What makes for an effective revival?

By reinventing what most would consider to be a standard for that show in a polarizing way, while still sticking true to the roots of the original.

Two words: Bartlett Sher

A successful revival can be one of two things:

1. Staying true to the original material while at the same time, breathing some new life into it.

2. Staying true to the original material while at the same time, give audiences a new way to look at it.

I think it depends on the show.

For something like GYPSY that we see every few years it does need reinvention because undoubtedly a large majority of the theatregoing crowd has seen the last version, maybe even the last two or three versions.

For a show that hasn't been sen in a long time, maybe not since its debut 50+ years ago, it can be enough just to present the material for what it is. Or it can need complete overhaul for whatever reason (dated, un-PC, just plain badly structured).

And yes, full orchestra is a much (if the show was intended for one).

You start with an entertaining show. You than try and get it to resemble the actual production so those who never saw the original try and envision the original. Are some minor changes needed? Of course as it cannot be a carbon copy.Wholesale reconstruction to make it politically correct to try and get approval from every aggrieved group many times weakens the show. Take Superman and the acrobats. It has to be some nationality.



What if it was all Irish acrobats? Should I be mad because I am Irish and Irish are often portrayed as a bunch of drunks ?I could not care less. Someone suggested they should have been mafia .Should the Italians be mad. Someone will always have an axe to grind.It is supposed to be entertainment and yet it turns into a political firestorm . I have stayed away from many musical revivals in the past for that reason. My wife wanted to see the crucible . When she heard about the staging and got a look at some of the reviews on BWW, she decided not to see it. The kiss of doom was our neighbor (The Big Baloney) telling us he walked out on it.



It is supposed to be entertainment .When it strays from that than we take a pass.

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 10:25 AM

An effective revival is like any other effective stage production. There needs to be a clear concept based in the script and music. It all comes down to finding an engaging way to connect the audience with the material. No production is ever going to work for everyone, and a revival has the added baggage of living up to expectations of previous successful or well-remembered productions.

The Color Purple revival is effective because of its relative simplicity. The set and costumes force the focus onto the performers, better connecting the audience to the material. I noticed a whole lot of nuance in the score and script that I missed with the original production.

The King and I revival is effective because it presents a new interpretation of the text that creates a new experience from a well-worn show. Adding more dimension to the female characters through performance and staging worked wonders to highlight the social conflicts already present in the show and make them palatable to a modern audience.

Ineffective is something hard to define, since it comes so much down to personal preference. I thought the revised Carrie was a total bore for trying to play the story a bit too straight. That stripped down Jekyll & Hyde a few years ago (I think it was technically a tour stop on Broadway) with the projection screens left me more confused than the original for abstracting so much of the locations. I loved John Doyle's Sweeney Todd with the unit set and actors accompanying themselves, but hated the same conceit in his Company a year later.

Great material to begin with.

And I think great material will always transcend time. Mix in a little modern day technology which makes an enhanced staging flow even better than it might have when the show was originally produced and you can find yourself with something pretty special. I would never want the technology to overshadow the purity and bliss of the show though. It would need to be invisible in the same way great lighting and sound is as well.

There might be nostalgia involved, such as when I decided to see The King and I on Friday.

Such wonderful songs stand the test of time, so when you hear them again, they bring back great memories and create pure joy once again.

I also think that an effective revival will have a story that can provide relevancy and modern applications (even in their period story lines) and will tap into something special too. Some issues, topics, and worldly goings-on will always tend to repeat themselves (as history does), and when shows tap into those very things, it makes an older show continuously moving.

Though termed as a "revisal" as opposed to a "revival", I was most impressed with SIDE SHOW's return to Broadway. I loved the original but was totally taken with what was done with the piece in rethinking, rewriting and restaging the show. As with the original, saw it a few times and always enjoyed speaking to Bill Russell in the lobby....an extremely pleasant man. Goes to show though, even with glowing reviews (just like the first production) a show can sadly have an early expiration date.

Agreed. Sher makes magic with revivals, and I honestly wish Paulus would start shying away from original pieces and going back to revivals.