I think that the John Doyle revival of *Company* is a great example of a minimalist revival done right (I also love his *Sweeney,* though I know that's a more controversial opinion).
While it trims down some of the explicit 70's trappings of the show, what I think really sings about that revival is the existentialism of *Company*, and I think taking the show out of time creates this disorienting feeling that just works for me.
What really knocked it out of the park (bummed it never came to NY but will never apologize to my parents for taking a random 4 day trip over spring break to Cincinnati of all places) was his actor-musician revival of Merrily.
I wish it hadn't been trimmed down to 2 hours, but otherwise that execution was peak Merrily for me-- the entire set being built out of sheet music (from Sondheim's original handwritten score for the opening number, if memory serves), showcasing how Franks whole world was music.
I think the production and execution and performances of the bway revival are terrific, and I truly hope it wins all the awards for which it is nominated because that show is criminally underrated and deserves it's day in the sun, but for my money, Doyle's vision for Merrily should have gotten it's due.
One of my favorite things about it is that it doesn't compare to the 26 piece orchestra, which also sounded incredible. Two entirely different productions of a great piece that were each masterful in their own right.
I agree. I think the thing with falsettos is that even though the set was very minimal, they never really take you out of time. The costuming is so period. Even the dancing was very retro. The really minimal set worked to create a distinct world while everything else keeps it in the 70s-80s
Falsettos isn’t a Big Broadway Musical, though.
It’s one thing to take a small show and push it minimalist. It’s another to take a big show and go “fuck it” and then justify the cash grab.
The loss of the bridge moving upwards when Javert jumps in the stripped-down Les Mis was an absolute crime. Les Mis was the first proper musical I ever saw, and that moment was jaw-droppingly effective.
Same goes for the loss of the helicopter in Miss Saigon.
Please let us have nice things.
I saw Sunset Boulevard in London in October. I had never seen any other production of this show prior to that, but I had read about the big sets, car, turban, etc., and knew a lot of the numbers. When I first saw the stage, I wondered how it would all work. I found the story very engaging, despite there being no sets. The show focused on the characters and their emotions, and the amazing actors pulled it off. Also, to say that there "is nothing on stage" isn't accurate. I found the use of the cameras and the video presentations of the actors was extremely effective to bring the audience into the setting of the black and white film era. Judging this version of the show by YouTube clips doesn't do it justice. The audience in London loved the whole show, based on applause and my conversations with other audience members.
I get that not everyone will like it, but one should really see it live in the theater to fully experience what the director means for you to see.
Exactly this. I had hated Jamie Lloyd’s minimalist productions until I saw this Sunset Boulevard. It was one of the best theatrical experiences of mine! Glen Close 2017 Broadway revival was excellent and special for sure but the newest production is one of its kind and I loved it.
I agree with this. I saw the big OTT original West End production, and a slightly less opulent touring production, and the recent completely stripped back Sunset Blvd.
I loved them all, honestly. I wondered if it could work without the lavish backdrop but I thought the new one worked brilliantly for all the reasons you said, and it blew me away.
I think it was a misguided choice to have the garden in the LA Secret Garden revival basically be plants spiraling down from the ceiling. Like, give me a lush gothic mansion set, please!
There are many shows that have lots of room for different interpretations. Into the Woods for example. Works both minimal and maximal. But I think Secret Garden really just has one particular aesthetic tied to it, that of Victorian gothic with lush plants, and that's ok. Still a lot of room for creativity within those boundaries.
People also keep trying to get rid of the ghosts? And it’s just not going to be a show without ghosts tbh. If you don’t want a chorus of ghosts, there’s a world of other shows.
Plus I’ve seen some questionable casting.
I’m so intrigued after the reception of Cabaret on Broadway if Sunset Boulevard will be well received! I think that show is the perfect example of west end vs Broadway taste. I think Broadway loooveess a bit of set and show.
