Why is the "revue" dead?

I would not say it is dead but perhaps moribund. Why? I'd say one thing is the jukebox musical has supplanted one subset, perhaps because a revue is too thin for Broadway. (And some of the JB shows arereally just dressed up revues.) Another is that there is not much of a mass appetite for the sort of loosely themed assemblages that form the other subset. And of course there are quite a few revues off-B and in the cabaret setting.

Isn't Prince of Broadway a revue? Not trying to negate your point, OP, but it's interesting that we will have one this season for the first time in several years (was the last one Sondheim on Sondheim? or has there been one since?)

Then again, When Pigs Fly is coming back. And it's sort of a revue with a thread of plot pulling it together. There's successful theatre on every level, and I thought the original When Pigs Fly was one of the most enjoyable (and delightfully subversive) things I've ever seen.

The revue may not have had success recently on Broadway, but revue-type shows (and shows with the barest slips of plot like Marvelous Wonderettes) are immensely popular with regional theatres.

Because Broadway isn't the center of American music culture anymore.

I have seen my share of revues over the years, and have enjoyed a reasonable number of them and not enjoyed a reasonable number. I have always thought of them as filler...they have generally filled voids in seasons that did not have a huge number of productions. (I do not consider one-person shows to be revues...they are about the star performer...not random material assembled in some attempt at logical order).

A revue has to be exceptional to keep an audience interested, since they do not have characters to become invested in. For me, they have worked better when the cast were the authors, e.g., An Evening with Comden and Green, the show that Sammy Kahn did many years ago, or an had extraordinary cast, e.g., Ain't Misbehavin. There just aren't many of those.

I think there is a place for revues off-Broadway, assuming expenses can be kept low...a nice little inexpensive night out. I just don't see them coming back in fashion on Broadway. I assume they have gone the way of the light comedy. With ticket prices being as high as they are and the trudge from suburbia being horrific and expensive, they have had their day. This is not to sat that one won't come along that is so special, etc.

Full disclosure: I hated Smoky Joe's Cafe, I hated Fosse, I got bored half way through Dancin', Jerome Robbins' Broadway, Sophisticated Ladies; Bubbling Brown Sugar; hated Wait a Minim (a non-star hit 50 years ago), loved Comden and Green, Sammy Kahn, Ain't Misbehavin' (though I new er had any interest in seeing it a second time). So, I must have a pretty strong bias.

Wouldn't it be best to define the term "revue" before weighing in? It seems as though everyone is discussing the songbook collection revue only, but the original "revue" was an evening of original sketches, songs, and dances, a la Two On The Aisle. TV shows like Saturday Night Live still sort of do that (although light on original songs), introducing new material much more often than could be done in the theatre.

Updated On: 5/8/17 at 08:17 PM

JennH said: "I may be a bit biased here because I've never been a big "revue" fan. Of course Ain't Misbehavin, and I would also say Smokey Joe's Cafe are tops, but it's true not much else has seem to work other than those two. I guess I've just never understood the genre of revue. You might as well do a concert at that rate, since they're in essence the same thing. At least to an audience who doesn't know the more nuanced details of the differences between them.

But I'd agree with calling them moribund. But I wouldn't be surprised if they did die out, revue's are just of a bygone era. They were the thing when what we know as musicals didn't exist yet.

And the only reason I think Prince of Broadway will be at least moderately successful is because it's Hal Prince. Everything he's ever done has been successful to some degree and people love those shows. It's material everyone knows. At least, that's my own takeaway on PofB.



"

I guess you missed A DOLL'S LIFE, END OF THE WORLD..., PLAY MEMORY, GRIND and Prince's version of MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG.

He's my favorite director, but he's had a long career. Nobody hits a home run every time at bat.

***

I think the OP answered his own question: television killed the traditional Broadway revue, specifically the television variety show which was very popular up through the mid-1970s.

"Also, re the prior definition, I agree; but, other than Sugar Babies, which was a star vehicle, there hasn't been one of those since the fifties."

I don't think that Sugar Babies had much in the way of new/original material. But there have been many post 1950's classic-style revues (original songs & sketches) on Broadway (although few had any success), including:

From A to Z - 1960
Vintage '60 - 1960
Laughs and Other Events - 1960
The Billy Barnes People - 1961
From the Second City - 1961
New Faces of 1962 - and 1968
The Hollow Crown - 1962
The Beast in Me - 1964
Double Dublin - 1963
The Committee - 1964
Cambridge Circus - 1964
This Was Burlesque - 1965
Wait A Minim! - 1966
At The Drop of Another Hat - 1966
Oh! Calcutta! - 1969
To Live Another Summer, To Pass Another Winter - 1971
Pacific Paradise - 1972
Mother Earth - 1972
The Night That Made America Famous - 1975
Let My People Come - 1976
A Day in Hollywood, A Night in the Ukraine - 1980 (some old, some new songs, and think of Act II as one extended sketch)
The Moony Shapiro Songbook - 1988 (sort of)
Pump Boys and Dinettes - 1982
Mayor - 1985
Bring In 'Da Noise, Bring In 'Da Funk - 1996
Jackie Mason's Laughing Room Only - 2003
Martin Short: Fame Becomes Me - 2006
All About Me - 2010

Jarethan said: "seaweedjstubbs said: "I know that AFTER MIDNIGHT wasn't necessarily a financial success, but it was pretty well received and, in my opinion, thoroughly entertaining. I believe that was the most recent revue on Broadway.



And audiences stayed away, despite some spectacular reviews.

Also, re the prior definition, I agree; but, other than Sugar Babies, which was a star vehicle, there hasn't been one of those since the fifties.





"

It was my recollection that After Midnight, although didn't blow the roof off of the box office, did pretty solid numbers during its run. The whole reason it closed was because the producers didn't want to put on an understudy during the 4th of July weekend (between Patti LaBelle's end and Gladys Knight's start), but they also knew closing for a week wasn't lucrative either, so they just shut it down.

After Midnight opened early in the season and got overshadowed by some big hitters including Beautiful, Aladdin, Les Miserables and Hedwig. From the beginning, marketing shouldered a lot on the announced headliners appearing for limited engagements, so the producers handicapped the show from the beginning by relying on fans of the headliners for ticket sales. I remember thinking to myself how I'd rather wait to see someone more desirable in the show if they were going to be rotating so often. I think having no cast recording hurt them as well. Living in Chicago, there was little exposure to the show outside of NYC. I remember strong reviews, but there really wasn't any far-reaching buzz. I remember not having a clear picture of what the show was like and wasn't wowed by the Tony performance, which I couldn't help but compare to the amazing Tony performance of Black & Blue.

chanel said: "As has been mentioned, revues aren't thriving so much anymore because jukebox shows took over and give you not only revue-style old songs, but a plot.



I actually think that is right on analysis. The story increases audience commitment to the show.