Time Between Revivals?

[pawneeruraljuror]

Just a random thought and wondering others' opinions: How long do you think is a fitting amount of time between revivals of a show?

For example, Into the Woods had a (Broadway) revival 15 years after the original but for the most recent revival of Gypsy there was only a 5 year gap (while the first revival was 15 years after the original), so what is a fitting time frame for shows to stage a revival? 

[whatdoesntkillme]

I think the time between the original and first revival should definitely be at least 10-15 years, longer depending on the length of the show's original run. Time between revivals, though, can be shorter if there's a good purpose for the production. 

[asimplegal2]

I would say at least 15 years, unless it's a particularly innovative or fresh interpretation. 

[Mr. Nowack]

In the old days a revival wasn't uncommon as soon as 5 years after the original or something like that. I think the way the media is and how we preserve shows that doesn't fly anymore. I think 10-15 is pretty solid. Give time for a new generation of performers to take on the role.

[dramamama611]

Anything less than 10 seems unnecessary.  Doesn't stop some from doing it though.  

[henrikegerman]

The short answer, to paraphrase Mr. Berlin, is "Any time the traffic will allow."  Meaning, if there's a reason - artistically, commercially, or hopefully both - to bring in a new production, then the timing is right (regardless of how soon or how long it's been since the last one).  if not, then not.

Opera lovers don't think twice about seeing the same different productions of the same operas over and over again in relatively short order - why should theatre lovers be any different?

Also, the "too soon' objection also often rings false on this board.  It seems that the people who complain about "do we really need another revival of - fill in the blank - so soon after the last one closed" are often the same people who will think nothing about going to see the same production multiple times during a run because they love the show so much, or simply because of an intriguing cast change.

The complaint may well be that there are so many other worthy things that deserve a revival, why "this" yet again?

But the fact remains that there's a reason that certain classics continue to fascinate artists and engage audiences.  (of course we can all disagree about whether any particular work merits such veneration and continued attention, but that's a different issue).



 

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

The Tonys has a rule that a revival can be eligible to compete if it took place at least three years after a previous production closes. Last season, we got an extremely premature revival of The Glass Menagerie about three years after John Tiffany's highly acclaimed production. Even with Sally Field in the starring role, Sam Gold's production still crashed and burned at the box office.

Of course, the most recent revivals of Gypsy and La Cage aux Folles did take place about five years after their previous incarnations.