Okay, Okay, Okay--EVERY Revival's a Disappointment to SOMEONE!- Page 3

[singtopher]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 12:43am

Trying to find something that everyone on this board would agree upon was a tall order my friend.

Updated On: 3/9/09 at 12:43 AM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 1:37am

Not really. We all agree on Candide and South Pacific, don't we? (Although I was talking about the Prince version of Candide, which one did you mean?) South Pacific is extraordinary and I'd even argue one (just one) of the Doyle play-it-yourself shows was special, personally for me it's Todd because I liked Cerveris even if I didn't like Lupone, I did get a kick out of the tuba. We also, i believe, agree on On Your Toes.

[binau]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 2:49am

Does not a disappointment have to equal better than the original? I don't think so :-/.

[yay_gerb]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 3:34am

Hair Hair Hair Hair Hair!

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 5:11am

I was going to list some revivals that weren't disappointments for me, until I realized that's not what PalJoey wants. You can put me on the list of those who weren't wild about the Zaks Guys and Dolls.

So far, hardly any nonmusicals have been listed, but if we can list nonmusicals, I think it would be pretty safe to include the 1973 A Moon for the Misbegotten and the 1956 The Iceman Cometh.

And the Jed Harris production of Uncle Vanya.

And I did actually see one of those. Twice.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 8:14am

The Jed Harris Uncle Vanya!?!?! Yikes--someon's even older than I am! ;-}

How was that first national tour of Our American Cousin after Lincoln was shot? Better than the Ford's Theater original?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 10:28am

An Inspector Calls - 1994
A Doll's House - 1997

Two of the most exciting theatrical productions I've seen.

[Brick]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 11:06am

I'm not trying to be contrary, but this thread is a little tricky.

While some of these revivals, such as NO, NO, NANETTE, have people actually saying they are improvements over the original, others have been more controversial than you claim. If we were measuring critical judgments, that would be one thing (i.e. ASSASSINS). Or if we measuring the success of a run, that would be another (i.e. CHICAGO). But this thread tries to access audience response - better yet, audience consensus - and I think that simply isn't possibly, if for no other reason than it breeds naysayers. (I've heard people defend the original productions of both ASSASSINS and CHICAGO.)

Personally, I agree with the list you've made, PalJoey. I even would add more.

I think the bar must be lowered for the thread to exist at all. Perhaps only 5 or less productions meet the actual criteria you set.

Damn devils advocates!

[singtopher]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 11:32am

For what it is worth, the revival versions of Anything Goes ('8, and You're a Good Man Charlie Brown have pretty much become the standard versions to produce regionally.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 11:44am

I loved the 1987 revival of Anything Goes.

I think one of my favorite revivals was the 1994 LCT production of Carousel. I can still see that opening sequence and the stunning ballet in Act 2.

Other wonderful revivals - 1988 Our Town; 2001 42nd Street; 2006 Pajama Game

Updated On: 3/9/09 at 11:44 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 11:54am

Can I get back to you on this? I'm still thinking.

I agree with "House of Blue Leaves" after Christine Baranski took over. Stockard Channing was fine, but Baranski was perfect as Bunny.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 12:11pm

I've kinda given up on it as far as musicals are concerned, but House of Blue Leaves was definitely a revival that received universal exclamations of joy.

Is that available on DVD?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 12:26pm

"Is that available on DVD?"

I think it was broadcast through "American Playhouse". Do they release or rebroadcast their material?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 12:34pm

I don't believe it was released on DVD, but I'm sure there are some VHS transfers floating around. I'm still looking for a copy of Tru and Grapes of Wrath that aired on PBS as my VHS copies went missing.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 12:58pm

"I don't believe it was released on DVD, but I'm sure there are some VHS transfers floating around. I'm still looking for a copy of Tru and Grapes of Wrath that aired on PBS as my VHS copies went missing."

In these bad economic times, I'm wondering if I should go into business. How much is a transfer machine?

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 1:36pm

The 1975 revival of DEATH OF A SALESMAN at the Circle in the Square received unanimous raves. It starred and was directed by the incomparable George C. Scott. Teresa Wright played his wife. This was an unbelievably moving performance by Scott and his supporting players. During the last scene there was not a dry eye in the house. It was said that Scott put so much into his portrayal of the broken salesman that he would get drunk after every evening performance--that was his way of unwinding after his searing portrayal. I am so glad that I was able to get a standing room position for this completely sold out run.

[hmpeterson]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 3:18pm

I can't believe no one has mentioned the 2009 Revival of Guys and Dolls on this list.

Hee hee hee hee.

I think this is an interesting topic but a tricky one to answer. Are we talking not disappointments from a financial standpoint (hit/flop) or a creative standpoint, or professional critic standpoint, or BWW standpoint, or Joe Blow on the corner standpoint? Because depending on how you look at it you could have different answers for the same show.

Me personally, I thought the LuPone Cerveris Sweeney Todd was awful. Everyone playing their own instruments completely took away from the staging and was immensely distracting. I wasn't thrilled with the casting. But again, that was my opinion but the "professional" critics loved it. So was it a disappointment, to me, very much so. To many other people, no.

