Why Do So Many Revival Reviews Have to Knock the Original?

In print or on message boards? I can understand liking the revival more than the original production. But some of the reviews I've read (on here and published) for Ragtime (I've seen this with other shows. The Assassins revival comes to mind) make me not want to see the production. I adores the original. And while I think a scaled down production can be equally effective, something about the grand original staging sticks in my mind as one of the reasons I loved Ragtime so much when I first saw it. I just don't see why it needs to turn into a this or that battle, especially when talking about original productions that were well-received first time around (as Ragtime was). It seems the new artists are getting credit for reinvention when they are merely bringing a new idea or staging to the work. I had Ragtime on my list of things to see this Winter but now I'm on the fence because of the knocking of the original. I never considered the original the definitive production but surely it wasn't the turkey some (and I sometiems question if they even saw it) are making it out to be.

What other shows besides the two you mention have knocked down the original? I don't mean that in a bitchy way, I'm genuinely asking since I think it's usually the opposite, revivals tend to be knocked down over the original production or earlier revivals even if the revival in question is an acclaimed one. I'm thinking of WEST SIDE STORY, BYE BYE BIRDIE, GUYS & DOLLS, SWEET CHARITY, NINE, A CHORUS LINE, DREAMGIRLS, FOLLIES, COMPANY, etc. From that list, some have been well-received and some poorly-received, but all have been unfavorably compared to the original in one way or another.

---

The revival of Ragtime is really great. I feel like some of the knocking of the original that's been happening in the reviews is because the original production is in relatively recent memory and inevitably there's going to be heavy comparison.

The original staging is really stunning but this staging is equally effective, if perhaps in a slightly different way.

How many of these posts are we going to have?

As I said in the other Ragtime threads, I've yet to see a single person say they hated the original and loved this production. "Knocking the original" is an overstatement when, for the most part, it's just comparing and contrasting.

---

I never had the privilege of seeing the original, but the cast recording alone brings me to tears.

I've seen this production twice now and neither time have I been close to tears - from the music or the acting. (And yes, I listened to the OBCR again after seeing the revival and was still brought to tears, so it's not overexposure.)

I haven't seen the revival of Ragtime, but I always had mixed feelings about the original. When I saw it in 1998, then was no bandwagon on which to jump. I haven't seen but maybe two or three people who have described the original production as some sort of "turkey", but when it comes to revivals, a comparison to the original will always occur. And like every musical that has ever been produced, there will be those who like it and those who don't (yes, even Sondheim musicals). I don't think this is some sort of unusual trend. In virtually every discussion of Ragtime over the years, there have always been those who have disliked elements of the show.

---

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 10:40 AM

I guess I'm not seeing the point of your original post, then.

Ultimately it's your decision. And, possibly, your loss.

*shrugs*

---

How so? I mean, it sounds like your topic was really only regarding a few comments based on this one Ragtime revival, which you don't really want to see, anyway. Because people said some negative things about the original production. Or because you don't like the cast. Except Noll. Or because it may not have a new perspective. But you don't think it should be a "this or that" battle.

And YOU have a headache?!?!

---

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 01:30 PM

Are people bashing it, or just comparing? The one common thread is that the original was overproduced. LOOK as the size of teh set on stage at the Neil Simon. This is no chamber-sized reduction. It's just done differently.

There was nothing majorly wrong with the original production. Contrary to reports by the show's detractors, the original was very well received, grossing $82,487,923 over 906 performances, including previews. If it weren't for Garth Drabinsky's hand in the cookie jar that kind of run with that kind of gross would have been profitable.

If you enjoyed the show then, you will enjoy it just as much now. It's all there in the text. The performances are great but for me it's the writing that makes it.

There are some problems. Two key scenes in Act One ("The Night That Goldman Spoke/Gliding" and "Wheels of a Dream") should be reversed to create a better musical balance and improve the story-telling narrative. The first act could stand to lose about 10 minutes as well. The authors could never come up with a satisfying opening for Act II. But these are minor quibbles on a show that sets the bar almost impossibly high and generally exceeds expectations.

---

As someone who saw the original Ragtime and was completely underwhelmed, I am incredibly excited about the revival. I've always loved the adaptation, but there was something I couldn't pinpoint in the original that felt lackluster. I find it fascinating when examining my development as an artist to know that I'm more drawn to the relative "unknowns" of the revival (with the exception of a few performers) than I was to the "stars" of the original.

I think the only people who can accurately compare the original and revival mountings of any production are those who have seen both -- and even then, it comes down to a matter of personal opinion, no?

I can't pinpoint it, exactly... I know I was only 20, 21 at the time... but I remember just not "connecting" emotionally to the story... I loved the music and the performances... but I wasn't invested in caring about the characters all that much.