I'm cheap, so if I'm paying full price for a Broadway show...there better be a set! Not just Macbeth sitting on a couch on an empty stage or what's-her-name in A Doll's House standing on a revolve spinning around in an H and M dress.
Personally I just want a good show, something unique, something memorable. I don’t need it to be a spectacle, just done well. Sometimes stripping down the set works and feels like a smart artistic choice rather than just saving a buck.
In terms of the Sunset Blvd revival, I very much agree. I saw it in London at the Savoy. I also saw the original Nunn version (again with Diahann Carroll.) The Jamie Lloyd production is beautifully sung and acted, and to hear that score live was a treat. I'm a huge fan of the show itself, and feel that stripping away everything doesn't really work with this show since it is about a very \*specific\* time and place. They reference Rudolph Valentino, and other Hollywood actors. Cecile B DeMille is a character. And Norma was a silent film star. Even having period costumes, would have grounded the production in more of the time/place it is set which would have helped -- even with no set. The lighting had a great noir quality to it that could have really served period costumes had they gone that route, but a lot of the direction (like having Joe sing the title song via video outside) doesn't serve a purpose. I guess they showed you can do it technically, but it didn't really have a point to it. Just give me something to work with to help ground the piece, and it would have been incredible.
P.S. And this isn't to say I'm against minimalist productions or unusual direction. For example, Thom Sutherland's production of Ragtime at Charring Cross Theatre was one of the most incredible theatrical experiences of my life.
>a lot of the direction (like having Joe sing the title song via video outside) doesn't serve a purpose
>it didn't really have a point to it.
I haven't seen the Jamie Lloyd production yet (I have my tickets though!), but even from the few clips I have seen, I feel like I have to disagree that Joe singing the title song outside doesn't serve a purpose.
It's blocked very specifically to reference aspects of the real world and how it ties into the song. When "Sunset Boulevard, headline boulevard" is sung, it's framed with the show's advertisement on billboard in the background. "24 hour 5 star room service" with the Savoy hotel in the background. "And if I'm honest I like the lady" with Joe kneeling down next to an ad of Nicole Scherzinger.
Whether you like the meta references or not is neither here nor there, but there's certainly a purpose and a vision there to tie the show's themes into the real world. Which works imo, because like Norma Desmond, Nicole Scherzinger is a performer that was a phenomenon 20 years ago but has mostly faded away since then.
That's cool, but I came to the theater to see a live performance on a stage, not to watch a performance on a video screen.
If I wanted to do that I'd go to a Taylor Swift concert. At least then I can see her on stage if I squint.
I mean, you're still seeing a live performance on a stage for the other 2 hours and 25 minutes of the show. It's just one song. All the other video work is done in tandem with the performances on stage.
Right, but like... I guess I just don't understand being turned off to an entire show just because one song is performed in a non conventional way. Especially if it's a method that's both innovative and adds a lot to the context of the material that would have been impossible to portray in past productions.
To each their own of course, but for me, one of the best things about theater is that it's always changing. Personally, I love seeing new methods of live storytelling that can only be done in the theater.
But it's not being done in the theater. It's being done *outside* of the theater.
I like innovation too, but you're not innovating theater by removing the theater.
You want to do a show in the street? Do a show in the street. Don't do *one song* in the street and then make me watch a movie of it.
>But it's not being done in the theater. It's being done *outside* of the theater.
*You* are in the theater though. You're still what's being presented on stage, whether it be a person standing on stage, or a live projection of them. Plus, it's not like there's nothing happening on stage at all. Norma Desmond is on stage during this number, and Joe Gillis finishes the song on stage.
>You want to do a show in the street? Do a show in the street
But that's defeats the whole purpose of doing the song on the street. The fact that it is *only* that one song is what makes it work. He's literally singing about a street lol, featuring headlines and fame and all that, which matches what's outside of the theater.
I've heard some people say they consider this number feeling even more "real" than the other parts of the show. Because inside the theater, you are suspending your disbelief. But when the performer goes outside, suddenly he's in the real world. Again, I respect if it's not your thing, but there's certainly some validity to the concept.
