sighted biases.
Also a lot of what the Secret Service does and can do has been made possible by modern technology and learning from the past. Every time an assassination attempt has been made, the Secret Service has learned from it and has found ways to avoid that particular issue from happening again. Prime example is how the president hasn’t been very publicly driving around in a convertible since the JFK assassination. So, a lot of these assassins helped write that book through their actions. But also, you should definitely check out the show (or any of the cast recordings if the show is out of reach for you to see right now). It’s a very underrated and underproduced show in the Sondheim canon
Should not have cut the line from Booth's song. Lyrics/text should be played as written. Line said by 19th Century man when attitudes were different. Current Guys and Dolls has not cut racial slurs
Brilliant show but I hate the fact that so many productions use the actual Kennedy Nov. 22nd footage, and I’m grateful that I will not see this production and have to be shocked by being confronted by that footage again.
It is stupid to put this production in this kind of immersion. If they want an up-to-date version of, same as this setting, why don't they put the production on the steps of the capitol building while certifying all the votes instead of a presidential conference? Is it irresponsible, hurtful, and tackless...YES. OR THERE IS A BETTER OPTION, make the set like a cnn or fox news...in a 24 hour news cycle. The Proprietor can be a political commentator/host like O'Reilly or Carlson. Make the Balladeer as the marginalized who is enthralled by this shows.
One small thing: I always saw the inclusion of the racial slur said by Booth as a way to keep the audience from having that pity and emotional connection to him that the song - and especially what he’s saying - up to that point is trying to do. From his point of view, he’s making a compelling argument and he’s good with his word choice and so passionate that it’s easy for the audience to be swayed by him. Having him say the word he says always reads to me like a wake up call to the audience like a “remember. These are bad people. They had layers and were complicated people, but at the end of the day, they’re not good.”
That moment, to me, really sets the tone for the rest of the show and how I feel and emotionally connect to the rest of the assassins.
I agree, it's a sharp shock of a lyric that comes amidst a sweeping, sympathetic melody.
There’s a stage direction in the play *Inherit The Wind* that describes a judge’s verdict causing a law to “explode with the pale puff of a wet firecracker”. With a single word, that’s exactly what Sondheim does for Booth-our sympathy for him vanishes. Because he’s not a patriot, he’s just a small-minded racist. I really do get not wanting to use offensive language in a production, but I also think it’s dishonest to censor a single instance of a word that is meant to show you the ugliness and wrongness of American racism in particular.
Yep--the n words comes right at the most lyrical part of the entire score (perhaps Unworthy of Your Love, aside) when, maybe, the audience is actually starting to feel sympathy for Booths' lofty ideals. Then that word shocks you out of it. However, if I'm playing the cast album loudly (as I tend to do) I always turn down the volume at that part in case anyone might hear and wonder what I'm listening to...
This is a great point. I remember seeing a production of Assassins in a really small theatre as a teen, and seeing this intimate audience leaning in, becoming empathetic and almost enchanted by Booth during his song, only then to jolt back with revulsion as you're reminded what he really is, stuck with me as one of the most powerful parts of the show. I understand the arguments for removing/censoring the slur, but I don't think it's used lightly or for cheap shock value, it has a valuable function.
@@evilgayjester2997 Very well said--I think as ridiculous as some of the assassins are presented (and in most of those cases that seems... fair) it's also important to show how one can be seduced into their way of thinking, and this is a great example of that. And then the jolt of revulsion that, yes, using that word brings to (hopefully all) audiences is a sharp wake up call.
Very surprising to hear they cut Boothe's racial slur. I think that's so important to the scene, because up to that point he's been only talking about how he had to stop Lincoln because he was a warmonger who quashed freedom of speech and the right to a trial, but then when he drops the slur you see that no, his sympathy for the South and hostility to Lincoln is actually about something far simpler than all that.
They didn't cut it. He says it and they rush to censor it as if during a live broadcast.
