Riedel on 42ND STREET Revivals Eyeing Broadway - Page 2

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 11/15/17 at 12:14pm

Zamedy154 said: "This show holds a special place in my heart because it was the first Broadway show I ever saw. With that said... do we REALLY need another revival of this so soon? Even if it was a brand new, scaled down interpretation, it's still the same (dated) story and score. A revival less than 20 years after the latest revival closed? Come on. What is this, ANNIE?"

The last revival closed almost 13 years ago, it's not like it was just here yesterday like The Glass Menagerie. We've also seen instances where shows like Gypsy and La Cage aux Folles were both revived five years apart.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/15/17 at 12:31pm

I'd argue that Gypsy and La Cage are more...interesting shows? You could do a lot with casting for those, where as I'm not sure anyone is every going to be blown away by an actor in 42nd Street. Maybe the dancing, but the story is dated and the songs are fine, but not powerhouse numbers like something in Gypsy. 

I really, really wish we had gotten that Guys and Dolls to come over. I usually hate dance sequences, but I love the one that's up on YouTube. SO dark and moody.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 11/15/17 at 12:37pm

The London revival, which is indeed based on the 2001 Broadway staging, wouldn't be financially viable I think for Broadway. As others have pointed out, the last Broadway production ran a couple of years and lost money. Given that was in the post 9/11 NYC, where tourism completely dried up for a period, but the show would be hugely expensive to produce now and I just don't see it happening.

The Chicago staging sounds and looks quite intriguing. It does look a little bare bones, but I imagine it might be slicked up a bit for Broadway.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/15/17 at 1:03pm

Honestly, the reimagined Chicago production doesn't interest me in the least.  I saw the original tour, the Broadway revival (the pinnacle production) and the most recent tour.  A stripped-down grittier version of what essentially was a Busby Berkely spectacle just sounds like a graduate thesis to justify a budget production.  If I want to see 42nd Street, it's not to study the exploration of artistic integrity or the racial/class struggles of the 1930s.  And if I'm paying Broadway prices for 42nd Street, I'm expecting SPECTACLE.  

And I'd take that Chris Jones rave with a shaker of salt.  He gave the current King & I tour the same rave, gushing about how it was such a landmark and revelatory production.  True, it had the big ship at the beginning and added Western People Funny, but outside that, it was your basic paint-by-numbers King & I that I found less interesting to watch than the 90s revival.  The only thing Chris loves more than donning the kid gloves for Chicago theatre is putting on his rose-colored glasses once he's settled in his seat.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 11/15/17 at 1:11pm

Well, I didn’t see the same king and I tour as you I guess.

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/15/17 at 2:36pm

Am I the only one who sees the implication that, much like the Promises, Promises revival drew its stylistic cues and inspiration from "Mad Men," this reimagined 42nd Street, from all descriptions, seems to be attempting an "Empire" vibe, but in Depression-era Broadway?

[Jarethan]

Posted: 11/15/17 at 6:28pm

The last thing we need IMO is another rehash of the original production.  Just seems like lazy thinking to me. 

Reading about the Chicago production, it sounds thrilling to me.  A completely new take on what IMO was an old chestnut when it first opened.  Not meant to be dismissive...I have seen that production 3 or 4 times and enjoyed it each time, including a touring production in the past year; but, beyond the opening number, it has never been thrilling to me...it has been well-done pure entertainment.

I think it would be fascinating to see this in a theatre comparable in size to the Brooks Atkinson, and to (hopefully) see how the basic raw material can be made 'relevant' and credible, as well as entertaining.  Small production + (theoretically) great reviews + smaller theatre could translate into a 'must see' event...and maybe even turn a profit.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 4:46pm

Well, I didn’t see the same king and I tour as you I guess.

Perhaps you did, but didn't have as many previous tours and productions for comparison.  Laura Michelle Kelley was absolute perfection.  Everything else about it was okay.

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 6:59pm

Or maybe this production that everyone loves should stay in Chicago where it’s a hit and then conclude it’s run on a high note? Why does a run on Broadway have to be the end goal for so many shows?

This reminds me of the “stripped-down” Ragtime that played on Broadway not too long ago. It was a hit at the regional theater where it originated and it was an absolute flop that no one wanted to see here in New York.

Cheers to all involved in this new Chicago run, but maybe consider enjoying your success instead of eyeing a transfer...

Just my humble opinion...

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/5/18 at 12:27am

Just got back from the Drury Lane production and have to say it exceeded my expectations and gave me so much more to be happy about. I just loved the intimacy of it and the compactness of it. I know it’s not as flashy as the previous productions, in effects and sets, but the choreography is visionary. I also have to give a shoutout to the person who came up with the dime idea. I hope it’s not the last time we see this production. It finishes its run this weekend and if you haven’t seen it, go!!

Lastly, the arrangements for this was extremely compact, but I loved how modern it sounded. It made we’re in the money sound like it could’ve came from a rapper.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 1/5/18 at 1:47am

So maybe it should come to Broadway but in a much smaller capacity? 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 1/5/18 at 10:56am

theatregoer3 said: "Or maybe this production that everyone loves should stay in Chicago where it’s a hit and then conclude it’s run on a high note? Why does a run on Broadway have to be the end goal for so many shows?

This reminds me of the “stripped-down” Ragtime that played on Broadway not too long ago. It was a hit at the regional theater where it originated and it was an absolute flop that no one wanted to see here in New York.