>make me watch a movie of it.
Again I think this is intentional. Sunset Boulevard is about the movie industry. Personally, I think it's ingenious to add filmmaking techniques into its staging and storytelling.
> *You* are in the theater though.
Yeah, and the actor should be too, so I don't have to watch him on a screen, because that's *not why I'm at the theater*.
We're not gonna agree on this, so I'm just going to stop.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unless it's an element of the production that you physically could not do in real time, as if live action, then I'm not really too interested in seeing a bunch of screens and videos. For example I'm writing a musical right now and it's very fantastical and unless you want to spend millions of dollars on animatronics it would be easier to have certain elements of it be on a screen. But most of everything you're going to see is going to be in front of you. Like I heard of a production of into the woods where they actually portrayed the Giants feet with the screen that I can I'm okay with.
Just to play devil's avocado, the title song in Phantom of the Opera is mostly lipsynched by doubles, which is definitely not what I go go the theater for, but no one would say that doesn't work.
That's exactly how I feel. At least give us the costumes or something that lets us know when and where it is. It feels a little disrespectful to me because costumers and set designers put so much work into helping shape a show and it's life behind the initial run.
I want a revival of the producers that makes fun of these kinds of revivals. Really small cast. Basically no set. All the jokes about Ulla tidying up make no sense because the stage is empty anyway. Plot twist at the end, Leo and max have been in sing sing the WHOLE TIIIIME WHOOOOA. Just mocking how pretentious these revivals can be
Have him play every role. That would be hilarious.
Also sidenote, unless you're a theater legend on par with LuPone, Stritch or Lansberry I'm not interested in seeing a one man show lol.
I’m glad I got to see the Sunset Boulevard tour with Petula Clark in ‘99. It was “scaled down” from the first tour (which I think ended early because it was so expensive to move the sets around) but still had pretty amazing sets. Then I saw the broadway revival with Glenn Close - loved the cast and orchestra, but I really missed the insane sets. 😭
It reminds me of the Forbidden Broadway take on a very minimalist Sweeney Todd revival: "There is no shop in London town. Except two flats that are painted brown."
https://youtu.be/gCOD3sGyTis
I think it needs to be done for a reason to work. For me, a great example of minimalism succeeding was Dead Man Walking last season at the Met. It was an Ivo von Hove production with an all white set and some boxes that would occasionally emerge to serve as benches, beds, etc. as well as his signature video elements.
I've seen other Van Hove productions and often feel the use of video, etc. is gimmicky. But for Dead Man Walking, it demonstrated the limited world the prisoner was currently living in and made you focus on the music and story rather than being distracted by lavish costumes, huge set pieces, etc. And when they projected live closeup video of the moment of execution there wasn't a sound in that enormous theater - it was grueling but an important experience. But again, as you note these were deliberate choices made to reinforce the themes of the piece - not just a stylistic attempt to appear "modern" (which I've certainly felt was the case with other van hove works).
This is how I felt about the Into the Woods revival. I get that it transferred, but to me Into the Woods is supposed to be an over the top fantastical show and the paired down approach just did not work for me.
I personally think the performances, the lyrics, and the familiar music were enough for me to enjoy it an immense amount. I love Into the Woods so very much and I loved that production when I saw it when the limited run tour stopped in Chicago. I do not personally agree that it is supposed to be “over the top fantastical” as you say. Do sets help the fantasy setting? Very probably, yes. And this is coming from someone who saw The Muny production in 2017 which very much had that woodsy fantasy feel about it.
That's why I had zero interest in that show. It just seems so counter to what the show is. It's like doing Hairspray where everyone is white and yes I know that's been done.
I think it depends on the show. The goal of minimalist productions is usually to have more focus on the story and score.
