Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: charles1055 11:15 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| Is it too dark? I'm surprised to see it hasn't been on Broadway in nearly 40 years. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: Teacher64 03:11 pm EDT 08/25/21 | |
| In reply to: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - charles1055 11:15 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| As is probably mentioned below, OLIVER! was revived on Broadway in 1983 with Ron Moody recreating his original and movie portrayal of Fagin, and Patti Lupone as Nancy. It was basically an exact replica of the show that opened on Broadway back in the 60s with the same director (was it Peter Coe?), and the same revolutionary (in the 60s) set design by Sean Kenney. It closed very quickly after a pan by Frank Rich (among others). Back in the late 90s Cameron Mackintosh (sp?) wanted to bring his new OLIVER! to Broadway. It had been a big hit in the West End (with Jonathan Pryce as Fagin, followed by variety of other stars like Jim Dale) and Mackintosh was anxious to open it on Broadway. However, AEA insisted that all the children in the production (in London there were about 40 and I think they were double cast) be paid regular Equity Broadway pay, even though most of them would leave after the first two number (Food Glorious Food, and Oliver!). So, they were to get full pay and benefits of a Broadway show contract even though they were free to leave after the first 10 minutes of the show. Mackintosh balked at that and tried to work out a deal, but AEA would not budge, and that is why the Mackintosh OLIVER! revisal never opened on Broadway. But, Mackintosh did bring a non-equity tour of the show to the US right around 2000 or 2001 and was able to use a large cast of children. I believe Mackintosh is in charge of any big new revivals and he would want to exert a lot of control over the proceedings. But the show is done regionally around the country. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 11:08 am EDT 08/24/21 | |
| In reply to: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - charles1055 11:15 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| I saw a lovely production at Goodspeed with an Asian American Nancy played by the excellent EJ Zimmerman. And another very good version with David Garrison as Fagin at Paper Mill. I would love to see a Broadway revival. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cameron Mackintosh owns the rights | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 08:30 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - charles1055 11:15 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| and wont let anyone near OLIVER. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cameron Mackintosh owns the rights | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:40 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Cameron Mackintosh owns the rights - NewtonUK 08:30 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
|
|
|
| Oliver is being done all the time, professionally as well as in schools, etc. Does he somehow have exclusive rights for Broadway specifically? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| How was the LuPone revival in 1983? | |
| Posted by: bobby2 11:40 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - charles1055 11:15 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| Not good I'm guessing since it closed so quickly. Surprising she didn't get a Tony nomination. Ron Moody did. Patti lost out to Rhetta Hughes in another flop show. I would have thought this would be a good role for LuPone. Must have been a shock that her first musical after Evita flopped. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How was the LuPone revival in 1983? Fantastic. | |
| Posted by: VEG 11:39 am EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: How was the LuPone revival in 1983? - bobby2 11:40 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| Patti sang As Long As He Needs Me with verve and tenderness to rival the great Georgia Brown. It really is an aria and she brought the full measure of her theatrical and musical skill to the song and ended it climbing a ladder facing the audience, which I've never forgotten. She was brilliant in a very dark production. BTW I still can't believe that Oliver! won the Best Picture Oscar over Funny Girl, The Lion In Winter, Romeo and Juliet and 2001 A Space Odyssey, which wasn't even nominated. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How was the LuPone revival in 1983? Fantastic. | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 12:54 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 12:48 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: re: How was the LuPone revival in 1983? Fantastic. - VEG 11:39 am EDT 08/22/21 | |
|
|
|
| The second part of the film "Funny Girl", with the exception of "My Man" and the funny "Sadie, Sadie" is a distinct letdown after the wonderful first half. "Oliver!" holds up rather well, even though the Nancy, well-sung and sympathetically acted by Shani Wallis, was much sunnier and less gritty casting than the original Georgia Brown, who (based on recordings and photos) was more in line with what Dickens wrote. I saw the 1983 revival, and LuPone and Moody were both very good. There was some news items about the original boy cast as Oliver being replaced either late in rehearsals or during previews. One big difference in the stage version is that Oliver's character is almost a supporting role, with much more of a focus on the other characters. Or perhaps that was my impression of the kid who finally did the role. The production I recall used a recreation of the original sets and staging. I was surprised that it closed so soon though. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| SPOILER: How was the LuPone revival in 1983? Fantastic. | |
