Suffs: A Generational Clash and the Struggle For Timelessness
Credit: Joan Marcus | Suffs
This past weekend, Memorial Day weekend 2022, I took a trip with some friends to New York, revisiting for the first time since before the pandemic began in early 2020.
The last time I visited New York was in 2019 during another holiday meant to memorialize and celebrate the efforts of American patriots: July 4th weekend. That particular weekend, I was visiting exclusively for the purpose of seeing the musical Hadestown on Broadway, a long-standing favorite of mine since the release of its Off-Broadway cast album. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, I haven’t had another opportunity to further indulge my love of theatre with another trip to New York.
Thankfully, this year, I was able to put together a trip originally intended to see the first-ever Broadway revival of Funny Girl, another favorite of mine. Eventually, however, several other new musicals made their way into the itinerary for this trip, A Strange Loop and Six among them. However, the only Off-Broadway production I had managed to secure tickets to was Suffs, a musical written by Shaina Taub that follows the exploits of dozens of famed suffragettes (or “suffragists,” what would have been their actual moniker were it not for political opponents adopting the suffix “-ettes” as a means of diminishing women protestors).
Despite the trip’s original purpose, however, Suffs inevitably left the most impactful impression on me.
This was no surprise, as Suffs has been reviewed positively, and often compared to another very successful Broadway musical as of late. Sharing both the same original Off-Broadway performance space as well as similar characterizations, plots, and themes, Suffs has been reviewed often in conjunction with Hamilton, the other famous politically-minded musical to come out of The Public Theater in the last few years. The comparisons are largely complimentary, with some even giving Suffs the favorable (if not somewhat condescending) nickname “HER-milton.”
Going into Suffs, I was well aware of this comparison and pleased to discover that my takeaway leaving Suffs was just as positive (if not more so) as my takeaway from Hamilton. The musical is thrilling, thoughtful, and singular. And, given our current political climate and the overall level of ingenuity the show demonstrates, Suffs seems like a surefire transfer to Broadway, following in our former Treasury Secretary's steps exactly.
However, in thinking over these comparisons over the last few days–a sort of ominous feeling has overtaken me regarding Suffs’ theatrical journey, particularly with regards to its de facto comparison to Hamilton.
Credit: Sara Krulwich | The New York Times
Over the past few years, rather surprisingly, I’ve actually found myself transitioning from a definitive defender of Hamilton and its artistic merits to an occasionally cynical critic of one of its oddest effects. The effect in question is the somewhat unshakeable feeling that Hamilton’s perspective on politics and the American experiment, as well as its current standing as the ultimate titan of Broadway, has all-together given the show a feeling of obsolescence and antiquation, less than a decade away from its original Off-Broadway run. While this shelf-life is longer than most original musicals enjoy, it's surprising to already feel (in my subsequent returns to Hamilton both via the theatre and its recording available on Disney+) that the show is aging rapidly.
To be clear, I don’t think this effect is Hamilton’s fault–at the time of its premiere, it was undoubtedly a singular and groundbreaking entry into the American musical theatre canon. Nevertheless, as time goes on, this aging process feels somewhat inevitable. Whether that aging comes in the form of ever-emerging criticisms about the show’s glorification of slave-owning founding fathers, easily digestible moments which extoll the values of progressive politics while catering to more moderate sensibilities, or the merits of a declining novelty regarding the show’s musical stylings, Hamilton, in my opinion, isn’t just aging, it’s aging rather quickly.
In a concerted effort to present this not just as my personal opinion, but rather, as reflective of a larger trend, some of the above factors I mentioned aren’t necessarily criticism I put stock in, but rather, opinions presented by others en masse in various critical establishments. I bring this up so as to clarify: when I say Hamilton feels like its aging, it’s not because I alone have criticisms about the show that date its message, but rather, the collective criticisms that have emerged over the past seven years since the musical’s Off-Broadway run seem to have amalgamated to the point where Hamilton’s relevance feels fading.
I think overall, the reason Hamilton’s relevance feels in decline is because its ideas don’t always feel like they meet the current moment we live in. At least, not as well as they did back in 2015 or 2016. As an example, the last time I saw Hamilton was in Los Angeles, where the once applause-break-worthy line “Immigrants, we get the job done,” got nothing more than a light smatter of claps. Whatever the reason for this effect, perhaps a shift in focus on issues between the 2016 and 2020 election cycles or maybe even a growing distaste for the sense of art posturing political ideologies, some of the moments in Hamilton that once made it feel so distinct now tend to feel somewhat stilted.
To borrow a metaphor from Suffs, I use this example to illustrate how the ink on Hamilton’s pages feels like it’s run somewhat dry. Conversely, Suffs, with its intricate storytelling and a broad swath of ideas in tow, has ink that feels wet.
