A revival production that topped the original?- Page 2

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 1:26am

I've actually seen neither, but I've heard at least one revival of Candide was far superior to the original.

[sicetergo]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 2:28am

Unfortunately, the orginal production of Sweeney was overblown, pretentious and teutonic in its lack of humour compared in terms of cast and production with the RNT's version or indeed with the overall vision of the John Doyle's version.

"one preoblam I had with the sweeney revival was that it wasn't a great new concept.. it was a tired old gimmick for this director"

I'v seen the majority of John Doyle's productions at the Watermill and York - I'm struggling to remember which other productions were set in asylums..

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 3:04am

Obviously, I'm not old enough to have seen the 1936 production of "On Your Toes" but I presume, with the exception of the sublime Ray Bolger as the original lead, the revival must have been better than the original. The orchestrations were the same, but better, enhanced and fortified and the dancing was fabulous.

I also prefer "Crazy For You" over "Girl Crazy" but that's another story....

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 3:46am

Margo,

I'm interested to know what you thought of Hytner's revival of Carousel.

Akiva

Posted: 1/22/07 at 8:34am

Cabaret and Chicago...that's it. And, yes, I did see the originals.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 9:03am

>> the orginal production of Sweeney was overblown, pretentious and teutonic in its lack of humour

It's a sad day when we appear to have lost our sense of Grand Guilgnol and what made it so wonderful in the first place. Even though I truly loathed COMPANY, Doyle's take on SWEENEY made it essentially bloodless and therefore "accessible", while Prince's mammoth production made Sweeney more a product of his society, an inevitability. There were moments of humour, but, consistent with Prince's vision, they were ladled on with a brisk helping of bleakness. Doyle's was good; Prince's was magnificent.

Interesting that someone mentions CAROUSEL, because I was going to say something about it earlier. I didnt see the original (Please, Margo, dont tell me you're that old, because I wont believe you for a second), but the revival was stunning visually and conceptually.

[James2]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 9:52am

I know many disagree with me on this, but I thought the 2002 Into the Woods was better than the video of the original production. As much as I enjoyed Joanna Gleason in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, I think she overdid a few of the lines. The same goes for Bernadette (except for the Scoundrels part, of course).

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 9:53am

That's because you've only seen the DVD. LIVE THEATER is meant to be experienced LIVE, and you can't compare a DVD to a performance you've seen live onstage.

The original INTO THE WOODS was one of the highlights of my theatergoing career. Joanna Gleason and Bernadette Peters were both sublime perfection.

[sicetergo]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 10:38am

"It's a sad day when we appear to have lost our sense of Grand Guilgnol"

Sweeney Todd on Broadway was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a piece of Grand Guignol.

[jv92]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 10:56am

James2, You really prefered that bland what's-her-name over Joanna Gleason? Well, that's alright I guess. (Tries to force a smile)

[Weez]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 1:26pm

Another one of the "I've never seen the original but found the revival so sublime I'd happily stake a fiver or so on it being better" school here; 'Sunday In The Park With George' 2006 London revival. MARVELLOUS. :3

[WalkOn]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 1:42pm

I didn't see the original CAROUSEL... but I can't imagine that it was better than the revival.

[ByMySide25]

Posted: 1/22/07 at 1:43pm

This is nowhere close to the caliber of SWEENEY, CHICAGO, or CABARET but the revival of ROCKY HORROR compared to the original production (granted I couldn't have seen the original) I would say topped it.

Posted: 1/23/07 at 7:57am

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

[D2]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 9:51am

Eric: There was a production of ROCKY HORROR on Broadway in 1975 with Tim Curry and Meatloaf playing the same roles they played in the film that same year. It flopped. So it would appear that the recent revival topped the original at least in terms of length of run. Not having seen either production I can't speak for quality.

Posted: 1/23/07 at 10:13am

"So it would appear that the recent revival topped the original at least in terms of length of run."

Length of run has really nothing to do with quality. Today there are more people in the world with more disposable income who respond to hype rather than quality. It's sickening to think of today's dreck that outruns the original Show Boat, Carousel, South Pacific, My Fair Lady, Guys and Dolls and Porgy and Bess.

[D2]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 10:19am

So true. So appallingly true.

[avab802]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 10:20am

Why are people using the video/DVD version of an original production as comparison? It's not the same at all as seeing it live. I haven't been seeing shows long enough to compare any revivals with originals. I'll get back to you in 10 or 15 years.

[ahmelie]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 10:24am

I cannot say that I saw the original production of Sweeney, but I have seen the DVD. While I would not say the revival is better, and I think Prince is fantastic, there are moments which I feel are improved.

For example, I think Johanna is one of most heart breaking songs in musical theatre. With Prince having Sweeney slitting their throats during it, and making it funny. I think it took away from the song.

All in all, however, I don't think Doyle's is better.

Posted: 1/23/07 at 10:28am

The video of Sweeney Todd (Hearn-Lansbury) is nothing like the original production. The set was vastly cut down and Hearn was either mis-directed or didn't know how to play the role correctly. It comes across on video as a comedy rather than what it was supposed to be. I'm glad I saw the original and Len Cariou will forever be the best Sweeney!

[D2]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 10:28am

Wait a minute, did I miss something here? Sweeney was slitting throats during Johanna 2 in Doyle's production as well. It wasn't funny, but then I never thought it was funny in the Prince production either - the laughs were more of the nervous giggle variety. At least they were during the 8 times I saw it at the Uris/Gershwin.

[D2]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 10:30am

Tom: Again, so true. Len Cariou remains the definitive Sweeney for me.

[Pippin]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 11:27am

well, since my first b'way show was in '96, the only show that I have seen two versions of is "Suessical". though more of a reworking than an actual revival, the reworking with Rigby was by far tighter, with a much better concept, and it made me actually enjoy the show again.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:24pm

>> Sweeney Todd on Broadway was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a piece of Grand Guignol.

I can only assume you did not see the original, because it was indeed. Prince and Sondheim have both said they wanted this to be a GG-style piece, and it most definitely was. The Doyle production drained all the passion out of it, whereas the Prince production purposely went as far over the top as it could, in the spirit of the form it was emulating.

---------------------------------------

I actually love the revival but seems to miss the point of the original

Amen.

Posted: 1/23/07 at 8:10pm

Grand Guignol but of course with a sort of social conscious under it--but definetly ti was GG. (and the DVD isn't "nothing liek the original" I think ti's fiar to get SOME inkling for the original from it :P )

I mentioned Candide--but the version I loved the most, and really worked for me--more than the Wheeler/Hal Prince version was the Royal National Theatre 1999 production adapted from that version by John Caird--I'm glad his script is available for performance. One of the best nights at the theatre I've ever had