I was surprised the racial was censored. No point to leave it out when you are telling a historical narrative! I saw this production as a with and a as a member of the Sondheim Society. We loved the production and had a great talk with some cast members and other creative members of the production about the show. Sondheim is believed to have signed this show off before he died as it was originally scheduled for 2018-2019. Peter Forbes is there to portray “Trump “ in the production and the show ends with image of jan 6th! Harry was amazing!!!!
As a black person i never liked it and always felt it was unnecessary and didn't allow me to enjoy the rest of the show because of racial trauma, its art there can be other ways to convey it.
@@PhillyDove such as?
Guiteau actually did dance up the steps to his noose, and "I am going to the Lordy" is something he actually wrote and performed right before he was hung.
Classic Stage Company/John Doyle did Assassins off-Broadway last year. They brought it into the now by showing pictures of January 6 in Everybody's Got The Right. It was chilling.
That's must've been a gut punch
@@SM-BSW I was in DC that day. The live coverage was harrowing, and it still sometimes hits like a truck to see those images and remember what happened. I feel like I might have some kind of actual physical reaction (negative) if I saw that combined with the work of my favorite musical theater writer of all time.
I can also say that, having worked on a production of Assassins in the past, that it can also be an incredibly confronting show, especially in a small theater. Having the assassins and their guns that close to the audience can be startling and unsettling...which isn't necessarily bad for the show. But if you're running this show in a tiny theater, you do need to be aware of that fact. I mean, I love this show, but it can be troublesome.
“Something Just Broke” was added for the first UK production because it was thought that British audiences might not understand how monumental an act assassinating a President is and what effect it has in the country when something like that happens. It’s a great song, but sticks out like a sore thumb because it’s the only moment of the entire evening that isn’t from the assassins’ point of view. I’ve never thought it was necessary and I think the ending of the show would be more effective without it.
I think the genius of "Something Just Broke" is that it suddenly reverses your perspective. After an evening of identifying, more or less, with the warped perspective of the presidential assassins, you are suddenly given the reactions of ordinary people whose lives are impacted by the assassins' actions, and in identifying with them you become alienated from everything you've just seen, implicity rejoining the mass of common humanity. I think it's a very important number, and that the show is incomplete without it.
To be fair Weidman and Sondheim deny that totally (they doubled down on this when they did a great Zoom chat before the opening of the last off-Broadway revival.) They CLAIM that there was always the intention to put in a Something Just Broke moment but they didn't get around to it in time and saw the opportunity to do so when Donmar did it. But I agree with you and it's too bad it's not optional--they insist it be included.
I think it lets the audience off the hook to some degree by switching perspective away from the assassins. It also removes a lot of the tension of the ending. Musically it sounds more like something from Passion (which Sondheim was writing at the time--this often seems true when he adds stuff later into shows, for example Country House written for the 1987 London Follies sounds musically like an Into the Woods piece.) And audiences are always confused by it--it's MEANT to show peoples' reactions to these assassinations and attempts across time, usually costuming the characters in different fashion eras. But inevitably people seem to think it's ONLY a reaction to the JFK shooting.
@@oliverbrownlow5615 Agree to disagree. I feel allowing the audiences that reversal lets them slightly off the hook which seems to negate the shows unsettling purpose.
@@EricMontreal22 I guess I'll have to sadly content myself with agreeing with Sondheim and Weidman. But I wonder what you think the show's unsettling purpose is.
@@oliverbrownlow5615 Agreeing with the creators of the show?? I suppose there are worst things ;)
I guess I feel like what makes the show harrowing and effective for me is that you see it from the Assassins point of view (even if you don't sympathize with them.) And that POV is unyielding (initially you have the Balladeer as the voice of the other side but his voice gets less and less assertive as the show goes on until the Assassins basically kick him out--and that POV.) This culminates with the "Book Depot" scene and Oswald shooting where the music builds to an amazing crescendo (as mentioned in this review) and then the finale. There's a reason for no intermission (just like the reason Follies and Passion never had an intermission originally) and that's because that tension is never meant to be broken throughout the show.