Credit: Joan Marcus | Suffs
The musical, while encompassing many different facets of the suffragist movement in America in the early 20th century, focuses mainly on notorious suffragist Alice Paul (played by composer/lyricist Shaina Taub; another Hamilton similarity) whose rebellious streak and willingness to work outside of conventional means presents a problem to the older establishment within the suffragist movement, namely for Carrie Chapman Catt (played with boundless gravitas by Jenn Colella). Additionally, Taub’s Alice Paul grinds up against the world-weary yet enduring Ida B. Wells (played by Nikki M. James, understudied by Aurelia Williams, who played Wells at my performance). As a white woman, Paul’s insistence that Wells compromise the politics of her race in order to progress the politics of her sex naturally dismays Wells, allowing the character to serve as a reminder of the inherent racism present in an otherwise progressive movement.
Beyond the grounded progressivism of this message within Suffs regarding imperfect political movements (what feels like a necessary response to some of the criticism regarding Hamilton’s more mythological view of historical figures), what makes Taub’s musical feel truly fresh and invigorating in terms of thematic resonance is its approach to generational divide, particularly among members of the same movement. Drawing parallels between the divide between progressive Democrats and more moderate ones, and subsequently (though a bit of a generalization) younger Democrats and older ones, the younger and older suffragists in the show provide the main source of conflict for Suffs, and ultimately, the source of the show’s most singular message.
Without spoiling too much, by the end of Suffs, most of the characters have, in one way or another, reluctantly seen the intrinsic value in the splintering of a movement between moderation and radicalism, however frustrating it might be at present. Ultimately, as the show ends with the signing of the 19th Amendment, the fight won for white women’s right to vote in the United States, the victory is revealed to have been earned by both sides in tandem, not by any one party. President Woodrow Wilson (portrayed ingeniously by Grace McLean) is backed into a corner by Alice Paul and her more radical suffragist team’s tactics, but only kowtows when persuaded into a secret deal concocted via Catt’s more moderate wiles.
With the overall victory won, Suffs shows how both sides (radical and moderate) played an invaluable part in the passing of the 19th Amendment. However, Suffs, even at 2 hours and 45 minutes and 7 years of in-narrative time, can’t see the fight for women of color’s right to vote to its completion, a victory that culminated in 1965 with the passage of the Voting Rights Act. So, by Suffs’ end, the fight isn’t even fully finished, the movement is still divided in many ways, and only has one victory (both big and small) under its belt.
It’s this complex, fraught ending to Suffs, even with its anthem-like final song, that earns the musical its feeling of nuance and thoughtfulness, beyond that of Hamilton. Of course, its message regarding the need for movements to be multi-faceted in order to enact change can be difficult to swallow, and in fact, useless when it comes to existential issues like climate change. As mentioned, Suffs takes place over the course of 7 years, from 1913 to 1920, and still only represents one part of the suffragist movement in the United States. Issues like climate change, given their time-sensitive threat, can’t benefit from Suffs’ approach to political progressivism. And yet, with its inclusion of Ida B. Wells and the acknowledgment of imperfection within even the most revered political movements, Suffs still manages to scratch the surface of this caveat.
Overall, Suffs’ references to imperfection, unsatisfying complexity, and the simultaneous joy and frustration of generationally enacted change, to me, make the ink on its pages feel wet, ever-changing, and ready to meet the current political moment years (even 7) from now. However, given my initial response to Hamilton’s charms, and my current feelings regarding the show–I can’t help but fear that my praise for Suffs could be premature. Is it possible that 7 years from now, in a world where Suffs has transferred to Broadway and enjoyed the same level of success as its 18th-century predecessor, the ink will run dry?
Credit: Sara Krulwich | The New York Times
As I came to expect over the course of its runtime, Suffs has an answer for this question too. Without spoiling the specifics, as I think the nature of this revelation is best left a surprise, Alice Paul, by the end of the show, has come to realize that her struggle against the more moderate Catt would inevitably be followed by someone else’s struggles against her. By the end of Suffs, Paul has become Catt, both in terms of age and moderation, and a younger, more radical generation of feminists begins to follow in her footsteps.
Perhaps, what will separate Suffs from Hamilton, in the end, is Suffs’ recognition (like its protagonist) that while it currently enjoys the charms and vogue of youth and newness, it may one day live to see itself become the elder, drier, less exciting art, secondary to a successor ready and restless to take its place.
Thankfully, if Suffs is lucky enough to enjoy such status in the years to come, it seems ready to accept that mantle with grace.
Suffs concluded its run at The Public Theatre on May 29th, 2022.