| Last Edit: lordofspeech 11:45 am EDT 08/23/21 | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 11:43 am EDT 08/23/21 | |
| In reply to: re: How was the LuPone revival in 1983? Fantastic. - PlayWiz 12:48 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
|
|
|
| It helped that Georgia Brown, besides being such a great singing actress, was dark-haired and street-tough. She was a tough mama, and that kind of character earned the size of the character’s tragedy. I imagine Lupone would’ve been very good. But that’s not what Dickens described. Shani Wallis was more the look of Dickens’ Nancy. However, Wallis’ work seemed slight in comparison to what Brown had done with it. Wallis didn’t have the power or the hard edge of Georgia Brown and was, unfortunately, more like a young Doris Day who’d wandered into this criminal world. I remember reading somewhere that the Fagin-actor had something to do with Georgia Brown not getting cast in the film. That they’d been competitive with each other onstage and he sided against her. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How was the LuPone revival in 1983? Fantastic. | |
| Posted by: bobby2 12:42 am EDT 08/23/21 | |
| In reply to: re: How was the LuPone revival in 1983? Fantastic. - PlayWiz 12:48 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
|
|
|
| I read about the Oliver switch somewhere. Maybe in one of Reidel's books or just online. They cast the kid who was the original young Guido in Nine. Then for some reason they were unhappy with him and made him the understudy and put Braden Danner in the role. Danner would go on to originate Gavorache in Les Miz and voice the kid in Starlight Express. Neither seemed to pursue adult acting careers. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Bet in that revival | |
| Posted by: CamMacFan 12:48 pm EDT 08/23/21 | |
| In reply to: re: How was the LuPone revival in 1983? Fantastic. - bobby2 12:42 am EDT 08/23/21 | |
|
|
|
| The young actress who played Bet in that revival was the marvelous Sarah Litzsinger who would later go on to be the longest running Belle in the Broadway company of Beauty and the Beast | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: seenenuf 03:40 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - charles1055 11:15 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| Perhaps, because it is not a very good stage show. A wonderful movie, yes. Live....not so wonderful. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: edinalex 09:02 am EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - seenenuf 03:40 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| I have to disagree with you on that. The stage show is a terrific piece of musical theatre. It is often revived in the UK and I have seen some excellent productions. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:06 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - seenenuf 03:40 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| From the point of view of someone who's music directed the show a few times, I think it's a decent but flawed show. It strives to be a little too "happy music hall" when the story is really very bleak - though I've seen/done productions that have been able to balance the dark and the light in effective ways. Speaking as a musician, there may be nothing as boring as the original orchestrations (relying too heavily on repeated phrases instead of creating variety and build as any great orchestrator would/should), but the new orchestrations/arrangements for the Mackintosh version (now available from MTI) are quite wonderful and appreciably more dramatic. And the brand new incidental music is also miles better. And indeed, the thing is, that it really is much more of an adult show than a "family" show - but since it has kids in it, it automatically becomes the latter. And it seems to have become a "Christmas" show in a lot of respects, which I guess is due to the Dickensian connection. It's always fun trying to explain to the kid playing Dodger what the line "lovely ba----lmy wather we're having" means lol. :-) The indisputable fact, though, is, that it remains an incredibly popular title, and so no matter what anyone may think of the show, it will surely always be around. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: wisebear 02:45 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - Chromolume 05:06 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| I was in a production that interpolated ten minutes of Christmas carols into the thing. I thought the audiences would find it interminable (it’s already a long show) but they ate it up. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 04:45 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:42 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - wisebear 02:45 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
|
|
|
| I would also say that when I've done the show, I've insisted (always with agreement from the directors) that it end with Fagin. Then a traditional curtain call, and that's it. None of this stuff with the boys running back on singing "Food Glorious Food" and a full company "sing" as was originally written. So not necessary, and it totally negates the more dramatic and beautifully unresolved ending of Act II. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Chromolume, what does the line mean? Thank you. nm | |
| Posted by: thtrgoer 02:03 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - Chromolume 05:06 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Chromolume, what does the line mean? Thank you. | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 02:30 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:16 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: Chromolume, what does the line mean? Thank you. nm - thtrgoer 02:03 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