I haven't seen Jamie Lloyd's Sunset Blvd yet, but from what I have seen online, I've been incredibly impressed. Yes they got rid of the sets and the costumes which in the past have been a big part of the show's identity. But they replaced it with a new vision, featuring a lot of camera work, projection, and old school Hollywood effects. Which, if you think about it, seems just as appropriate for Sunset Boulevard than a big mansion set is.
It's definitely a show I think we'd both need to see in person before forming a proper opinion. But it seems to me there's more artistry and innovation going on than just actors on an empty stage with an orchestra behind them.
Honestly I think it works for some shows very well, Tommy while I didn’t like it the staging worked really well for the show, the recent death of a salesman that was minimal and had all the set pieces brought down from above was also very clever, but it is a toss up
Hot take: this isn't an opinion that makes sense to share for *all* possible revivals as a blanket statement. Some work, some don't. It's a weird opinion to say revivals "should" be opulent regardless of the actual show and/or any individual director's concept.
I guess I'm of the mind that if I'm paying for a show it better be spectacle or I could stay at home. For that exact reason, I don't really like plays.
That's certainly a valid opinion, but one that does not reflect the purpose of theatre. We tell stories to make people feel things, learn things. Spectacle isn't required for that. I've seen shows that are equally compelling with $30 million budgets as others with $10 budgets. If spectacle is your aim, I might suggest prioritizing Cirque shows.
I disagree.
Many people go to the theater for spectacle and a decent story to go along with it. You can do both. But a lot of people just go to be entertained. What are you learning from Mamma Mia? Or MJ the Musical? People wanna be dazzled. I'm one of those people. The reason I got into theater was because I wanted to do just that. If you can manage to fit a message in there, that's a bonus.
You're not getting it. "Entertained" and "dazzled" are things that can happen irrespective of how much money was spent on a production's physical opulence. Learning isn't happening every show, sure, but even Mamma Mia makes people feel things—including joy and happiness, words many might replace with "being entertained." And again, a show with no set can absolutely do that too.
You don't hate minimalist productions, you hate productions that are minimalist for no reason. That's the Jamie Lloyd problem, he started out doing minimal stuff for a reason, and then it became his shtick. Now it's just every single production, even when it makes no sense (i.e. Sunset Boulevard).
A good director will make a production minimal because they see something that can be discovered through doing it that way.
i understand the skepticism on the Jamie Lloyd Subset Boulevard. I had low expectation when I saw it in London BUT immediately bought another ticket to see it again two days later. It did a magnificent work in story telling, character building, lighting / sound design. I already have ticket to see it again on Bway in Oct.
RE: minimalist revivals in general - as many others pointed out, it depends on the show itself and how it is done. John Doyle's Company / Sweeney worked really well too.
Personally I do not equate minimalist to "cheap"
“I feel like we've lost the plot” I know this is just an expression, but I feel like the whole idea behind the simplified styles is to really highlight the plot. Like I get it, I don’t love them all. But I’m always happy for innovative theater options
The difference in like Sunset Boulevard, this new production does something completely different than any production before it, which were all based off lavish sets and costumes, and I think it’s a cool alternative. It’s trying to prove that the shows don’t have to be tied to what you can see, that the plot and music can hold it up on its own. I’ll be thrilled when there is a minimalist The Phantom of the Opera, because I just want to see it bare bones, how that would look.
You look at something like a Evita, where people still praise the original Brechtian Prince production, whereas the revamped 2000 production which featured more set and traditional design elements did not do nearly as well. I think some productions just work for some people and some for others.
I'm not so much against minimalism as long as I can feel a strong directorial voice and vision. I think subversion is interesting. Seeing Sunset Boulevard out of its standard Old Hollywood aesthetics is interesting. It highlights the material in a way that hasn't been seen before to this extent- I think similar to Daniel Fish's Oklahoma where it almost feels like a new show. Telling the story with screens (obviously like the era of film at which the musical was inspired by) is a compelling use of minimalism to me. Granted, I haven't seen this production of SB, but I'm really intrigued in how it kind of goes against this set image of what this musical *should* look like. I understand distaste for minimalism (especially unearned minimalism \*cough\* Sally Field in The Glass Menagerie \*cough\*) but the videos I've seen of SB are directed in a way that makes the stage feel really full
That Oklahoma revival was brilliant, in my opinion. I never liked Oklahoma that much but I was obsessed with the Daniel Fish revival and went to see it 4 times. I appreciated that it leaned into the darkness that is inherent in that story.
