What makes for an effective revival?

[BroadMagTech]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:06pm

In your opinion, what makes for a successful revival. Examples? Ideas?

[bfreak]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:10pm

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.

[Doody Fisher]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:11pm

Full Orchestrations (looking at you, Roundabout)

[JoeyEvans1206]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:28pm

Two words: Bartlett Sher

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:38pm

I don't think "reinventing" is necessary as long as the creatives respect the original work. I would not say that the current revival of She Loves Me is any huge reinvention of the piece, nor was last season's On the Twentieth Century, but it was clear in both that the creative team had a clear understanding of what story the pieces were trying to tell.

 

Whereas you look at some of the more unsuccessful revivals in recent memory, such as the most recent Guys and Dolls, where it was clear that the teams were trying to reinvent that piece and it failed because they could not just trust the material. This stands in contrast to the early 90s revival of the show which was a huge hit because (and I admit I'm just judging from videos that I've seen) they knew the material worked and so were able to give it a breath of fresh air without trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:43pm

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.

[bfreak]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 9:12pm

AEA AGMA SM said: "I don't think "reinventing" is necessary as long as the creatives respect the original work. I would not say that the current revival of She Loves Me is any huge reinvention of the piece, nor was last season's On the Twentieth Century, but it was clear in both that the creative team had a clear understanding of what story the pieces were trying to tell."

 Hey! Actually by reinventing I meant it a little less strongly than it may have comes across. What I meant was to provide updates than tradition would not usually use while still keeping the same spirit and effect that the original had.

 

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 10:38pm

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). 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 10:02am

I consider the 2013 production of Pippin to represent everything that should be in a perfect revival. It was brilliant.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 10:25am

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

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 11:44am

I agree with Mr. Nowack in the sense that if I think something was just on Broadway, a revival should do something new (while still respecting the original). For example, my reaction to hearing about both the Color Purple and Spring Awakening revivals was "already?" But I thought they are/were both simply brilliant when I saw them. They found a way to reinvent the material while still being true to it. 

 

But I've never had an opportunity to see She Loves Me so I don't really care if it's a carbon copy of the original or the last revival.   

 

For me personally, there are some classics that are so timeless that I don't think anything "new" needs to be done with them even if they're put on time and time again, although I still appreciate if the creatives have some vision as to how to tell the story. I am not a big fan of modernizing the classics. For example I didn't particularly care for A View from the Bridge but I don't think it was the play...  If anything it made me want to see a classic rendition of it. And I also don't think it is Van Hove per se as I enjoyed Lazarus.  I think it is just the very modern spin on a classic play that I don't love.  (I will probably see the Crucible if I have time but I'm not optimistic.)  Similarly I just saw a local West Side Story production that has gotten great reviews but added contemporary choreography and I was not a fan. But that's just my tastes and I know there are people who love modern interpretations (as evidenced by the positive reviews of both of those shows). 

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 11:44 AM

[trentsketch]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 11:55am

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. 

[Valentina3]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:04pm

BroadwayConcierge said: "I consider the 2013 production of Pippin to represent everything that should be in a perfect revival. It was brilliant"

 

While Pippin revival was a lot better than the original production, the show is so weak character-wise that to me this revival only exposed the faults. So much more. I loved the ending, but Pippin stayed stupid and naive for me throughout the show instead of actually maturing and standing up. I think the Company revival from 2006, or Violet from 2011, or even the 1996 Cabaret make for much better examples. They made the show relevant to the audience, while keeping the era being represented alive.

If you want bolder ideas - Into The Woods from last summer was a crazy departure from the original production, but it worked because they concentrated on the story telling. Something which Bartlett Sher (King And I) and John Doyle (The Color Purple!) do a great job of. They both have very different styles of doing it. Sher creates magnum opus, and Doyle strips the show down to its bare necessities - but it works for whatever shows they decide to pick up. I don't think a stripped down King And I or a magnum opus production of Company would work.


The new Sound Of Music revival, current touring North America, is fantastic too. Because it fixes the problems in the book by a simple stroke of rearranging some songs and making clever casting choices. I almost wish they had cut a couple songs in exchange for more character development for Mother Abbess  and Captain, but I left the theater a very happy person.

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 12:04 PM

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:06pm

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.

[pupscotch]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:24pm

I think the 1998 Cabaret revival is the best example of what a revival should be-a fresh reinvention of great material.

[Demitri2]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:26pm

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.

[HarrietTaylor]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:51pm

Pippin was extremely fluid with the changes they made, which is always more exciting to witness but Cabaret, Hair, and anything Bart Sherr does stay true to the material and make for great revivals. 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:54pm

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

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:57pm

^John Doyle has pretty much done the same thing.