I think the other tough part is when you didn't see the original, what do you compare it to, to say whether or not it was a success? I never saw the original South Pacific because I wasn't born yet. But I saw a scary high school production and I saw this 2008 revival and was blown away. Now, not much to compare to, but for me, I loved the way it was staged and cast and directed. But I never saw Mary Martin do it. So how do you judge?

But I like the topic because it stirs some great debates!

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 3/9/09 at 4:56pm

"The Jed Harris Uncle Vanya!?!?! Yikes--someon's even older than I am! ;-} "

I'm sure someone is older than you, but not I. The one I saw twice was the 1973 A Moon for the Misbegotten. (Well, maybe I am older than you, I don't know, but I didn't see the Jed Harris Uncle Vanya.)

"I agree with 'House of Blue Leaves' after Christine Baranski took over. Stockard Channing was fine, but Baranski was perfect as Bunny."

And I thought it was so much better when Channing played the role. I'm not a huge fan of Channing's, but that was a role in which she brilliant and perfect. I think Baranski was so poorly cast in that role.

"For what it is worth, the revival versions of Anything Goes ('8, and You're a Good Man Charlie Brown have pretty much become the standard versions to produce regionally."

I guess that's probably true of YAGMCB, but no one I know liked that production or the new material.

" (I've heard people defend the original productions of both ASSASSINS and CHICAGO.)"

I"ve heard lots of people defend the original production of Chicago, which is something I could have seen and didn't and, boy, do I kick myself about that.

Of course, not too many people actually got to see the original production of Assassins. (I gave up trying after three times on the cancellation line. Every time the person from Playwrights' would say something like, "Oh, you'll almost definitely get in. You're the fourth person and usually at least six people get in." And then that night only two people would get in.) I had kind of mixed feelings about the revival. It had its good points but there were some parts I thought were not well-conceived or -played.

"The 1975 revival of DEATH OF A SALESMAN at the Circle in the Square received unanimous raves."

My memory is that the reviews were more mixed, but I wouldn't swear to it.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 3:41am

Pal Joey said:

"These were all good evenings in the theater, but some of them were controversial--some folks loved it, some folks hated it.

I'm curious about those "perfect" revivals that come along and charm everyone.

The 2000 Kiss Me Kate was definitely that, so was the 1976 Candide. "

Wasn't Candide 1973 or 74? (Yes that's anal of me I just thought it was done between Night Music and PO)

The thing is people always complain. The 70s Candide was lucky in that it was a revival of an original production that no one seemed to think worked (people of course loved the score). However I think the RNT revisal of Candide which John Caird rewrote based on Hugh's book improves on IT. (But it hekps that I saw that live and was so surprised nad knocked out by it)


I remember a lot of people complaining about the revised slightly more PC script for Kiss Me Kate, for example.

Chicago was a revelation to most when it was revived but there quickly appeared (somewhat I think as a backlash against all its praise) people who bemoaned all the Fosse touches that were dropped--and still do.

As nobodyhome said Assassins is a harder issue to judge than most because so few saw it. I certainly like the performances and the direction on the original cast album FAR more than the revival (I know i'm in the minority on here when it comes to that) but even that's hard to judge because the orchestrations weren't used on stage--they were new for the CD. I do think the show works better in a *small* venue and clips I've seen of the original production seemed effective...

"I've kinda given up on it as far as musicals are concerned, but House of Blue Leaves was definitely a revival that received universal exclamations of joy. "

Is it one of the titles that might get a release thanks to the new deal with Live from Lincoln Center and DVDs? I'm thinking it was on American Playhouse so not... Man I wish I could see this--I LOVE that play.

But yeah it's all hard to judge. Performance styles change too of course--I'm sure the 1927 Show Boat, while extravgant would seem odd to most modern audiences expecting a more realistic performance style--and I found the Hal Prince revisal *wonderful* when is aw it in Vancouver. But I don't feel qualified to say it was an improvement... (Ditto Carousel's 94 revival)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 11:20am

I'm not trying to be deliberately contrary, but I did not care for the Kiss Me Kate revival. I found it to be a rather pedestrian production containing some good performances. The staging and direction were nothing more than you would see at your average regional company and the choreography, to me, was rather contrived and forgettable. Brush Up Your Shakespeare was the only number in the show that stood out as remarkable. I think the only reason it was so well-received can be attributed to the fact that it was a rather unremarkable season for revivals. The Music Man and Jesus Christ Superstar were its only competition. It was like Battle of the Blands. After seeing Kiss Me Kate, I sort of wished I had spent my money on The Music Man.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 12:06pm

I hate to break this to you, but my dad's first show was the original South Pacific and as much as he enjoyed the revival, he will never admit that Kelli O'Hara and Paulo Szot could ever be considered an improvement on Mary Martin and Enzio Pinza. Me on the other hand...

[Hest882]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 12:44pm

Yes, I think the difficulty is, if someone fell in love with a show there will always be a certain affection that can rarely be topped and an expectation that will rarely be met by any revival--however good. It's one thing to have lowered expectations for a revival because it's, say, a local production, but with the hype that comes with a full Broadway revival comes the expectation it will equal that magical performance and the magical actors that dazzled so back in those golden days. And that's virtually impossible. *Everything*--from a turn of phrase to the tenor of an actor's voice to the colors of the set--will be compared to the ideal that was *the first time* and whether or not the revival is lacking or not, and potentially even if it's better, the sheer *differences* can easily disappoint.