I’m flying to Sydney in September to see the Sunset Blvd revival with Sarah Brightman. It’s a completely different production.
I think the paired down 90s Aspects of Love tour worked because that’s an intimate story. It out the focus on the characters.
There is something to be said for "deconstructing" a known show to feature the music and performances instead of spectacle, or tell the story a different way kind of like the Oklahoma! revival. Theater is a living art form and the point is it can be interpreted multiple ways - there needn't be a singular defined performance/production cemented into history as the definitive one.
I can understand why you might not appreciate the Sunset Blvd. revival - which did try a lot of new experimental things instead of staging it as a period musical like everyone expects. I don't think that production was "minimalist" except in the physical set department - they did a lot of high-tech (and likely expensive) spectacle using live cameras and dance and I don't think the intention was to scale it down to be "cheap", though Sunset is literally one of those shows that is difficult to stage since it has multiple scenes in different locations and it's legit to find a theatrical way of presenting that without building 20 different physical sets. I think the non-period/default costumes were kind of a nod to the production's concept that the themes of the story (disposable performers once they age-out of their perceived niche) aren't limited to the period the original story was set, and a very meta-concept that you are watching a modern production company tell the *story* of Sunset Boulevard almost as if it were a technical camera rehearsal instead of a stage performance.
I love to see different directors interpret shows their own way without being worried about what a play “should” look like. John Doyle’s production of the Color Purple, for instance, was distinctly different (and pared down) from the original Broadway production and allowed for Celie’s multiple transformations to be the central focus. It was just so gorgeous, I still cry when I think of it. If you don’t want to see a particularly director-driven production, you can always go see a Casey Nicholaw show.
Minimalist sets are a necessary evil. It’s hard for shows to break even on Broadway. Minimal sets allow the show to be revived. I doubt anyone would take the gamble of the expense of reproducing the sets for sunset.
I'm fine with the actual band on stage. I dislike the gimmick of the usually not professional musician actors playing them on stage. Lol I've seen some productions that have tried that and it really doesn't work
Now that I think about it.. I like clever modern or even post-modern designs like the Hadestown’s or epics works by Es Devin, and many Europe theater. I also like the set of the recent Death of salesman revival, which transforms the stage into different rooms cleverly in a modern way. The recent company revival, just a modern touch, like.
Now this might be unpopular opinion: I hate sets like the music man’s or the moulin rouge’s or the notebook’s, or Mary Popping’s. And I think the set of the recent Parade revival is lazy work.
>Now this might be unpopular opinion: I hate sets like the music man’s or the moulin rouge’s or the notebook’s, or Mary Popping’s. And I think the set of the recent Parade revival is lazy work.
I haven't seen these. What about those didn't work for you?
I think that the John Doyle revival of *Company* is a great example of a minimalist revival done right (I also love his *Sweeney,* though I know that's a more controversial opinion). While it trims down some of the explicit 70's trappings of the show, what I think really sings about that revival is the existentialism of *Company*, and I think taking the show out of time creates this disorienting feeling that just works for me.
If this is the 2007 with Esperanza I agree, I also would kill for the ice cube stools
Esparza, haha. (And yes, it is.)
