Rehashed Revivals

[ticenewyorkcity]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:14pm

The thought and proof that these critic's are bashing Charity because they seemingly can't forget the original and the star.

I am so glad that this team did not try to give us the same version of Charity that has been done twice in New York and is duplicated time and time again in regional and community theatres.

I am so glad that these performers are not trying to make themselves just like any previous casts.

Props to Wayne for not doing Fosse's work. Basically if Wayne did that he would look like a sad sad person for copying someone else's work...that is what that is.

This cast has worked there asses off and for the critics to sit and bash it because it is so different from the original.

These professional's are sad. If you can't open your eyes and see what is in front of you with a cleared mind then quite. QUITE. You don't give anything a chance because of some pre harbored bias.

[justme2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:20pm

Thank you. Finally, someone agrees with me. I am having the worst time trying to make that same point in other threads.

If we wanted to see Fosse' Sweet Charity, we could rent the movie. I've said this many times before, the only audience that will truly appreciate this version of Charity will be those who have not seen the 1966 version and those who have, but can manage to go into the Hirshfield with an open mind.

The critics all seem to be of one mind; Shame on these people for trying to revive this musical.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:21pm

I think the reason they are bashing it, is becuase it's bad. I dont think it has to do with the fact it isnt the original production.

[justme2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:23pm

The reviewers are indeed calling out things in the show that are valid and might not be the best choice. But not before spending one or two paragraphs lambasting this team for even daring to put this production on when there are still living persons in this world who remember the original.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:25pm

And I dont think critics are obligated to give raves simply becuase "the cast and crew worked really hard"....if they did...basecly every show in NY would have a rave.

[Glebb]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:25pm

Revival of NINE was completely different from the original and totally wonderful.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:26pm

I think they are pointing those things out (the comparing it the original thing) becuase what IS put onstage is bad. If they truly did amazing new choreography, and re-thought the show in a brilliant, way, we wouldnt be hearing about it. The point is, they swayed away fromt he original...and what they put up was bad.

[justme2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:27pm

I agree with that...no one deserves a rave just because they "tried so hard". If that were true, every show on and off broadway would receive raves! Someone's heart is behind every single production!

What's the point you are trying to make about Nine, Glebb?

[ChEMD]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:29pm

I didn't see the original or revival of Sweet Charity, and I thought this production was really bad. I've seen better amateur productions...

[Glebb]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:29pm

Revivals don't have to be like the original.
They can be different and wonderful.
This SWEET CHARITY is not even up to the original let alone new and different.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:32pm

infact, i think the critics were kind of NICE to it.

[justme2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:32pm

I would agree with that assessment theaterguy, if that was in fact what was happening. But that's not what is going on here. The reviews are starting OUT with "In 1966" or "Fosse did the Frug this way". Look at Mandelbaum's "review" of the show. He spent 80% of the review telling us what he enjoyed about every single version he has seen. I would understand if he did the review the other way around; spend 80% of the review time telling us what you liked/didn't like about the show you just saw. Hell, spend the entire review slamming the show, but at least slam THIS SHOW and what they did in this version. Not, "they didn't do it this way, so I didn't like it".

[justme2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:35pm

Ha ha! I think they were being nice to Applegate, because of the very reason you pointed out as not being a good reason to rave...she tried so hard.

Glebb...I don't know...I know they tried to end the show differently for Charity, but you are right, they didn't veer far enough from the original to put a stop to reviews comparing it to the original.

Whether it was good or not is subjective. Many like it, many don't. I wonder if it will survive the summer on that kind of love/hate?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:35pm

Glebb,

Look at this season's revival of Pacific Overtures which was a completely different take from the original by Hal Prince (who is AT LEAST as loved and revered as Fosse). And what about Cabaret, Chicago, and DeafWest's Big River? All completely different from their originals, but universally acclaimed and embraced by the critics and audiences. You know why they were and Sweet Charity isn't? Because they were good. They were directed and choreographed and supervised by people who had a clear, firm, coherent, even inspired new take on the material and who had the ability and talent to execute their new ideas and bring them to life.

Bobbie and Cilento don't and so the critics are pointing out their failures. You don't take on the work iconic creative forces like Fosse, Prince, Robbins, etc... unless you're pretty damn sure what the heck you're doing. They didn't and so it's completely fair to point out their shortcomings vis-a-vis the original production.

Updated On: 5/4/05 at 10:35 PM

[Glebb]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:38pm

Thanks Margo. I totally agree with you.
Though I did not see the original productions of Pacific Overtures, Cabaret and Chicago I sure loved the recent incarnations. :)

[justme2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:39pm

I still say they shouldn't have dared do it without a rock solid ending in place BEFORE rehearsals began.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:43pm

Agreed. It's AMAZING that this creative team has been working on this revival for over two years now and that the best they managed to come up with is the mess on stage at the Hirshfeld right now. There's no excuse.

[justme2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:52pm

You know Margo, I am truly surprised about the musical not being as good as it could be, because I have enjoyed just about everything else Walter Bobbie has done.

His Encores work was great; and the productions he directed himself there (Fiorello, Golden Boy, etc) all garnered fantastic reviews. I loved his White Christmas last year, enjoyed Chicago and Tenderloin, and Compleat Female Stage Beauty, and love to hear him on the Guys and Dolls revival.

He was able to conceive Grand Night for Singing, and is well respected in the theater community. Could he just be off his mark on this one, or maybe it's the wrong material? Now, I know that everything someone touches can't be top of the line, but I had high hopes he would be able to pull this off, despite the struggles with Neil Simon and the Weisslers. However, the ending should have been nailed much much earlier!

The comments in the reviews tonight about him all point to a lack of direction or clear focus on his part for this show. That's dissapointing, and I know it has nothing to do with being connected to the original or compared to any other version of Sweet Charity. I can't speak for Cilento's work, as I have never been a fan, but I am perplexed about Bobbie.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 10:54pm

Oh, poo, I only saw "hash" and was expecting something else!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 11:02pm

Margo....you win the honorary Tony for being smart on this board.

[justme2]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 11:14pm

And you win one for being smarmy.

There is no "right" and "wrong" here, this board is about opinions and broadway theater. We all have a right to voice our opinions about theater here.

I happen to like Walter Bobbie and Co, adn was hoping for the best with this show.

Margo didn't like the show.

There is no winner.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 11:15pm

I wasnt dising you.

I just simply agree with Margo...that is EXACTLY my opinion. So in my world. Margo gets the prize! no offense to you though.

[andyf]

Posted: 5/4/05 at 11:15pm

"Rehashed Revivals"


or "Revisals"...no?