JDonaghy4 said: "MrsSallyAdams said: "I was introduced to this show by the Jerry Zaks revival in the mid 90's. It gave the show a colorful, brassy, comic book vibe. It was easy to overlook the gender politics and wooden Sky/Sarah romance when Nathan, Adelaide and the gangsters were zipping around the stage like cartoons. I've seen several productions of the show since, played at varying levels of "realism," and none has worked as well for me as the Zaks one."
Co-sign. Not only were Lane and Prince pure magic-- touching, human, hilarious-- but Zaks kinda brilliantly made the whole thing a big silly cartoon so when there were touching moments (even from Sarah/Sky here and there) they punctured through just long enough to grab you. Looking back at the talent on that stage- Walter Bobbie, JK Simmons, Ruth Williamson, Josie de Guzman's soprano-- its just a remarkable collection of the perfect people for the perfect production.
I missed the revival from a few years back but from what I have seen, the talent was there (and the criticism of some of the performers was unfair) but it wasnt as zany or over the top- and so they all seemed to wither. I'm hoping Condon will avoid that trap."
Um, this material was ALWAYS a big, silly cartoon, as were Damon Runyon's stories (on which the musical is supposed to be, but is actually only kinda-sorta based). Have no idea why individual productions would go for "realism," but they just sound like lousy productions, to me.