|
|
|
| LOL. Oliver has just told Dodger he has no parents. Dodger's instinctive response is to say "lovely bastard" but then he catches himself halfway through the word and turns it into a remark about the weather. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Chromolume, what does the line mean? Thank you. | |
| Posted by: Teacher64 01:29 am EDT 08/26/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Chromolume, what does the line mean? Thank you. - Chromolume 02:16 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think that might be your interpretation of the line but I don't think that is what Bart intended when he wrote it. As I recall, when Oliver tells Dodger that he has no mother or father. Dodger says "Lovely" because this is good news for him as he has just found a new pick pocket for Fagin. But, as soon as he says "Lovely" he realizes that would not sound right to Oliver and it might give up Dodger's real motivations which is to recruit Oliver for Fagin. Therefore, he says "Lovely", realizes what he is saying and quickly fixes his slip-up by changing the topic to the weather; "Lovely......balmy weather we're having today." "Lovely bastard" would not make sense as the a in "bastard" and the a in "balmy" do not make the same sound. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Chromolume, what does the line mean? Thank you. | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 05:57 pm EDT 08/27/21 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:52 pm EDT 08/27/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Chromolume, what does the line mean? Thank you. - Teacher64 01:29 am EDT 08/26/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think that might be your interpretation of the line but I don't think that is what Bart intended when he wrote it. As I recall, when Oliver tells Dodger that he has no mother or father. Dodger says "Lovely" because this is good news for him as he has just found a new pick pocket for Fagin. But, as soon as he says "Lovely" he realizes that would not sound right to Oliver and it might give up Dodger's real motivations which is to recruit Oliver for Fagin. Therefore, he says "Lovely", realizes what he is saying and quickly fixes his slip-up by changing the topic to the weather; "Lovely......balmy weather we're having today." "Lovely bastard" would not make sense as the a in "bastard" and the a in "balmy" do not make the same sound. No. The line is actually written as "lovely bal...my weather," not "lovely....balmy weather." And the adjustment on the "a" is not all that much, but that's also part of Dodger changing his thought. The burning cities await you, "teacher." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 01:25 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - charles1055 11:15 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| The '84 Broadway revival with LuPone and Ron Moody closed after 13 previews and 17 perfs. I imagine that result has discouraged future attempts. Oliver! is still occasionally performed regionally, at least in the Chicago area with productions at the Lincolnshire Marriott ('06 & '19) and at Drury Lane Oakbrook ('13). I caught the '06 and '13 productions, which were well received critically. I avoided the '19 revival, which got some bad reviews. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Dealing with all those children and their parents | |
| Posted by: Leon_W 11:35 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - charles1055 11:15 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| If I were a producer I would never do This or Annie, having so many children and their parents to deal with would drive anyone crazy. And it is an expensive show to mount I would have thought, the chances of making your money back are slim. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| A Sorkin revisal will fix that | |
| Posted by: dramedy 06:00 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: Dealing with all those children and their parents - Leon_W 11:35 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| Oliver as a memory musical with adults playing the kids. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A Sorkin revisal will fix that | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:28 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: A Sorkin revisal will fix that - dramedy 06:00 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| Oh - you mean like the film of Dear Evan Hansen?? ;-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A Sorkin revisal will fix that | |
| Posted by: Roman 10:40 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: re: A Sorkin revisal will fix that - Chromolume 10:28 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| OMG. Marry me, you magnificent bitch! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A Sorkin revisal will fix that | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:41 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: re: A Sorkin revisal will fix that - Roman 10:40 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Dealing with all those children and their parents | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 02:28 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:25 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: Dealing with all those children and their parents - Leon_W 11:35 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| having so many children and their parents to deal with would drive anyone crazy. So needlessly judgmental. I've done a lot of theatre with kids (and their parents) and if you truly enjoy working with them - and there are many of us that do - I think it can be fantastic. Yes, it takes some effort to keep many kids focused, and some extra staff to help backstage (the official word seems to be "wranglers," which I hate), but that's far from "driving anyone crazy." I really hope you don't hate kids. Regarding Oliver - I seem to think this subject has been brought up before, concerning a Broadway mounting of the Mackintosh revisal, and there were snags with the number of kids needed and current child labor laws, etc. I'm sure there are others here who know more about that. Annie only requires 7 girls (plus, assumedly, a swing and an Annie standby?) - Oliver could require more children (also depending on whether the workhouse boys and Fagin's gang are not the same performers - I've seen/done the show done both that way or with doublings.). In any case, it seems the costs were too much to consider. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Dealing with all those children and their parents | |
| Posted by: Leon_W 02:53 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Dealing with all those children and their parents - Chromolume 02:25 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| Christ, You can’t anything’s round here without someone going off the deep end. Calm down dear. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Dealing with all those children and their parents | |
| Posted by: wisebear 04:09 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Dealing with all those children and their parents - Leon_W 02:53 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| I know, it’s really become ridiculous. Some people are just incapable of letting anything slide, just adding to the toxicity. It’s amusing that he calls you judgy by judging you. What’s not amusing is his leap from your obviously lighthearted comment to an assumption that you actually “hate children.” As if any normal reader would take that from your post. (And now I’ll get slammed again for referring to a “normal” reader. So many words we’re not allowed to use here). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Dealing with all those children and their parents | |
| Posted by: wisebear 04:10 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Dealing with all those children and their parents - wisebear 04:09 pm EDT 08/22/21 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, and mocking an obvious typo. That really elevates the conversation, doesn’t it? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Dealing with all those children and their parents | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 03:36 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Dealing with all those children and their parents - Leon_W 02:53 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| Christ, You can’t anything’s round here without someone going off the deep end. Calm down dear. That's true, "you can't anything's." Whatever the hell that means. And stop patting my head. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: Devin 11:32 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - charles1055 11:15 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| I had hoped the London revival in the late 90s had transferred here. I saw it with Barry Humphries and adored it. I even bought the “Please sir, I want some more” souvenir bowl at the souvenir kiosk:) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 12:04 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 12:00 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - Devin 11:32 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| Wow - what an opportunity if Barry Humphries could not only star as Fagin, but also as Dame Edna Everage as Nancy! Of course, in this Fractured Fairy Tale version, Nancy (Edna) fights back Bill Sykes and gets a job with Oliver's grandfather as an English version of Fran Drescher's Nanny. Of course, nowadays someone would start up a campaign against harassed villains (Bill Sykes being misunderstood, having a rotten childhood, etc.), as well as against Nancy for prostitution and being codependent, and it would fill up 3 screenfuls of ATC... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 05:56 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - PlayWiz 12:00 pm EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| I saw it when I was a kid. With the remarkable Georgia Brown as Nancy. The show is very moving, and nearly tragic. And I loved it. I think the sunniness of the movie version need not be a strict guideline. The story is about criminals and people who are trapped, with the brief reprieves in some songs (eg., who will buy), and salvation for Oliver himself. Kids can deal with that. There was a brilliant behemoth of a set that revolved and unified everything. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 11:41 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 11:39 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - Devin 11:32 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| LOL, that's a great idea for a souvenir. I love when shows lean in to clever merchandising possibilities. It doesn't happen often enough (though opening gifts are often wittier). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? | |
| Posted by: richmurphy 09:58 am EDT 08/22/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Why isn't Oliver! ever revived? - MockingbirdGirl 11:39 am EDT 08/21/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't remember if they sold these at the Broadway Theatre, but for the touring version of THE COLOR PURPLE, the Kennedy Center sold this pair of complementary t-shirts in the lobby, quoting two of the show's songs: Hers: TOO BEAUTIFUL FOR WORDS His: HELL, NO |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.128587 seconds.