Rehashed Revivals

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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?

---

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.

---

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".

---

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

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

---

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.

---