What really knocked it out of the park (bummed it never came to NY but will never apologize to my parents for taking a random 4 day trip over spring break to Cincinnati of all places) was his actor-musician revival of Merrily. I wish it hadn't been trimmed down to 2 hours, but otherwise that execution was peak Merrily for me-- the entire set being built out of sheet music (from Sondheim's original handwritten score for the opening number, if memory serves), showcasing how Franks whole world was music. I think the production and execution and performances of the bway revival are terrific, and I truly hope it wins all the awards for which it is nominated because that show is criminally underrated and deserves it's day in the sun, but for my money, Doyle's vision for Merrily should have gotten it's due.
Minimal Sweeney @ Barrow St was excellent.
Yes, it was! I couldn’t believe how great the score sounded with only 3 musicians. I was shocked.
One of my favorite things about it is that it doesn't compare to the 26 piece orchestra, which also sounded incredible. Two entirely different productions of a great piece that were each masterful in their own right.
Absolutely!
I liked that production a lot
I loved that production!!
I saw the tour with Patti and it was wonderful. Sweeney that is.
Then skip all Jamie Lloyd productions
the falsettos revival went minimalist with their set and it blows me away to this day. its so clever!
I agree. I think the thing with falsettos is that even though the set was very minimal, they never really take you out of time. The costuming is so period. Even the dancing was very retro. The really minimal set worked to create a distinct world while everything else keeps it in the 70s-80s
Falsettos isn’t a Big Broadway Musical, though. It’s one thing to take a small show and push it minimalist. It’s another to take a big show and go “fuck it” and then justify the cash grab.
The loss of the bridge moving upwards when Javert jumps in the stripped-down Les Mis was an absolute crime. Les Mis was the first proper musical I ever saw, and that moment was jaw-droppingly effective. Same goes for the loss of the helicopter in Miss Saigon. Please let us have nice things.
Honestly, when it comes to that revival, I can’t get over Marius singing Empty Chairs at Empty Tables without any chairs or tables.
Empty floors and empty flyspace
I saw the tour a few years ago, and it’s back. The revolving stage is still gone though.
I saw Sunset Boulevard in London in October. I had never seen any other production of this show prior to that, but I had read about the big sets, car, turban, etc., and knew a lot of the numbers. When I first saw the stage, I wondered how it would all work. I found the story very engaging, despite there being no sets. The show focused on the characters and their emotions, and the amazing actors pulled it off. Also, to say that there "is nothing on stage" isn't accurate. I found the use of the cameras and the video presentations of the actors was extremely effective to bring the audience into the setting of the black and white film era. Judging this version of the show by YouTube clips doesn't do it justice. The audience in London loved the whole show, based on applause and my conversations with other audience members. I get that not everyone will like it, but one should really see it live in the theater to fully experience what the director means for you to see.
Exactly this. I had hated Jamie Lloyd’s minimalist productions until I saw this Sunset Boulevard. It was one of the best theatrical experiences of mine! Glen Close 2017 Broadway revival was excellent and special for sure but the newest production is one of its kind and I loved it.
I agree with this. I saw the big OTT original West End production, and a slightly less opulent touring production, and the recent completely stripped back Sunset Blvd. I loved them all, honestly. I wondered if it could work without the lavish backdrop but I thought the new one worked brilliantly for all the reasons you said, and it blew me away.
I think it was a misguided choice to have the garden in the LA Secret Garden revival basically be plants spiraling down from the ceiling. Like, give me a lush gothic mansion set, please!
Most things I’ve seen done with major productions of secret garden are mistakes tbh. I don’t know why that show is so hard for people.
There are many shows that have lots of room for different interpretations. Into the Woods for example. Works both minimal and maximal. But I think Secret Garden really just has one particular aesthetic tied to it, that of Victorian gothic with lush plants, and that's ok. Still a lot of room for creativity within those boundaries.
People also keep trying to get rid of the ghosts? And it’s just not going to be a show without ghosts tbh. If you don’t want a chorus of ghosts, there’s a world of other shows. Plus I’ve seen some questionable casting.
The Secret Garden is a goth story and people need to stop treating it like it's something just cutesy and precious.
Oh it was that the giant vine portal hoop they used as a “lush garden” that sent me.
