The Challenges of Creating and Reviewing a Revival

[esparza 333]

Posted: 7/23/10 at 5:16pm

I was just thinking about this and wondering what others thought. When a new, original show opens the critics break down everything about the show. The material (score, book) the design and direction and performances. It strikes me that their is two things to judge the merit of the material and the other elements of the actual production. For example a show like In the Heights got mixed reviews for the actual material but the production from the design to the performances y were more lauded on a whole. This made me think about all the times I have read a review of a revival that sometime highlights the weaknesses of the piece. Revivals are new production of already established plays or musicals so I was wondering how people they should be judged by the critics. Some revivals reinterpret and change a lot about the show and critics mostly address the new takes. I have created this thread I know many people including me who get frustrated when reviews spend time bashing the material when I feel they should be talking about the new version of the show. Does anyone else share this frustration?? Does anyone disagree?? I think this is a topic that people will have varying opinions on. I think it also asks what we think revivals should do, whether they should simply change production and perform the material or if they should bring something new to the table. Your thoughts????

Updated On: 7/23/10 at 05:16 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/24/10 at 9:16am

I think it NEEDS to be discussed how the material has held up since the last production. This leads to WHY the director/producers chose to revive a particular show and what they bring to it. You could have wonderful performances and design and the production might STILL fall flat: because of the material, regardless of whether or not it is new.

I DO believe that there are very few pieces that should be "museum pieces" -- without something new being brought to them. I feel that way, too, when a change in medium happens.

[noplain]

Posted: 7/24/10 at 11:48am

I started working professionally as a reviewer in Feb of this year, in a city where shows aren't labelled as "revival" or otherwise. They may be referred to as new, or city/state premiere, bit I don't think I've ever seen revival or not. So I don't know if it's because of that or not, but I AMWAYS critique the score/book/play script, regardless of if it is first production or fifth - I'm young enough (21) I'm probably seeing it for the first time, and so I assume others are too. Like dramamama said, I also talk about if it stands up or not. Just because something is being done again, doesn't mean it's good, or if it is good, doesn't mean it is still relevant in 2010.

[BroadwayBound115]

Posted: 7/24/10 at 1:10pm

But does it really have to be all that relevant? Can't audiences enjoy something that was specific to that period. I think that when people say that a book is dated, shouldn't it be? I mean obviously a book from the 1960s will be dated. Look at re-makes of movies, they put those movies back in their original setting with some minor changes to the script and they aren't horribly dated either. I just think that maybe we should look at the dated shows as a piece of history and look at them as nostalgic pieces.

[byebyebaby12]

Posted: 7/24/10 at 1:27pm

I agree with Broadway Bound.

I tend to dislike most concept revivials.

[noplain]

Posted: 7/24/10 at 8:23pm

Well, yes okay, "dated" can be fine. But I more meant plays that seem completely racist or sexist and undermining now, or at the other end of the scale, we once scandalous, and now are common place. Sometimes those plays just don't work now. Some topical shows can be dated within a matter of months! Some plays are made to stand up, some are such a commentary on their time that they just don't work anymore. Some are a commentary on their time and that is exactly why they still work. It's a combination of the script, and how the new director works with it.

[Jon]

Posted: 7/25/10 at 1:49pm

So, noplain, yuo would have no qualms about going to see a production of Hamlet and then saying in your review that it is badly written, dated, sexist play?

[scott68]

Posted: 7/25/10 at 2:42pm

I think the issue of whether something is dated or not has to be thought about in conjunction with the merits the piece still has. Hamlet, to take that example, is a brilliantly written play that may technically be dated, but still resonates very much in almost any situation. On the other hand, Equus, as I think the majority of reviewers saw in the recent revival, was provocative at the time but feels somewhat stale and unnecessary for today's audience.

Of course, there's always a case like South Pacific, which has a book that could be considered dated, but still feels fresh in the current Lincoln Center revival largely due to the strength of the production.