Something Just Broke breaks that tension. It gives audiences a breather, while showing the effect on, well, everyone (most people?) of these political and violent acts. I think it also kinda lets the audience off the hook--they suddenly see people on stage they are comfortable relating to and can get some comfort for that. And it makes the finale, again only in my opinion, far less intense and disturbing than I think it should be.
I'm not explaining myself all that well--and I think it's an interesting discussion (I definitely DO see at least some of the reasons pro including it.) But...
Three of the four successful assassins depicted carried out their crimes *before the Oval Office was constructed* .... This whole production sounds as though the creative team simply didn't trust the material.
Thank you for acknowledging John Weidman's brilliant libretto! The original, Off-Broadway Cast Recording gives an unusual glimpse into what a terrific script the show has (by recording the entirety of that climactic scene), but I was _still_ bowled over by the text the first time I saw the show, eons ago. It seems more like a play than a musical; specifically, _Arcadia_ by Tom Stoppard. And I mean that as very high praise.
Yes, so glad to see Weidman get his due--it is telling that both cast albums have large swaths of Weidman's book, the off-Broadway one (which has my favourite cast, orchestrations, and doesn't include the later added Something Just Broke, which breaks the tension for me) has the entire final scene, as you say, but the Broadway cast instead gives us Byck's monologues to Lenny (Bernstein.) Often, as Sondheim himself always pointed out, his book writers don't get their fair credit, and many reviews of this production I've come across do just that, either praising or criticizing Sondheim for things that were more Weidman's doing. Which is especially interesting since the only projects Sondheim instigated himself were Sweeney, Passion and Road Show--all his other shows were either brought to him or at the least (like with Follies) he co-conceived. (Though it has to be said most of his book writers never wrote as well when collaborating with other composers.)
The Oval Office setting doesn't totally bug me--the original carnival fairground setting is just as fanciful if, at least, non specific, but I agree that the concept seems too literal to work for this fantasmagorical revue.
(That said, I would never call it more like a play than a musical--like any good revue some scenes are brilliantly done entirely in song, some brilliantly done entirely in speech and some a mixture of the two.)
@@EricMontreal22 What you said about Sondheim being the instigating force behind very few of his shows has also always been my understanding. But John Weidman implies that _Assassins_ was also Sondheim's idea. Though he's fuzzy on the details, and it could well be that it arose out of a conversation they had and wasn't really anyone's 'idea'.
I would love to have been a fly on that wall.
@@benjaminsagan5861 Yeah, I think Sondheim himself is being disingenuous to some degree (not unusual for him which can mean you can't always fully trust his word as fact--even his two wonderful books are, on a basic level, filled with basic factual errors like things such as saying that Bang! was cut from A Little Night Music during rehearsals, long before previews when we have a Boston audio that shows it was performed lol.)
Anyway, I agree that I think Assassins, which came about due to Sondheim, on some sort of panel, reading a play by that name by Charles Gilbert, Jr. Gilbert, (I always feel bad for him) wanted to do the book himself when Sondheim made an agreement to a small few ideas from the musical as well as the title, but Sondheim wanted Weidman. So, yeah, surely that should count as a project Sondheim instigated??
Similarly Follies came from a collaboration between Sondheim and Goldman, the murder mystery The Girls Upstairs. From all I can gleam, they wrote it pretty much together, when both realized they loved mysteries. But maybe Sondheim doesn't count it because it was then Hal Prince who came in with that famous Gloria Swanson in the theatre rubble image and announced THIS is the direction he wanted to take it in.
Great points! (Yeah, I'm a nerd and could think and talk about this kind of stuff all day :P )
@@EricMontreal22 First off, may I apologize on behalf of RUclips? [Probably not, since I've never had any affiliation with them, soooo...]
Alternatively, may I please implore the privilege of apologizing on behalf of Circumstances Beyond My Control.
See: I'm only reading your reply now, sadly. And that's especially bad since you're obviously someone whose perspective deserves to be heard.