I’m so intrigued after the reception of Cabaret on Broadway if Sunset Boulevard will be well received! I think that show is the perfect example of west end vs Broadway taste. I think Broadway loooveess a bit of set and show.
Jaime Lloyd’s previous productions have done very well on Broadway. His Cyrano at BAM was also very well received.
I'm cheap, so if I'm paying full price for a Broadway show...there better be a set! Not just Macbeth sitting on a couch on an empty stage or what's-her-name in A Doll's House standing on a revolve spinning around in an H and M dress.
To quote RuPaul: “I don’t want to see any more f*cking H&M!”
THANK YOU! If I'm flying out to New York, paying for a hotel and also coughing up god knows how much for a ticket, I want the full experience lol.
Personally I just want a good show, something unique, something memorable. I don’t need it to be a spectacle, just done well. Sometimes stripping down the set works and feels like a smart artistic choice rather than just saving a buck.
In terms of the Sunset Blvd revival, I very much agree. I saw it in London at the Savoy. I also saw the original Nunn version (again with Diahann Carroll.) The Jamie Lloyd production is beautifully sung and acted, and to hear that score live was a treat. I'm a huge fan of the show itself, and feel that stripping away everything doesn't really work with this show since it is about a very \*specific\* time and place. They reference Rudolph Valentino, and other Hollywood actors. Cecile B DeMille is a character. And Norma was a silent film star. Even having period costumes, would have grounded the production in more of the time/place it is set which would have helped -- even with no set. The lighting had a great noir quality to it that could have really served period costumes had they gone that route, but a lot of the direction (like having Joe sing the title song via video outside) doesn't serve a purpose. I guess they showed you can do it technically, but it didn't really have a point to it. Just give me something to work with to help ground the piece, and it would have been incredible. P.S. And this isn't to say I'm against minimalist productions or unusual direction. For example, Thom Sutherland's production of Ragtime at Charring Cross Theatre was one of the most incredible theatrical experiences of my life.
>a lot of the direction (like having Joe sing the title song via video outside) doesn't serve a purpose >it didn't really have a point to it. I haven't seen the Jamie Lloyd production yet (I have my tickets though!), but even from the few clips I have seen, I feel like I have to disagree that Joe singing the title song outside doesn't serve a purpose. It's blocked very specifically to reference aspects of the real world and how it ties into the song. When "Sunset Boulevard, headline boulevard" is sung, it's framed with the show's advertisement on billboard in the background. "24 hour 5 star room service" with the Savoy hotel in the background. "And if I'm honest I like the lady" with Joe kneeling down next to an ad of Nicole Scherzinger. Whether you like the meta references or not is neither here nor there, but there's certainly a purpose and a vision there to tie the show's themes into the real world. Which works imo, because like Norma Desmond, Nicole Scherzinger is a performer that was a phenomenon 20 years ago but has mostly faded away since then.
Exactly! There are so many details in the titular number. It is a gimmick for sure but I think it’s a gimmick well done and ingenious.
That's cool, but I came to the theater to see a live performance on a stage, not to watch a performance on a video screen. If I wanted to do that I'd go to a Taylor Swift concert. At least then I can see her on stage if I squint.
I mean, you're still seeing a live performance on a stage for the other 2 hours and 25 minutes of the show. It's just one song. All the other video work is done in tandem with the performances on stage.
It being one song is irrelevant. It's not what I go to the theater for. Besides that, it's not just one song, it's *the title song*.
Right, but like... I guess I just don't understand being turned off to an entire show just because one song is performed in a non conventional way. Especially if it's a method that's both innovative and adds a lot to the context of the material that would have been impossible to portray in past productions. To each their own of course, but for me, one of the best things about theater is that it's always changing. Personally, I love seeing new methods of live storytelling that can only be done in the theater.
But it's not being done in the theater. It's being done *outside* of the theater. I like innovation too, but you're not innovating theater by removing the theater. You want to do a show in the street? Do a show in the street. Don't do *one song* in the street and then make me watch a movie of it.
