There appears to be a generation gap, I believe, between the people who are vehemently against these scaled-back productions and the people who are more keen toward them on this board (to say nothing of nationality gap).
The fact is, this is a trend that isn't going anywhere- it's proving lucrative and critically successful. I'd love to be around in one hundred years, to see how this is assessed. But then, I'm sure, something else will be done with musicals that I will hate. And the revivals just won't be as good as the originals, and everything will be wrong and Broadway will be ruined forever. And the music will be too loud, and the kids won't get off my lawn.
These Menier-style productions have been, by and large, successes. So what if the orchestra is smaller, and the scenery is reduced? They aren't compromising the integrity of the pieces, and are revitalizing older shows. They've done nothing as heinous or ruinous as removing the dancing from A Chorus Line. In fact, what they're doing is rather daring- finding the depth in shows that, in many cases, are considered to be just entertainment. You should be HAPPY about that- lord knows the big and brassy, big-budget revivals on Broadway haven't been accomplishing much very well. Or rather, uh, at all, save for a few exceptions such as South Pacific, or a handful of the Encores! transfers. But even for things like Gypsy or Finian's Rainbow, we're looking at seriously reduced production value.
How nice it would be if there were a theatre company in NYC consistently turning out critical and financial successful revivals. And even if we did, we'd have folks here whining about how Fosse did it better forty years ago.
I honestly think that a good deal of posters here would rather sit in a theatre museum and reminisce and kvetch than try to enjoy a modern production.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
.gif?width=300)