@@EricMontreal22 We're both obviously Sondheimphiles. Is there a way we can take our discussion private? I really do hate to bore people with minutiae they'd only mock, at best.
As a massive Assassins fan i was wary of this version after hearing some of the decisions that were made and it was good to get a deeper insight. I think for me the multiple Balladeers loose a lot of what that character represents with usually being the representation of Americana and what the american dream is in the minds of some Americans i think making them newscasters takes away from the, its not the right word but almost niavety of the Balladeer especially when it comes to Another National Anthem where even as the assassins twist this American Dream into Lee Harvey Oswald the American Dream still tries to appeal to them . Then again this is just my opinion, i just dont think having various news sources represented works with this character. I have other thoughts but i hate to see this amazing musical constantly get the short end of the straw
But i am glad to hear Ballad of Guiteau was as fun as it usually is But i think my favourite version of that song has to go to an Australian company that had him jumping rope with these lights before the jump rope became the noose. its just beautiful
That staging must have been incredible to experience. It sounds like it would hit so hard.
I’ve always wondered how Assassins would play outside the US. It’s such warning about how our cultural ideals are tainted by their use for sinister goals. It literally is about how the nation has been like this for most of our history so to place it in the moment of now seems to miss the entire point
Assassins is one of my favorite Sondheim shows. It extremely thought-provoking
Totally agree. I played The Balladeer a few years ago in an amateur production and the thought of diluting the role between three actors makes me angry, frankly. 😅
I feel the same about the role of the Chorus in Henry V, which I've been privileged to do. I've now seen two productions in which his speeches are divided between five or six actors.
I’m not sure I like having the balladeer also play Oswald. I saw an excellent regional production in Dallas in the early 90s. The theater was only a couple of miles from the JFK assassination site. By the time Oswald comes in, late in the second act, the audience has gotten so invested in the other characters and stories, Oswald has kind of been forgotten. Then when suddenly the lights come up on that scene, and you see this brand new actor, wearing the white tshirt, it’s really powerful. I’m not sure it would make such an impact if it was the balladeer actor.
I don't like it, it seems like a clever idea but one that doesn't make a lot of sense if you dig into it (so the Assassins finally turn against the Balladeer and run him off stage in Another National Anthem only for him to come back as Oswald?) And it's telling that in the original workshops they did it this way (with Kevin Anderson) but decided it did NOT work and so for the original Off-Broadway production used different actors. Of course Montello wasn't aware of this (so he claims) when he came up with the ideal for the 2004 Broadway premier, and it's more or less stuck ever since. It's not something that's a deal breaker for me--I just don't like it.
I just love your reviews......you are incredibly articulate, and usually very fair.
As an American seeing this show, I will say that just walking into the lobby of the theatre was an experience. Seeing the American flag everywhere and seeing the ushers, concessions, and orchestra wearing red baseball caps with 45 stitched into the side was triggering. That might not be the case for everyone, but I know the show quite well and knew where the pre-show was going. Seeing everyone doing The Wave (I don't know why Brits call it the "Mexican Wave") and dancing with the mascots was... an experience. I, however, really loved the show. The Propieter being a stand in for Donald Trump was wonderful. Bringing people up from the audience to be the assassins was a great twist, I thought. And then, especially the ending, was a great moment on stage. I saw the production at Classic Stage Company where they showed pictures from January 6th. I thought this was more powerful (I don't want to say more, because I feel it will transfer to bigger stages). I'm excited to see the future for this show. Wonderful review, as always!
Oooo. I'm really not okay with the "45" iconography. Yikes.
@@SM-BSW Yeah… I mentioned it to the people sitting next to me, and they didn’t even notice. I think, as an American, I’m just hyper aware of red baseball caps and what they say 😬
Even though it was around long before, the Mexican Wave came to prominence during the 1986 soccer world cup in Mexico, hence it's name. It's not just called this in the UK. In Australia and NZ and with other English speakers outside of North America, we call it the Mexican Wave.
