Fiddler On The Roof Revival- Page 3

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 4:31pm

I definitely would not consider PIPPIN a "classic," either. Think bigger....

GUYS AND DOLLS
WEST SIDE STORY
OKLAHOMA!
etc.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 4:36pm

FIDDLER didn't do anything in 1960, seeing that it wasn't even written yet.

(Although the Demos on the NYPL website indicate it was in development as early as late 1962)

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 4:38pm

Sheldon rewrote those lyrics for a friend's wedding, not for a production of Fiddler, into which introducing a gay storyline would make absolutely no sense. Nor would introducing Wall Street, the Tea Party, twerking or any other "real issue happening right now." As I've said Leveaux's production reinvented the physical production but the material remained the solid work that it is.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 4:41pm

Yeaaa and it got awful reviews. I'm also tired of every actor playing the roles exactly the same exept maybe Harvey

I want nathan lane to play Tevye!!!

Updated On: 10/2/14 at 04:41 PM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 4:50pm

Then blame the directors... not the writers or actors.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 4:54pm

You're the one who wants the show to be reinvented so why are you celebrating the bad reviews for Leveaux's reinvention? But I think I'm getting where you're coming from. Let's see a carefree, jolly Willy Loman because it's always played in such a dour way. How about a suicidal, depressive Mame, because I'm sick of her always being played as an optiimist. Of course they play the roles the same way - that's how they're written. But evidently the writing is the least of it in your view.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:02pm

Lol because you said that it was the same exact show with different physical production. That's not a reimagined production.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:14pm

Yes, the same exact show that was written brilliantly. That's why it's considered a classic.

[ShakinBaconGirl]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:22pm

I'm not sure how one would re-imagine or reinvent fiddler, but I know there is a way to do it. That's the show I want to see.

Updated On: 10/2/14 at 05:22 PM

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:23pm

Agreed^ ShakinBaconGirl

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:26pm

Historic relevance be damned. And I thought it was bad when they gave Fivel a Christmas movie.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:30pm

I remember the hatchet job done on the Bernadette Peters Annie Get Your Gun to make it more relevant.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:44pm

^ They didn't make it more relevant, they just rearranged some of the songs. Same time period, same settings.

[ShakinBaconGirl]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:46pm

I almost don't think there is fine line with re-imagining a show. The spirit should stay the same but if you are faithful to the piece while changing elements, then it could work. Cabaret for example.

I don't think changing the time or place would work in Fiddler but you can definitely re-innovate it in a smart way. No idea what that way is though.

If I wanted to do Fiddler in a different way, I think the key would be finding a whole new look/point of view on Tevye. If you change Tevye, you change the show.

Can anyone think of a revival in the past that used everything from the original show ( same staging, choreography) and worked? There are a few, but not all are that lucky. You have to give the audience something new. A reason to see this "new" production.

Classics are tricky because they are classic for a reason. But for example: CATS. Webber is bringing a revival of Cats to London and I fear it's going to fall in the trap of being a lot like the original show. The main reason CATS worked was because no one had seen anything like it before. It's dancing cats for 3 hours! But if you want to revive a show like CATS, you really need to sucker punch the audience with a new take on it cause the revival audience isn't going to have that wonder of they are about to see.


My apologies, this post is all over the place. Updated On: 10/2/14 at 05:46 PM

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:51pm

Three revivals I can think of off the top of my head that worked swell with classic takes:

42ND STREET
A CHORUS LINE
HELLO DOLLY (any of the revivals)

And yes, the 42ND STREET revival had brand new set designs (and better ones than the original frankly), but it was still Gower Champion's production intact.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:51pm

Change Tevye into what? Change A Chrous Line or Carousel or Wicked into what? They are what they are.

[ShakinBaconGirl]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 5:58pm

Have a different TAKE on Tevye. Example: Lupone's Lovett vs. Angela's Lovett. Something completely different but still true to the character.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 6:00pm

As for revivals that radically altered the original template and worked well, I have only a few recent ones that come to mind:

PIPPIN,
SOUTH PACIFIC,
CAROUSEL,
CABARET, and
NINE.

Much more frequently, those revivals that are determined to try something new are doomed to fail. The list of these is endless but here's a few to chew on:

ANNIE
LA CAGE AUX FOLLES
WEST SIDE STORY (bilingual)
FINIAN'S RAINBOW
ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER
A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC

Of course not everyone will agree on which shows succeeded here and which failed. It's all IMHO.






Updated On: 10/2/14 at 06:00 PM

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 6:04pm

Patti Lupone said she didn't see Mama Rose as a crazy show mom. She thought of her as a misguided mother. Thats a perfect example of an actor playing the role differently. The same goes with Cherry Jones' portrayal of Amanda Wingfield in the last revival of The Glass Menagerie. There are PLENTY of ways you can change a show and still stay true to the text to inject it with some energy, and reimagine it, and give people something different to think about. Thats what actors do, and thats called being an artist Willmingtom. ShakinBaconGirl, we are totally on the same page!

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 6:08pm

Topol's TAKE on Tevye was nothing like Mostel's, nor was Bernardi's or Molina's or Fierstein's. Obviously every actor brings their own sensibility to each role they play. That doesn't mean that they're "reinventing" the role or the show.

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 6:14pm

"Patti Lupone said she didn't see Mama Rose as a crazy show mom. She thought of her as a misguided mother. Thats a perfect example of an actor playing the role differently."

It is? Isn't it pretty standard for an actor to play a role based on the motivations of that character from their own perspective? The audience then takes in the whole show and thinks she is a bit crazy.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 6:14pm

A different acting choice is hardly a "re-invention" of any show.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 6:25pm

I know it's not always but I previously said that I think all the people who have played Tevye all played it the same exept maybe Harvey. But when a character is played very differently than in the past, I think that is Definately reimagined. The glass menagerie was totally different because of cherry jones.

Updated On: 10/2/14 at 06:25 PM

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 6:30pm

^ Yep.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 10/2/14 at 6:32pm

That is your perception, Philly. It is not fact.

EXAMPLE: Zero Mostel's Tevye was much different than Alfred Molina's. That is not re-imagining a show... That's simply acting. It is a different actor's interpretation of the preexisting character.