This musical was rather interesting. It’s about ‘newsies’ (paper boys) fighting for better pay based on real events in New York. This action is led by Jack and David. This is achieved through protests and the publication of the ‘Newsies Banner’, a paper printed by newsies themselves.
There
was an abundance of humour that didn’t detract from the seriousness of the
plot. A character on crutches complains that there are so many ‘fake cripples’
that the real ones are struggling. Someone can’t count to twenty with their
shoes on.
Three
areas in particular just didn’t work.
David is a classical good boy. Yet he
trespasses a lot. It didn’t fit his character.
Jack’s romance seems completely
unnecessary to the story. The only positive is that, otherwise, there is a
complete lack of female characters in the story. But I don’t think that justifies
an unnecessary plot point. Romance can add to a story but only when done
correctly, in a way sympathetic to the plot.
One boy throws a bunch of Newsies
Banners in the air so they scatter, landing on the floor and looking like
litter. This makes for a good shot. But people don’t generally pick stuff up
off the floor though, especially if it looks like litter. Thus throwing papers
in the air is ineffective for the plot.
Four
areas were thought provoking.
All the ‘er’ sounds come out as ‘oi’. From
a linguistic viewpoint that’s fascinating. I’ve heard it before but I can never
find out which New York accent to which it belongs.
Even though it looks like Jack betrays
his fellow newsies, Jack agrees to work for the paper to keep the newsies out
of jailed. I don’t understand why he doesn’t explain the situation,
particularly to David: it’s clear the newsies would understand. Instead Jack
just insults David, another action that makes no sense. I’m not criticising
this as a plot point because it’s realistic behaviour, but it’s confusing
realistic behaviour that I fail to understand.
The ‘Once and For All’ song was very
moving. The rest of the soundtrack was mediocre at best yet this song hit the
nail on the head. One line in particular stayed with me: ‘This is for the kids
who shine shoes without having shoes of their own.’ It’s just so sad that so
many people around the world provide a service for others when they can’t
afford the thing being serviced.
One protest sign says, ‘We aynt
slaves’. Now, I know that it should be spelt ‘ain’t’. however, ‘aynt’ makes a
lot more sense grammatically. Apostrophes are either for possession or
contraction, neither of which apply to ‘ain’t’. The ‘correct’ spelling of
‘ain’t’ is, in fact, grammatically incorrect.
The
synopsis didn’t do anything for me but I’d been looking for a new musical to
watch for a while. I was pleasantly surprised, even if it didn’t wow me.
No comments:
Post a Comment