@@neilwaldock6272 You learn something new everyday! Thanks for this!
In Italy we call it "la Ola" ! (Wave in Spanish)
They took Assassins out of the Carnival setting? What?
You don't need to do anything to the original material to make it pertinent to the present day! In a US context at least, the show as written is more important than ever IMO
There is nothing to contextualize John Wilkes-Booth to make him layered to a modern audience. He was a Confederate, not some disenfranchised antihero…. plain and simple.
@@ChienaAvtzon I wasn't talking about Booth. The show isn't just about Booth, but also Czolgosz, Sam Byck, Squeaky Fromme, Sarah Jane Moore, Guiseppe Zangara, John Hinckley, Charles Guiteau, and Lee Harvey Oswald... And gun culture/ social upheaval in general.
I was talking about the theme of the show. The show feels more relevant now than it did when it premiered.
Here's the creative team talking about the show when it was first written. The themes hit differently post Jan 6 than they did in the late 80's/early 90's.
ruclips.net/video/SUvqniHrW90/видео.html
@@SM-BSW - The themes do not hit any differently. Had someone been stupid enough to assassinate Trump, they would have martyred him. Especially, since he is basically a cult leader.
@@ChienaAvtzon Removing him saying the N word doesn't give the audience the shock of "Oh right he is a racist monster." By doing that, they change the entire tone of his character. This version MAKES HIM more of a disenfranchised anti-hero.
Assassins is one of my favourite Sondheim show, i love his concept musicals i think they are genious, it really puts musicals in a different level of art, and the music is just phenomenal cant wait to hear this review!
Just don't tell him they're concept musicals (well I guess you can't anyway...) he hated that term.
On whether the show works on a large stage, I got to see John Doyle’s revival at Classic Stage Company and a huge part of what made the production work was that it felt like an audience of 200 people were locked in a room with a bunch of lunatics and I think it’s very difficult to try to get that feeling with an audience of 1200. It takes some tension out of it.
I had a feeling that it would be a bit off when I saw your vlog on it. I feel like when this show is produced in Americans tend to make decisions that evoke the edginess of the material, but non american productions try to make this show more over the top and "fun". I saw pictures of an austrailian production that had neon signs and plastic flamingos and a swedish production where the proprietor was an emo-ified uncle sam.
ASSASSINS and PASSION helped me understand life. FOLLIES helped me grow.
Genuine question, what does A Little Night Music do for you? (It’s maybe my favorite of his shows aside from Sweeney Todd)
@@bigjedimullet I found it a cold, cold show and the film is cold. Then I saw a very accomplished amateur production in which Desiree made common cause with Henrik at the dinner, showing compassion when she handed him the glass. "Smash this one if you like." After that, the book made more sense to me. I think more warmth has been bleeding into it. The Catherine Zeta Jones / Bernadette Peters satisfied me emotionally. I think it is a tough show to pull off. The music is, of course, glorious. What does it mean to you?
@@rgmrtn I saw it on the West End as a teenager-I was lucky enough to see the production with Dame Judi Dench and Sîan Phillips-and I loved it. (Unfortunately I still haven’t seen the movie it’s based on, and I should probably fix that…) Ironically I think we had polar opposite experiences; my experience of it is as a show that feels warm and human in a way I appreciate and am comforted by. Maybe this was the strength of the performances I saw, maybe it hit me at a formative time, but it’s quite dear to me.
I loved the concept and production 🎉
Glad to see the star ratings are back
Fascinating review. I love the boldness of the concept but this review does make me think what the released clips and images do--that it kinda muddies things and doesn't work. The multiple Balladeers concept really doesn't seem to work (especially ruining the way he plays an audience surrogate in the original--as you imply. I'm NOT a fan of Something Just Broke, but Sondheim and Weidman insist every production use it now--and dressing the people in it as heavy patriots makes... no sense. Still, I appreciate they tried.
