Scottsboro Boys
As the curtains closed, I sat awestruck with my mouth agape. This happens a lot at Broadway plays for me, but at Scottsboro Boys it was for a different reason. In this new age of Broadway shows ripped straight off from movies or television (Elf, Legally Blonde, Shrek, Spiderman) ‘Scottsboro’ holds something special in its story.
It was the first historically controversial Broadway play I have ever seen, and it gave justice to the plight of the nine young men in post-WWII Alabama. The story follows nine African-American males and their fight against an erroneous claim of raping two southern white belles. Unfortunately, these poor boys are fighting against the law and society – while also fighting against their surroundings. The play is in the form of a minstrel show, a cruel reminder of the way African Americans were treated in entertainment. The boys are stuck in the distorted, almost scary and completely irrelevant world of minstrel tradition. The irrationality of all those around them is heightened by the rough insincerity of minstrel acting.
The minstrel acting, although coarse and diverse (as it should be), was phenomenal. The actors played an array of characters, from racist deputies, corrupt lawyers to blubbering, air-headed southern women. Each character was distinguishable, real, and completely different from the next. This is not to take away from the other actors – the nine Scottsboro Boys.
All nine young men showed brilliant talent and hard work, but one character in particular was extremely well-crafted. Brandon Victor Dixen, the man behind Haywood Patterson performed excellently in his role. His voice was capable of a perfect blend of deep, soulful southern comfort and the pain and exhaustion of fighting an impossible battle. His torture seemed to be the solid foundation for the surrounding chaos.
This chaos was not due to the set design – it was minimal, but innovative. The set design comprised of a set of chairs, about ten or so; they made for quick and clean transitions, while leaving the audience in awe of the complicated combinations in which they were positioned. The transitions were extremely fluent and enjoyable to watch.
As was the dancing! The songs were contagious, while some were tear-jerkers. At times, their placement seemed irrelevant to the theme of the play, taking away from the true plot. The choice of minstrelsy as a background to the play was essential to the play’s sarcasm, but at times it felt like the minstrelsy was being forced into conforming to Broadway standards. Certain songs were to be sung at certain times, to evoke certain feelings, which works for most Broadway plays. However, Scottsboro’s sinister story seemed somewhat masked by the forcefulness of the placement of songs. The songs where unnecessary at times, but were well performed and very clever.
Overall, the production of ‘Scottsboro Boys’ was well cast and well executed. It had the daunting task of putting an extremely controversial historical scene onto the bright lights of Broadway, and I believe it succeeded as much as it could. It brings a refreshing new taste to the stale choices of today’s Broadway plays, but is easily misunderstood. It was sarcastic and funny, while still tugging on the heartstrings. The boys’ story was told in an unorthodox manner, but in a way that points a cold, glaring finger at the audience and the audience of the early 1900s – of those watching this all take place, in real time, and paying no mind. Complete with black face, southern hospitality and ignorance – ‘Scottsboro’ was a beautifully bittersweet take on a tough subject.
