I've read about the substantial and enthusiastically greeted Rags rethought at Goodspeed in the thread below, but my observation doesn't relate only to that production.
Other than availability, why would Gene Zaks be chosen to replace the original director of Rags when his previous shows were glossy musicals and Neil Simon plays (maybe formerly demonstrated style isn't a prerequisite in reshaping troubled bound for Bway material; Carol Kane might have had a "feeling" for the story per Hester Street, but maybe that wasn't comparable with up and running stage smarts)
The Rothschilds: the original director (Derek someone?) came from British theatre and had a predisposition to "the elegant" which (one would think) suited the piece just right. But he was replaced with 7 Brides for Guys and Dolls Michael Kidd, director of shows imbued with a rambunctious masculine drive. The Rs is about one dad and his 5 sons, but has a courtly European sensibility about it far removed from rockin' the boat.
are there other examples of material at odds with the usual perspective of the chosen director, and did it occur only out of town?
please discuss |