One thing that does seem like a great idea that doesn't work is the pre-show as a presidential rally--getting people to sing along to crowd rising songs like Don't Stop Believing and Ain't Seen Nothing Yet is well and good but then the audience has to sit back down and settle in for the way more nuanced, even initially slightly subdued, Sondheim score which (and the Sondheim and the score are faves of mine) is kinda hard to pull off.
I also really appreciated that you give John Weidman his due (and some of Assassins best moments, despite the score's brilliance, are book scenes.) Sondheim of course always bristled that his book writers were so often not even mentioned when his shows were discussed (despite the fact that they often were involved in the shows even before Sondheim,) and I've read both positive and negative reviews of this production that go as far as to give Sondheim credit for book material they like or hate.
Obnoxiously, I'm gonna push back against Mickey Jo calling Assassins an underrated show and one that even many Sondheim fans aren't familiar with. This may have been true 20 years ago, but certainly no longer is. In fact if you look at the licensing website, while not remotely as popular as Into the Woods or Sweeney, it's almost always in his top 5 most licensed for performances shows now and not just in the US--here in Canada it's the one show of his I've had the most opportunity to see live (thanks partly to how many colleges like to do it,) and it's had a number of high profile (limited run) UK revivals over the years. It's also one of his shows that is ALWAYS analyzed in recent Sondheim discussions while some of my other favourites (Pacific Overtures and Passion come to mind) are often bypassed. This also rings true for the Sondheim zoom classes I've been lucky enough to help teach over the past few years and audience familiarity.
Maybe it's just not a Sondheim show that has been so much on the radar of fans you know, but for whatever reason it has become one of his better known shows.
Random tidbit--while combining the Balladeer with Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't done in any major production until the 2004 revival, and is now pretty common as mentioned, it WAS done in the original workshops before the Off-Broadway production (Kevin Anderson played both roles) though at the time they decided it didn't work. I... remain unsure about it.
I saw a revival with Neil Patrick Harris as Lee and Denis O'Hare (one of my favorites) as Charles Guiteau and it was phenomenal. All of the roles are well written, but Guiteau in particular gives the actor the most dramatic and comedic range. When played well, that role will stand out, and it certainly did then.
The small space was very effective, and I remember how powerful it was when the troubadour narrator unexpectedly became Lee. You do lose that throughline if you break up that character into 3 people.
I love this musical. It was my first introduction to Sondheim and I didn't realize it was one of his lesser known works initially. It really stayed with me.
I would have LOVED to see that revival, and to see the wonderful Mr O'Hare give any stage performance - I think he's remarkable.
@MickeyJoTheatre it was incredible and yes, I'm such a fan of his! I feel really fortunate to have been able to see it (and to have grown up in NYC with parents who love musical theater and Sondheim in particular, haha).
I saw that revival too! And I agree with your observations.
@@MickeyJoTheatre you can find some grainy but legible slime tutorials on RUclips.
@@MickeyJoTheatre To be fair the Roundabout revival played in a theatre that was only 100 seats smaller than the Chichester theatre (but it wasn't a thrust stage which may have made it seem smaller?)
I haven't seen this production but I really liked this musical!x
It's too bad. I LOVE Assassins. It is one of my most favourite Sondheim shows. Having lived in the US for many years, it resonates with me, especially with the discourse over guns and mass shootings in that country. I've seen the Broadway revival and the recent CSC off Broadway production. I am quite protective of it since I feel the nature of the show is such that any staging or casting choice is a commentary and message that the creator wants to convey. The addition of Something Just Broke definitely was a positive addition. But what I hear about the Chichester Festival production is that choice were made that muddied the message. Unfortunate.
Thoughtful review as always. The first assassins version you described sounds amazing.
I have see this show probably more than any other musical (including the original off-Broadway production. I thought this was a phenomenal production. This is a director's piece, allowing directors with a vision to have their way with it. I thought everything worked within this concept, actually surprised it worked so well. Even the American Idol "Unworthy of Your Love"! I thought this was all brilliant (as even Idol has taken on a political wash in the US). Also, it was a delight to see a theatre spend so much money on this show, it's always small, and that Menier Jamie Lloyd production is my favorite. But seeing a show this great get the big staging it deserves made my heart happy. I hope it transfers, as a matter of fact, I think THIS is possibly the only production of Assassins that could be commercially successful...
