Criteria for Best Revival

[Mike3]

Posted: 7/22/13 at 11:50pm

I had forgotten that the 2004 production of ASSASSINS was ruled a revival. I realize it had a previous run off Broadway in 1990, but I'm wondering why the nominating committee chose to rule it a revival. I can think of other musicals that have won Best Musical that also had previous runs off Broadway (A CHORUS LINE, RENT, AVENUE Q, SPRING AWAKENING). Any idea what criteria led to this decision?

[BwayTday]

Posted: 7/23/13 at 12:20am

They deemed it a classic. It's far different from a new musical transferring to Broadway with direct momentum from a recent off-broadway run.

[blaxx]

Posted: 7/23/13 at 12:21am

Perhaps you are confusing a revival with a transfer. All the shows you mentioned open in the same or previous season and made a transfer to Broadway with practically the same creative team, cast and concept.

By the time the Assassins revival opened on Broadway it had been a long time since it closed off-Broadway and the piece had seen several regional productions and enjoyed a certain popularity. Because of that, it was deemed a revival. Other shows that had not been on Broadway but have had major and relevant productions in NYC are usually considered revivals by the committee.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 7/23/13 at 12:22am

Unless I am mistaken, all of the examples of Best Musical winners you mentioned were transfers, not revivals. When it is the same production, it is new. Likewise, a better example for you might be CLYBOURNE PARK, which had been performed around the world between Playwrights Horizons and Broadway, yet the general consensus was that the play was still making its first go-around... once a number of years have passed and the Broadway production can be considered separate from the work's initial presentation, then it is considered a revival.

Most often, this is a common-sense rule. That's really the criteria. Of the four Best Musical winners there, would you in any logical state of mind claim to call it a Revival just because it had already been produced in NYC but hadn't been on Broadway even though it was a transfer? Likewise, the inverse: would you in any right mind suggest that ASSASSINS should be a new musical, even though it was almost 15 years old at that time, the rights had been released and community, regional, and school productions had happened around the world?

It's just common sense.

[JohnBalton]

Posted: 7/24/13 at 4:23am

Was The Wizard of Oz ? exactly the same as the movie with the same songs in London ????