Riedel on 42ND STREET Revivals Eyeing Broadway — Page 2

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.