Shows that don't age well — Page 3

Annie has not held up so well. Orphanages are much more rare in the United States now. Also, its use of the politics of the era no longer seem relevant.

Bettyboy72, is it possible A Chorus Line feels dated because we are less convinced we can solve all problems by talking them out? Nowadays, we tend to turn to medication much more quickly.

This is just a guess. Obviously, the "talk cure" still exists; it just doesn't seem as central to our cultural concerns as it did at the height of the Me Generation.

I don't think that there are shows that "don't age well". There are shows that are poorly written and those that are brilliant.

Those that are mediocre or plain bad will always be so, and time will make their flaws more evident. The great shows will simply seem more relevant to different generations, and will shine according to the events surrounding a specific time and staging.

What seems "dated" to you today, might strike a chord to many in a hundred years.

---

Bettyboy, I like to think that the trouble with A Chorus Line's reception a few years back was simply the production itself. I grew up completely entranced by the cast recording and probably still listen to it more than any other show. The revival was the first time I ever saw it on stage, and I was more excited for it than I am for many shows at all. But the whole thing really fizzled for me. Other than Deidre Goodwin and maybe Tony Yazbeck and Chryssie Whitehead, I was so let down by the cast who seemed to lack the driving passion that it seemed the show needed. I can't pretend to get inside the performer's heads, but from what I've heard and what I saw of the audition process in Every Little Step, it seemed like they might have just been directed too heavily to recreate the original production rather than really locating their own personal take on the material. Like they were playing who they thought the characters were supposed to be rather than playing the characters themselves.

This is all just sort of wondering out loud...and trying to justify why I didn't love it like I expected to. But I DID love Deidre Goodwin in it. Someone give that woman a great original part to play already!

Lots of thoughts on A Chorus Line, from someone who was lucky enough to see the OBC and successive Broadway casts of the original run multiple times.

First, is it dated? To me some of the most tear-inducing moments in ACL have to do with sexuality, especially gay sexuality. As a shy 19-year-old in 1975 just finding out what the big gay world out there could be like, ACL was a revelation. In the intervening 36 years (oh, god, really??), boy has society changed regarding gay sexuality and gay acceptance. For that alone, the show will always be locked into a 1975 mindset, regardless of how universal the themes of self-acceptance and "putting yourself on the line everyday" remain. But that just means the show is a PERIOD show now, a precise evocation of a time now gone. "Dated" suggests that the jokes don't play and the song lyrics are laughable in modern mouths, none of which applies to ACL, at least if performed up to par.

Was the last Broadway revival up to par? I frankly thought it was well more than that, crisply danced and subtly acted in equal measure. I was as moved to tears as I had been all those years ago. And my partner who had never seen the original (well he was 10 at the time) was moved enough to finally understand what all the fuss for ACL had always been about.

Sorry, guys. I'd keep A Chorus Line in the timeless and evergreen column myself.

Gaveston2, I don't disagree that there certainly are showed that are genuinely dated. BABES IN ARMS, along with many other musical comedies of the 1930s, would certainly fit the bill, which is why the scores of those shows oftentimes have outlived the shows themselves.

---

Well, rewriting BABES IN ARMS is different from rewriting PORGY AND BESS, at least in regard to the current PORGY AND BESS headed towards Broadway. Rewriting BABES IN ARMS is a case of revision. It actually would be a case of fixing up a musical for whatever reason. Rewriting PORGY AND BESS, in this instance, is a case of adaptation. The opera isn't being fixed up; it is being adapted into a musical. I don't think that's the kind of difference you meant, but it is the one that seems most obvious to me.

---

Sure, but they aren't adaptations of a piece from one genre into another. BABES IN ARMS is a musical before and after. The intention behind this PORGY AND BESS is to adapt an opera into a musical, whether the naysayers are acknowledging it or not.

---

MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG. Not only has it not aged well, it insists on aging badly backwards.

---

You're cracked. LES MISERABLES is forever.

I recently saw a production of Bye Bye Birdie and was struck by how dated it is. While it will certainly still work, for the most part, as a period piece and a show like that is pretty much automatically tied to its time, there were quite a few pop-culture jokes from the era that fell completely flat because very few people in audience knew the references.

Updated On: 8/23/11 at 11:04 AM

@ renart: I gotta say three words to you regarding ACL: It's a musical! No-one's expecting deep tearstained therapy sessions to really happen during an audition for a Broadway show. They're a device to to take the audience into the backstory of each of the performers onstage. They're a pathway in to the pure artistry of "At the Ballet" and "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen..." I suppose you could say, well, the device is hackneyed. But as devices go, audiences will apply a greater suspension of disbelief to such devices in a musical than in a straight play, especially if they allow the show to soar into those peak emotional highs for which A Chorus Line is famous.