#1
Posted: 8/24/13 at 11:22am
Does anyone know of any cases when the revival was better than the original??? The only ones I can think of are Chicago and Pippin... But does anyone else know of any?
Revivals Better than the Original
#2
Posted: 8/24/13 at 11:28am
You aren't going to get any sort of consensus on this -- not everyone is going to agree with your assessment of Pippin, for sure.
It's strictly a matter of opinion.
It's strictly a matter of opinion.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#4
Posted: 8/24/13 at 1:29pm
Or Chicago.
Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
#5
Posted: 8/24/13 at 1:43pm
Mary Rodgers said that the 1998 West End/2002 Broadway revival of Oklahoma! was better than the 1943 original, which she had seen as a young girl.
.
.
Salve, Regina, Mater misericordiae
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
#6
Posted: 8/24/13 at 1:49pm
Yes. It's long been acknowledged that Nunn's Oklahoma is the best version there's ever been.
Chichester's Sweeney Todd was amazing and Sondheim strongly said it was the best he'd ever seen.
Southwark play houses production of titanic is very strong. Doesn't make the book any better, but the direction and minimal approach works well.
Chichester's Sweeney Todd was amazing and Sondheim strongly said it was the best he'd ever seen.
Southwark play houses production of titanic is very strong. Doesn't make the book any better, but the direction and minimal approach works well.
Nick Hutson
Co-Presenter/Producer
MusicalTalk - The UK's Musical Theatre Podcast
http://www.musicaltalk.co.uk
#7
Posted: 8/24/13 at 1:52pm
As I felt William Hammerstein's playful, well cast and exuberant 1979 Broadway revival of Oklahoma! was better than the arid 2002 National Theatre/Trevor Nunn staging, her opinion is debatable.
Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
Updated On: 8/24/13 at 01:52 PM
#8
Posted: 8/24/13 at 2:29pm
I don't know if any of the three revivals so far was better than the original, but anything was certainly more coherent than Tom O'Horgan's New York staging of Jesus Christ Superstar. (Although I hear he did a way better job with the outdoor staging in L.A., given that in Broadway's case he only had six weeks to come in as a replacement director and put together a new show before he had to work on Inner City.)
Formerly gvendo2005
Broadway Legend
joined: 5/1/05
Blocked: After Eight, suestorm, david_fick, emlodik, lovebwy, Dave28282, joevitus, BorisTomashevsky, Seb28
Broadway Legend
joined: 5/1/05
Blocked: After Eight, suestorm, david_fick, emlodik, lovebwy, Dave28282, joevitus, BorisTomashevsky, Seb28
Updated On: 8/24/13 at 02:29 PM
#9
Posted: 8/24/13 at 3:38pm
I can't believe we've had 8 posts to this thread without anyone mentioning the Alan Cummings CABARET. I'm not sure the revised play/score is actually better (both equally powerful in their own way), but the cast with Natasha Richardson by all accounts far surpassed Jill Haworth.
The revival of An Inspector Calls a few years back was staggeringly good. I assume it was an improvement over the original Priestly play.
The revival of An Inspector Calls a few years back was staggeringly good. I assume it was an improvement over the original Priestly play.
#10
Posted: 8/24/13 at 3:46pm
Yes. It's long been acknowledged that Nunn's Oklahoma is the best version there's ever been.
No, it hasn't.
I'd add 42nd Street.
No, it hasn't.
I'd add 42nd Street.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#11
Posted: 8/24/13 at 3:54pm
^ Agreed on the 42nd St revival. I'll add David Leveaux's NINE though i know that's an incredibly unpopular view on this board among a few.
#12
Posted: 8/24/13 at 7:20pm
Show people tend to be very enthusiastic by nature. I take with a grain of salt any claim that a revival is better than the original. And how are posters comparing contemporary revivals with shows from 40 or more years ago that they could not possibly have seen?
There's no way the scaled-down revival of CHICAGO is better than the Gwen Verdon/Chita Rivera/Jerry Orbach/Barney Martin version. Come on.
Ditto for SOUTH PACIFIC. As wonderful as the O'Hara revival may have been, it can't possibly compare to the original, which not only starred Mary Martin, but played to men who had actually served in the Pacific, along with their families.
Original shows tend to taylor their demands to the abilities of the original cast; revivals by nature have to fit the cast to the show as best they can.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
There's no way the scaled-down revival of CHICAGO is better than the Gwen Verdon/Chita Rivera/Jerry Orbach/Barney Martin version. Come on.
