Candide would probably sit here, as someone else mentioned--at the least for it finally "working" (I admit that original cast is hard to beat). I don't think I've even ever seen a pphotograph of the original staging that gave an impression of the set so can't comment.
Similarly some other "rethinkings" might fit--like Merrily We Roll Along though the New York revival wasn't a big Broadway production....
it's really hard I think to judge with older productions--like Pajama Game (seriously Kathleen Marshall topping Bob Abott, Jerome Robbins and Bob Fosse working??) when the tyle of performance has changed so much--I mean with shows like Carousel, where if a faithful revival was done of the original staging many might complain of it feeling old fashioned.
Show Boat is an evfen older and ore obvious example--I loved the Prince revival but there have been so manydifferent versions of the show done, successfully, for years--and for spectacle it would be hard to top the 1927 Ziegfeld original even if I doubt it felt as "emotionally real" But again that was a very different audience (epsecially for musicals) and time.
I find the original '67 libretto of Cabaret difficult to play now without the changes made in 87 and in the 90s but I'm not sure it really tops the other.
And the comment about Sweeney Todd--even if I think it does work better as an intimate piece--being "widely regarded" as superior as done by Doyle is bs. of course with Sondheim critics almsot always prefer his shows, at least the music, in the revivals than the original production--it's almost comical looking at the New York Times website and seeing what the original critic of Follies though of the score (great lyrics--basically foudn the music insultingly bad) a score that no sane theatre critic would dare insult now even if he weren't a fan
And about Chicago--I would kill to see more than the clips and pics of the original I've been able to see, and I think one reason the revival "works" for audiences better (and critics--and Chicago is another show that early critics seem to have DESPISED the "overamplified" music) is because without all the decadent flashy costumes (chorus boys in white briefs, the stripper outfits, etc) and the sex, but sophiticated costumes used instead it somehow tones down the intended vulgarity of much of it. Which is fine in its own way--I actually love the revival but seems to miss the point of the original (Fosse was at his most venemous in much of his sarcasm at that period)
Should Rocky count? Wasn't the original a tiny London production in a renovated cinema that moved very shortly to off Broadway? not a big Broadway show
Updated On: 1/23/07 at 07:57 AM
