Can long run shows still be moving?

[Elphie3]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 12:11pm

Do you think it's possible for a long running show (we're talking "Phantom" long) to still be just as moving 20 years down the line? Will it's quality ALWAYS discintigrate? Or is it possible (how?) to keep it just as effective as the day it opened?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 12:13pm

Moving is relative.

[omguguyz]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 12:15pm

where would they move to?

[dg22894]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 12:22pm

I do not think they can be emotionally moving, but I have never liked Phantom

[basketcase]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 12:28pm

I was going to come in here and offer that The Lion King was relocated. I guess that's not what we're talking about.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 1:06pm

Of course they can move people emotionally. It's all about who is in the show, and how well maintained it is (and how the production is directed). But as someone said, it's all relative.

I wish that theatre in the US ran season-by-season, where we would have a short seasonal break for shows (this is how theatre is scheduled in Vienna and many other European cities, for example). But with the way the industry is set up here, this seems unlikely.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 1:11pm

Of course it's possible. Your question has more to do with the age of the piece than with how long it's been running, really. Why do we revive old shows?

[jordangirl]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 1:12pm

Remember that even "long running" shows have people in the audience for whom it is the first time. For them it definitely has the potential to be moving.

As for repeat viewings... It really depends on the show for me. Some things move me once and I'm done. Others Next to Normal and Sunday In The Park With George to be specific move me every single time I see them.

edit: I realize those are not "long running" shows. I was using them as an example for repeated viewings.

Updated On: 2/18/09 at 01:12 PM

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 3:23pm

For example, I saw RENT in april last year...I had seen the movie, but never the stage show. When I saw the stage show, I wasn't really moved by any of the performances. However, when I saw the filmed live on broadway cast, it was much more moving. It usually depends on the actors.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 3:37pm

It really depends on the upkeep of the show. The last time I saw Rent on Broadway, it was a mess. The actors phoned it in, created new interpretations of the characters, mugged for the Rentheads in the first row, etc. What was once one of the most moving shows I had seen had become a complete waste of money. Other shows take more care with the productions and actually direct the replacements in rehearsals rather than just assign the blocking and choreography. Sometimes, producers actually care about the quality of a show after it has recouped, but it's pretty rare nowadays.

[philly03]

Posted: 2/18/09 at 4:19pm

On top of the above, I for one think a show depends on bringing in good new replacements as well. Speaking of Phantom, I know McGillian gets a lot of praise on here-relatively little, I know, but when I saw John Cudia on both tour and this past summer-ish on Broadway, I felt much more "moved" and into the show than with McGillian (whose what, been doing this for 8 years-ish?). Take "Jekyll & HYDE" -- for those that liked it, the reason it was so pulling was because each of the replacements brought something different; a new interpretation, but still loyal to the original/their predescor (which sounds like was not done with ReNT).

In turn, this usually keeps an audience coming back: look at the amount of people who have gone to see either The Little Mermaid again or for the first time because Heidi Blickenstaff joined the cast as Ursula, or will go back when Faith Prince returns. Who knows, they may like it that time around...