Ditto for SOUTH PACIFIC. As wonderful as the O'Hara revival may have been, it can't possibly compare to the original, which not only starred Mary Martin, but played to men who had actually served in the Pacific, along with their families.
Original shows tend to taylor their demands to the abilities of the original cast; revivals by nature have to fit the cast to the show as best they can.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
#13
Posted: 8/24/13 at 7:26pm
Agree with Smaxie concerning "Oklahoma!". I also love the 79 cast recording. That was a wonderful cast.
#14
Posted: 8/24/13 at 7:58pm
I love the current revival of Pippin, but I'm not sure I'd say its better. (Yes, I've seen both.) Same with Chicago. I love that it got revived and now has played for many many more years than the original, but I loved the original and I thought it far superior.
Not sure if this counts as it wasn't quite a revival, but I thought the London production of Follies the best version and I've seem all of the major productions.
Not sure if this counts as it wasn't quite a revival, but I thought the London production of Follies the best version and I've seem all of the major productions.
ARTc3 formerly ARTc. Actually been a poster since 2004. My name isn't Art. Drop the "3" and say the signature and you'll understand.
#15
Posted: 8/24/13 at 9:15pm
Although I haven't seen either, from what I've read here and elsewhere, it seems that the Alan Mendes' CABARET and the London FOLLIES were really revisions more than revivals in the strictest sense of the terms.
This isn't to say people don't have a right to prefer the revision, but I'm not sure they were seeing a true "revival".
This isn't to say people don't have a right to prefer the revision, but I'm not sure they were seeing a true "revival".
#16
Posted: 8/24/13 at 9:44pm
The new Pippin is far superior to the original IMO. I also think that the current Annie revival is VERY well crafted and deals with the material much better than previous productions (which I know is an unpopular view).
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#17
Posted: 8/24/13 at 10:16pm
I thought "Annie" was very good - but those ACCENTS!
"Sticks and stones, sister. Here, have a Valium." - Patti LuPone, a Memoir
#18
Posted: 8/24/13 at 10:26pm
^ Strongly disagree with you, bwayphreak, re the revival of Pippin, good as it is, being better than the original. The full Fosse choreography, 1973 set and costume designs and general stagecraft were stunning and magical on a grand scale that this one-set chamber version can't come close to emulating. Add in the unforced charisma of Ben Vereen in his prime and you got a night of entertainment that the 2013 edition only occasionally approaches. For me there's no comparison.
PS I had quibbles with the 2011 Revival of FOLLIES, but still felt it got the beating heart of FOLLIES righter than the sterile mechanical London revival I saw in '88. Just my opinion.
PS I had quibbles with the 2011 Revival of FOLLIES, but still felt it got the beating heart of FOLLIES righter than the sterile mechanical London revival I saw in '88. Just my opinion.
#19
Posted: 8/24/13 at 10:34pm
Re: "Follies"
As one of my favorites (bootlegs from the original production are treasures of mine), I fully believe "Follies" is more raw and more believe able in its original form. The 2011 revial got the power, even if some of the book (and, unfortunately, Vincent and Vanessa's Tango) was cut. I also thought Bernadette was flawless in her performance as Sally, and her "Losing My Mind" was truly the most magical experience I have ever had in a theatre, I actually play the Revival recording more than the Original because of the awful cuts made in the Original.
As Sondheim said of the original, "I love this, Why does everybody hate it?" and of the London Production, " I hate this, why does everybody love it?".
After the events of the night, why would Sally be happy and willing to leave with Buddy when she still loves Ben, though now she finally realizes they will never be together? Her line in the original "Tomorrow..." (There is no hope at all) "Oh dear God, it IS tomorrow." is the essence of the show, take that away and your left with a shell, which is what the London Production was. A lavish, happy, shell.
As one of my favorites (bootlegs from the original production are treasures of mine), I fully believe "Follies" is more raw and more believe able in its original form. The 2011 revial got the power, even if some of the book (and, unfortunately, Vincent and Vanessa's Tango) was cut. I also thought Bernadette was flawless in her performance as Sally, and her "Losing My Mind" was truly the most magical experience I have ever had in a theatre, I actually play the Revival recording more than the Original because of the awful cuts made in the Original.
As Sondheim said of the original, "I love this, Why does everybody hate it?" and of the London Production, " I hate this, why does everybody love it?".
After the events of the night, why would Sally be happy and willing to leave with Buddy when she still loves Ben, though now she finally realizes they will never be together? Her line in the original "Tomorrow..." (There is no hope at all) "Oh dear God, it IS tomorrow." is the essence of the show, take that away and your left with a shell, which is what the London Production was. A lavish, happy, shell.