Cheers to all involved in this new Chicago run, but maybe consider enjoying your success instead of eyeing a transfer...

Just my humble opinion..."

I always thought that that revival was one of the worst timed productions ever, a revival of a show that hadn't been gone for that long opening right after the stock market crash.  It also points out that -- despite the fact that many on this board, including me, love Ragtime -- it has managed to elude the 'iconic' success that it deserves.

The show is being done at the Asolo Theatre in Sarasota, Florida in April.  The theatre has a great track record with revivals of classics -- earlier this season, it presented a version of Evita that I honestly enjoyed every bit as much as the origin production, much to my shock.  I was actually surprised to see them doing this, since it does NOT have the name recognition of the shows they normally do.  In any event, it will be interesting to see how 'small' a production they can do and still succeed.  If they are as successful as they have been with every one of the musicals they have done since I moved to Florida 6 years ago, it will give me help that a smaller version can work, and might have a chance in a smaller theatre than the first two productions.

[Cbdancin]

Posted: 1/6/18 at 1:54am

Anyone heard more on either production transferring? I saw Chicago tonight and heard people in the audience say it was going to Broadway... but can’t find anything to confirm.

I enjoyed it, but not as much as I had hoped. My expectations were way too high. Overall very interesting adaptation though.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/6/18 at 2:06am

When I was walking into the theatre I over heard a conversation of what sounded like producers. Not sure if they were broadway or not. But it made it sound like it could transfer.

[catalana3]

Posted: 1/8/18 at 10:59am

When I see that West End trailer, it just screams "blah." What I would expect. Another tv ad promoting a large cast and orchestra. I thought the Chicago production was exceptional. Over half the leads in the Chicago production are actors of color. That's so important. That trailer does nothing to convey the quality of tap and jazz dance in this production. Kimberly Immanuel has such a bright future. Phillip Attmore knows how to own the stage. "We're in the Money" was one of the best numbers I saw in 2017, and I saw several dozen shows in '17. With some reimagined staging (it was a bit cramped) this production could go a long way. I have to disagree with the comments about needing to see spectacle. We've seen many incredible shows without huge casts. This show felt just the right size. 

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 1/8/18 at 11:47am

Really? this seems too soon.  Is the climate in the country forcing people to go to the theatre to see costumes and large casts in uproarious dance numbers?  I hope not.

[binau]

Posted: 1/8/18 at 12:33pm

I just don’t see how anyone could change this show to make it work as a genuine piece of dramatic theatre (as opposed to fairy floss spectacle).. The show has a thin plot and mediocre score. The only thing good about it is the dancing and large production numbers. It seems like the Chicago production is taking away the only thing good about it - which of course suits the economics of Broadway. I acknowledge I am completely speculating based off very limited info about this production. But I am so sceptical.

[mpd4165]

Posted: 1/8/18 at 12:37pm

Trust...based on the choreography of the Chicago production, and the audience reaction when I saw it, the dancing is INCREDIBLY satisfying, electric, and exciting. 

[ACL2006]

Posted: 1/8/18 at 1:00pm

So 2018-19 season could be the year of revivals? 42nd Street, Crazy For You, Dreamgirls, Sweet Charity, Damn Yankees, Gypsy; Kiss Me, Kate. Any others?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 1/8/18 at 2:21pm

All these new musicals being produced and becoming hits and it leads to.....more revivals of shows we've seen a hundred times? Just cause it's a hit regionally doesn't mean it's going to be a hit on Broadway. Can see this flopping alongside Crazy For You.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 1/8/18 at 2:53pm

Crazy For You has never been revived. Everyone has done 42nd Street and frequently tours(equity, non-equity, international tours, summer stock theaters). I can see Crazy For You doing well. 42nd Street not so much.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 11:14am

Did anyone see the Ordway production that was a revised version of the Drury Lane production? I’m curious how it played in a more ideal Proscenium space than the thrust stage that’s at the Drury.

[greensgreens]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 12:15pm

I did see the Ordway version and, I am still surprised to say, it was pretty awesome! Jarrod Emick made a welcome return to the stage as Julian (wish he had more singing), Tamara Tunie was serviceable, some strong performances in supporting roles. I don't remember who played Peggy, but she was simply amazing.

I can't even imagine how the production would work without a proscenium setup. The big finish alone where Peggy tapped her a** off and then they lifted the curtain to reveal a four-level set filled with dancers to hoof it as a group - and Peggy kept speed - was the most thrilling thing I've seen in a long time. The production somehow found a way to deliver a somewhat non-traditional production while still fulfilling all the promises the title makes to audiences (big dance spectacles).

However, it could still not overcome the problem that the plot is so thin and SO predictable (and frankly overdone at this point). Great visuals, good performances, amazing dancing, and lovely new orchestrations; but you've still got the essential problems that would require a complete revision of the script.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 12:52pm

I've never understood why the musical took out the "Julian Marsh is sick and possibly dying" element from the film. It would raise the stakes so much for Julian (and he's already the most fleshed-out character in the show). In the original novel, Billy and Julian are also apparently lovers, which would be much more interesting nowadays than in the 80s/30s.

I know Mark Bramble has passed away in the time since Riedel wrote that article, but I really wish someone could give the book some TLC. I would love to read the script as it evolved in 1980, since I think Merrick did a lot of cutting.

[morosco]

Posted: 9/25/19 at 1:30pm

BTW the Drury Lane production will be broadcast on PBS Great Performances on November 1st.