Will there ever be a B'way revival for "City of Angels" ?

[David10086]

Posted: 12/1/18 at 11:16am

One of the  musicals I've really enjoyed on Broadway and even on tour (with Barry Williams) was "City of Angels" back in 1990. Thought it was witty and clever, and should have lasted longer than the 25 months it ran on Broadway. Though some of the initial reviews were mixed, Frank Rich raved about the show in the NY Times.

I'm curious as to why this musical has never been revived? It did have a  revival in London (Dec 2014-Feb 2015) , but I've never heard anything about a Broadway revival since it's initial run. 

[Ravenclaw]

Posted: 12/1/18 at 12:36pm

I would love to see a revival, but I don't think it's likely because the show is just so expensive. The black-and-white vs. color concept, along with the 1940's glamorous Hollywood setting and style just make it such a big expense, and the title doesn't have the name-recognition to sell many tickets on its own. It's not produced all that frequently by regional companies for the same reason.

However, I do remember a couple years ago Benedict Cumberbatch saying in an interview that he would be interested in doing a Broadway revival of City of Angels. While I think that comment was no more than just a wistful thought of his, surely he has the star power to make the show a hit.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 12/1/18 at 4:11pm

I sure hope money isn't invested in reviving this.  I saw this show twice during its original run.  I went back a second time because I could not believe how much I hated it the first time, given the acclaim.  I assumed that maybe I was not in the mood or feeling well, etc.  Well, I hated it just as much the second time.  Its short run provided evidence to me that word of mouth was not good overall, so I never felt that mine was a minority opinion.

A friend with whom i saw it once also hated it; after hearing the album, which he loved and played many times, he returned...and hated it almost as much the second time.  I think you have to buy into the conceit of the show; to me, it wore thin after 15 - 20 minutes.  

[Jarethan]

Posted: 12/1/18 at 4:11pm

I sure hope money isn't invested in reviving this.  I saw this show twice during its original run.  I went back a second time because I could not believe how much I hated it the first time, given the acclaim.  I assumed that maybe I was not in the mood or feeling well, etc.  Well, I hated it just as much the second time.  Its short run provided evidence to me that word of mouth was not good overall, so I never felt that mine was a minority opinion.

A friend with whom i saw it once also hated it; after hearing the album, which he loved and played many times, he returned...and hated it almost as much the second time.  I think you have to buy into the conceit of the show; to me, it wore thin after 15 - 20 minutes.  

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 12/1/18 at 4:54pm

A shame the Tom Levitt directed production never came to fruition