Also, traditionally, Lee Harvey Oswald does is not played by the Balladeer. I thought this also kept who is the "leader" of the show clearer. Is it The Proprietor? Is it The Balladeer? Is it John Wilkes Booth? One of the show's few innate problems.
@@pensacolajazz2000 The leader of the show is the act of murder. You misunderstand the show.
As an American, I would love to know how often Assasins is produced typically in the US. I know it was on Broadway at some point, and two revivals were mentioned in the video. I think the new staging might be an intriguing political commentary, I can not help but wonder if inserting footage of JFK being assassinated is still too raw, perhaps more so for Americans. Additionally, I think even sound effect gunshots, even in a theater in America are still cause for alarm. My high school struggled when having to use the nosies because several times we had people complain that they thought they were real.
Nah, the 2004 broadway version showed the JFK assassination in video
As to theatre size, I do think the show benefits from an intimate theatre. That said, the Broadway 2004 production was in a theatre that seats a bit over 1000, and highly regarded by most. The Chicester Theatre isn't much bigger at 1206, so I think it CAN work.
Saw the original off Broadway. A hot ticket. Still have that program. Saw it in London at Menier with A. Tveit and the OBC at Studio. 54. I always tend to prefer Original casts.
Dodger from Hollyoaks is a musical theater performer now? Good for him.
He's been one for some time: Les Mis, On the Town, Wicked etc. Saw him in Sunset Blvd in 2018.
Another National Anthem is my Favorite song in the show.
Wow I would love to see a production of this less than known Sondheim musical. Just you mentioning dark humor and its already something I don't mind watching especially given the concept and storyline. I wanna check out the soundtrack foremost. Meanwhile, loving the attire here in this video Mickey, especially the hair style!! Slicked back looks good on you.
I thought this was a five star production of a three star show. The songs are great but for me the book lets the show. I loved the concept and found it very exciting. It also felt like it packed a punch. I like Sondheim but have never seen this before so was glad to.
do you think this will get a transfer or further life anywhere? I’m so desperate to see it but can’t get down to chichester.
I just started the video but I'm gonna say right off the bat I despise the graphic design of this production. That font is throwing me off entirely. I'm a graphic design student it just really bothers me
I saw another reviewer say at the end "Why was I convinced to assassinate a prezident?" (I misspelled on purpose so don't flag me RUclips lol) And as a huge Assasins fan, that really soured my opinion on this production. Things like removing John Wilkes saying the n word doesn't remind the audience that this man was a racist monster. It also feels like the show is conflating presidential assassinations or attempts with mass shootings. And that is not only misunderstanding the material, but also those are NOT the same AT ALL.
"How I Saved Roosevelt" literally contradicts this, because NO ONE knew anything about Zangara.
I am all for the United States getting criticized and dunked on in theatre productions, but this just doesn't seem to understand the material at all. Which is unfortunate cause this show is such a thought provoking piece.
Booth was a Confederate sympathizer. That's it.
If the central idea of the play makes his motivation anything else, then the whole blasted thing is misguided from point one.
Booth was not just a sympathizer, he was an actual Confederate.
It doesn’t. The crux of his song is basically blaming Lincoln for the civil war and destroying the south.
@@ryanwagner7980 And yet, he advocates killing Kennedy, who wasn't part of that?
Yeah, really seems the play has a "narrative", everything must be made to fit that.
@@ChienaAvtzon He never "signed up", so to speak.
@@chuckoneill2023In that song, he’s more an abstraction of his character, like he’s a personification of the “legacy” of Booth and his assassination and how that ripples through the other assassins. So not literally Booth arguing for Kennedy’s assassination but the belief that assassinating a president will change the world to the assassin’s desires.