"Sticks and stones, sister. Here, have a Valium." - Patti LuPone, a Memoir
Updated On: 8/25/13 at 10:34 PM
#20
Posted: 8/25/13 at 12:27am
Many people felt that the last "Ragtime" revival was superior to the original production. Having only seen the revival, I have no opinion.
Formerly: WishingOnlyWounds2 - Broadway Legend - Joined: 9/25/08
#21
Posted: 8/25/13 at 12:33am
How can people in their teens or 20 or 30s say that the revival of Pippin is better than or "far superior" to the original, when they never saw the original production?
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#22
Posted: 8/25/13 at 12:42am
"Many people felt that the last "Ragtime" revival was superior to the original production."
Of course it's a matter of opinion..... but just NO.
Of course it's a matter of opinion..... but just NO.
#23
Posted: 8/25/13 at 12:43am
I saw both Pippins and although the revival was fun and awe inspiring at points, I found the original to be much more magical and down right sexy. Fosse's vision was smoking.
The current one, as well done as it is felt gimmicky to me.
The current one, as well done as it is felt gimmicky to me.
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#24
Posted: 8/25/13 at 1:02am
I really wish RAGTIME didn't close so early, I was looking forward to seeing it but alas.
"I actually play the Revival [of FOLLIES] recording more than the Original because of the awful cuts made in the Original."
Yes, I don't see how anyone could make a convincing argument that the OBC FOLLIES is a 'better recording' than the revival. The OBC recording just doesn't feel like the show AT ALL. The revival recording is the definitive recording of the show.
Anyway, no revival of FOLLIES will ever be 'better' than the original. But whatever, the revival was great, including Bernadette, despite the backlash I will never understand. I mean, I'm looking at a clip of Victoria Clark singing IN BUDDY'S EYES and someone commented "I saw Bernadette on Broadway and was SO disappointed with her performance, both vocally and dramatically - I disagreed fundamentally with the dramatic decisions Ms Peters made". It makes no sense - Bernadette completely got the subtext and transition in IN BUDDY'S EYES that I find difficult to hear in other performances.
Look at the clear arc in her performance of IN BUDDY'S EYES:
I wonder if people just didn't like the character she played. But look at that face in the second shot. It's the face of a woman who won't stop until she gets what she wants! She wants to **** him so badly.
What a sad realisation when she knows she isn't going to get it:
"I actually play the Revival [of FOLLIES] recording more than the Original because of the awful cuts made in the Original."
Yes, I don't see how anyone could make a convincing argument that the OBC FOLLIES is a 'better recording' than the revival. The OBC recording just doesn't feel like the show AT ALL. The revival recording is the definitive recording of the show.
Anyway, no revival of FOLLIES will ever be 'better' than the original. But whatever, the revival was great, including Bernadette, despite the backlash I will never understand. I mean, I'm looking at a clip of Victoria Clark singing IN BUDDY'S EYES and someone commented "I saw Bernadette on Broadway and was SO disappointed with her performance, both vocally and dramatically - I disagreed fundamentally with the dramatic decisions Ms Peters made". It makes no sense - Bernadette completely got the subtext and transition in IN BUDDY'S EYES that I find difficult to hear in other performances.
Look at the clear arc in her performance of IN BUDDY'S EYES:
I wonder if people just didn't like the character she played. But look at that face in the second shot. It's the face of a woman who won't stop until she gets what she wants! She wants to **** him so badly.
What a sad realisation when she knows she isn't going to get it:
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 8/25/13 at 01:02 AM
#25
Posted: 8/25/13 at 11:02am
Okay, qolbinau. Sure.
I'm with Snafu re the original Pippin, "much more magical and down right sexy". Bingo.
Don't know if this qualifies, but Andrei Serban's THE CHERRY ORCHARD at Lincoln Center in the mid -70's was a staggering revival of the Chekhov play. Irene Worth, Meryl Streep in a small role, Santo Loquasto's gorgeous designs. Perfection. Better than the original? Well I wasn't in Moscow in 1904...
I'm with Snafu re the original Pippin, "much more magical and down right sexy". Bingo.
Don't know if this qualifies, but Andrei Serban's THE CHERRY ORCHARD at Lincoln Center in the mid -70's was a staggering revival of the Chekhov play. Irene Worth, Meryl Streep in a small role, Santo Loquasto's gorgeous designs. Perfection. Better than the original? Well I wasn't in Moscow in 1904...
Updated On: 8/25/13 at 11:02 AM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $72
Tickets From $65