#26
Posted: 4/12/05 at 6:43pm
I don't think WISH was being negative at all. If anything he was being realistic and addressed the same question I had. When I first heard "Sweet Charity" was being revived my first reaction was "Why would a producer even consider putting money in this show?" When I read posts in the other room from people who had seen the show out of town my first question to them was, "Do you think the show warranted a revival and if you were a producer would you back it?" The overall consensus was a resounding "No!". That's what I don't understand about revivals.Of all the recent ones going back to"Guys and Dolls" (a success) which revivals following it were lucrative? NOT "42nd Street"(which ran 3 1/2 years!) and certainly not "Follies", "Candide", "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes", "The Sound of Music", "Little Me", "She Loves Me","Wonderful Town", "The Music Man", "On the Town", "Oklahoma", "Flower Drum Song","Into the Woods" and I'm sure I'm forgetting others. Granted "Annie Get Your Gun" (?), "Cabaret"and "Chicago" made money but I question whether or not "Gypsy" or "Kiss Me Kate" actually recouped their costs and I doubt "Fiddler" or "La Cage" will. So with the odds of a revival being a success being extremely low, I too can't help questioning why anyone would back "Sweet Charity". Though it has a fine score I'm sure the producers saw or know of the Debbie Allen revival which was dreadful. Originally Verdon's name along with Coleman and Fields, Neil Simon and Bob Fosse might have been enough to draw a crowd for a time but why invest in a show that requires a power house leading lady and sports a book that is still being worked on due to its flaws?