Personally loved the Chichester production.
I'm curious if/how the show contends with whiteness. The assassins featured were what we now consider white--the show even jokes about how assassins are always some redneck with three names. And I feel like their disillusionment with the American dream in the text stems from not getting things they feel owed to them as white Americans. This is on top of the historical racism of some of the characters: Booth was a Confederate, Fromme was in a racist cult.
This isn't to say that actors of color cannot play these roles. I could see the framing device for this production opening up interesting opportunities. I wonder if there were moments where the "audience members" chafed at portraying a historical person who likely would have hated them? Was there ever a sense of discomfort or unease in inhabiting a character who believes they deserve a prize for being a white American?
You make an excellent point and sadly there's really nothing in the material to foster any kind of substantial dialogue about race - the moment in which the attendees become the assassins is almost instantaneous and there is little if any opportunity for them to respond to this.
In this production Fromme is played by a black actress, though the racist implications of the mansion cult aren't addressed, simply her obsessive dedication - a more purposeful tackling of this would be to cast a non white actor as Booth but again with nothing in the material this may not be entirely effective.
Was so desperate to see this but the run was is so short not going to be able to. Gutted! So, do you reckon there will be a west end version? Xx
It definitely wouldn't surprise me - this is a big cast and set for a short regional run!
I recently read "Zero Fail" about the secret service that tells many of these stories from the perspective of the Secret Service Officers, so I'm skeptical this show could work from the perspective of the criminals.
@@Poppleworks I guess take issue with the idea that every person who has tried to assassinate a president was doing it because they were unhappy with America as a country. Guiteau shot Garfield out of personal revenge.
@@Poppleworks Co-signing all of this, especially the last paragraph. We have a very serious gun problem in the US that has, over my lifetime, been getting a lot worse-and it’s worth noting that *every single assassination of a President* or major attempt on a President’s life has been made with a gun.
Additionally, though, the brilliance of it is that it can *almost* make you empathize with these killers and attempted killers. Booth’s song is a great example of this-he waxes poetic about the tragedy of living in a broken country, and then just when you might be willing to agree with him… he calls Lincoln a “[racial slur]-lover”, and you realize, yeah, this guy is using all this beautiful rhetoric to justify his own short-sighted biases.
Guess you’ll have to see it and judge for yourself
Also a lot of what the Secret Service does and can do has been made possible by modern technology and learning from the past. Every time an assassination attempt has been made, the Secret Service has learned from it and has found ways to avoid that particular issue from happening again. Prime example is how the president hasn’t been very publicly driving around in a convertible since the JFK assassination.
So, a lot of these assassins helped write that book through their actions.
But also, you should definitely check out the show (or any of the cast recordings if the show is out of reach for you to see right now). It’s a very underrated and underproduced show in the Sondheim canon
Should not have cut the line from Booth's song. Lyrics/text should be played as written. Line said by 19th Century man when attitudes were different. Current Guys and Dolls has not cut racial slurs
Guys and Dolls is dated and shouldn't be performed anymore
apart from offensive to some line - still a great show. @@PhillyDove
Funny Emma Goldman has been in two musica.
And a supporting character in someone else's story in both! Somebody should write an Emma Goldman musical!
Brilliant show but I hate the fact that so many productions use the actual Kennedy Nov. 22nd footage, and I’m grateful that I will not see this production and have to be shocked by being confronted by that footage again.
I like your hair much better like that.
It is stupid to put this production in this kind of immersion. If they want an up-to-date version of, same as this setting, why don't they put the production on the steps of the capitol building while certifying all the votes instead of a presidential conference? Is it irresponsible, hurtful, and tackless...YES. OR THERE IS A BETTER OPTION, make the set like a cnn or fox news...in a 24 hour news cycle. The Proprietor can be a political commentator/host like O'Reilly or Carlson. Make the Balladeer as the marginalized who is enthralled by this shows.
first comment on my fav youtuber
Who are you to criticise Sondheim you can't write a musical that's why You are a critic