I was of your mind once. Time was when looking at the schedule of a new theater season in New York would bring on a blinding déjà vu headache that threatened to send me to bed. “Not that show again,” I would think. “Didn’t I just see it a couple of years ago? Is there truly nothing new under the neon of the Rialto?”
7 comments:
Thinking in a positive light about any project will immediately make anything seem better. Though this doesn't always do the trick.
I find this article interesting, especially at the end, when Broadway revivals are compared to classic operas. As fans of theatre, we have our favorites, and our not-such-favorites. We listen to the music from those plays over and over, and could reread the words on the same page until we're blue in the face, however, we remain intrigued. This article is serves as a reminder that we must not bash and frown upon the revivals that are coming back, but rather embrace them and look for the little nuances that we had not noticed before. Classics are classics because we enjoy them every time, and make us view theatre from a different view point every time we see them. Whether it was written in 1952, or 2014 good theatre is good theatre, and there's no way around it.
This article was pretty enlightening and shares a growing sentiment i've felt for quite some time. I often feel as though revivals of shows are really trashed before they even hit the Broadway stage. In some ways, we expect total originality from our theatrical experiences, so we inherently decide that the latest version of Streetcar just isn't going to do it for us. Mr. Brantley suggests that we instead of pay attention to the smaller details about what makes each revival different or special. Not to mention all of the things that each revival reveals about the play/musical and what new revelations the characters bring to the work. I'm also glad that Brantley pointed out the fact that in reality, revivals do choke out new work from entering the Broadway stage. Unfortunately, it's important to acknowledge that Broadway, like any other business operates under laissez-faire principles, and revivals tend to sell while new works do often run higher risk.
I think one of the reasons we're so hesitant to like revival after revival is from past horrible high school theatre shows of classic musicals and plays. I can remember working for and watching quite a few renditions of shows with actors so terrible, stages so insignificant, and sets so minimal that even if they came on Broadway I'd be hesitant to listen to it again. At the same time, on the opposite side of the spectrum, if I saw something horrible I might want to watch another version of it to repair my first impression. I wonder why we think of plays excepting Shakespeare as revivals; is it because Shakespeare is an eternal classic, or that those plays have risen to an even higher art form? I find it highly amusing to watch revivals, mostly because I like seeing how different designers and directors have interpreted the script according to their personal backgrounds. And there's always that one revival that makes you feel like you're seeing it for the first time, that everything they've said hits a new note on a script you've pored over for so long.
Although I agree with the author’s sentiment that it is sad that a lineup of revivals on Broadway means less new plays being produced, I absolutely believe there is something to be said for bringing an older play back to life. The author mentions one particular director that alters or brings something new to everything he touches, but I think that EVERYONE brings something new to every show they work on, whether it is good or bad. A new actor can find another layer to that character that is more relevant to today or reverent of days past. A designer can find something that is truly beautiful within the script and the venue to root the design in the revived time and placed. We are always willing to re-watch a Shakespeare no matter how many times it has been produced. Why is the same not true for shows written in the last 100 years?
While I like the opera comparison, I believe it does not do justice do the act of reviving a show because when a opera runs in rep, it rents the same set, the same costumes, and oftentimes brings back on of the same five actors that performs these roles time and time again. Each show will be different, but it is not “revived”; it is being performed in a repertoire.
Mere hours after writing a scathing comment about my opinion of revivals, this article makes me hesitate on my previously stalwart opinions. Theatre with poor choices make me wince just like anyone might, but it is true that I have had far more thoughtful and illuminating discussions about shows I disliked than about shows I loved. Fluff is still fluff, and I will shake my fist at overdone crowd pleasing musicals for the rest of my days, but looking at the topic with a clear mind, I can't fully despise the revival. Good theatre provokes deep thinking about the production and the life that concerns it, and shows will still mean different things at different points in life. I can see Shakespeare a dozen times a week because there is always the chance at finding something new in an old text. Just today, I shadowed a designer at an excellent production of "The Diary of Anne Frank" at the Pittsburgh Public, and found myself seeing the show in a whole new light, being a few years older and at least a tiny bit wiser. I won't say I was completely hasty in my opinion before-- I still think that a revival needs to justify its presence by bringing something fresh to an old text. I don't need to see "Hello, Dolly" again unless it tells me something new.
Actually, scratch that. Don't make me see "Hello, Dolly" again.
The most important take away from this article for students and theatre practitioners is that there is always something illuminating about a production, regardless of your personal opinions on the show. I think too often we, or at least I do, initially dismiss learning anything from a show if we walk out and say I didn't like that. But if we were able to walk about and think about what did not work and why it did not work it creates better pieces of theater in the future. What I don't really agree with in this article is the entire discussion of "dream-casting" or seeing someone play a certain character. I think that entirely defeats the purpose of theatre, to tell a story to audience, and often the gleaming star will distract form the heart of the story and the meaning behind it. I also really enjoy the fact that it was pointed out for every commercial driven revival, an artistic-rookie play does not get a shot.
It is frustrating as a theater lover to see the continuous cycle of plays over and over again. Recently, I had seen Spring Awakening on the roster for 2015, without knowing anything about it. I was instantly angered, thinking, "Really that closed less than ten years ago, what could they possibly do to make it anything different". Well, I was absolutely wrong, and as more new came out about it, I saw how innovative and beautiful this revival really could be. The deaf production of Spring Awakening is beautiful, and sheds new light on a story about being shut out and frustrated, and more importantly sheds a new light on the deaf community.
This occurance brought me a new understanding and appreciation for revivals. While, yes perhaps we don't need another Fidler on the Roof, new and innovative revivals that aren't focused on having a movie star as the title role (ie last year's Elephant Man), will continue to inspire and move audiences. However, really nothing beats a new story.
Post a Comment