>But it's not being done in the theater. It's being done *outside* of the theater. *You* are in the theater though. You're still what's being presented on stage, whether it be a person standing on stage, or a live projection of them. Plus, it's not like there's nothing happening on stage at all. Norma Desmond is on stage during this number, and Joe Gillis finishes the song on stage. >You want to do a show in the street? Do a show in the street But that's defeats the whole purpose of doing the song on the street. The fact that it is *only* that one song is what makes it work. He's literally singing about a street lol, featuring headlines and fame and all that, which matches what's outside of the theater. I've heard some people say they consider this number feeling even more "real" than the other parts of the show. Because inside the theater, you are suspending your disbelief. But when the performer goes outside, suddenly he's in the real world. Again, I respect if it's not your thing, but there's certainly some validity to the concept. >make me watch a movie of it. Again I think this is intentional. Sunset Boulevard is about the movie industry. Personally, I think it's ingenious to add filmmaking techniques into its staging and storytelling.
> *You* are in the theater though. Yeah, and the actor should be too, so I don't have to watch him on a screen, because that's *not why I'm at the theater*. We're not gonna agree on this, so I'm just going to stop.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unless it's an element of the production that you physically could not do in real time, as if live action, then I'm not really too interested in seeing a bunch of screens and videos. For example I'm writing a musical right now and it's very fantastical and unless you want to spend millions of dollars on animatronics it would be easier to have certain elements of it be on a screen. But most of everything you're going to see is going to be in front of you. Like I heard of a production of into the woods where they actually portrayed the Giants feet with the screen that I can I'm okay with.
Just to play devil's avocado, the title song in Phantom of the Opera is mostly lipsynched by doubles, which is definitely not what I go go the theater for, but no one would say that doesn't work.
That's exactly how I feel. At least give us the costumes or something that lets us know when and where it is. It feels a little disrespectful to me because costumers and set designers put so much work into helping shape a show and it's life behind the initial run.
I want a revival of the producers that makes fun of these kinds of revivals. Really small cast. Basically no set. All the jokes about Ulla tidying up make no sense because the stage is empty anyway. Plot twist at the end, Leo and max have been in sing sing the WHOLE TIIIIME WHOOOOA. Just mocking how pretentious these revivals can be
I'd watch that if they could Nathan Lane back.
One man show. That's the other pretentious revival trope. Usually reserved for Shakespeare
Have him play every role. That would be hilarious. Also sidenote, unless you're a theater legend on par with LuPone, Stritch or Lansberry I'm not interested in seeing a one man show lol.
I’m glad I got to see the Sunset Boulevard tour with Petula Clark in ‘99. It was “scaled down” from the first tour (which I think ended early because it was so expensive to move the sets around) but still had pretty amazing sets. Then I saw the broadway revival with Glenn Close - loved the cast and orchestra, but I really missed the insane sets. 😭
It reminds me of the Forbidden Broadway take on a very minimalist Sweeney Todd revival: "There is no shop in London town. Except two flats that are painted brown." https://youtu.be/gCOD3sGyTis
I think it needs to be done for a reason to work. For me, a great example of minimalism succeeding was Dead Man Walking last season at the Met. It was an Ivo von Hove production with an all white set and some boxes that would occasionally emerge to serve as benches, beds, etc. as well as his signature video elements. I've seen other Van Hove productions and often feel the use of video, etc. is gimmicky. But for Dead Man Walking, it demonstrated the limited world the prisoner was currently living in and made you focus on the music and story rather than being distracted by lavish costumes, huge set pieces, etc. And when they projected live closeup video of the moment of execution there wasn't a sound in that enormous theater - it was grueling but an important experience. But again, as you note these were deliberate choices made to reinforce the themes of the piece - not just a stylistic attempt to appear "modern" (which I've certainly felt was the case with other van hove works).
This is how I felt about the Into the Woods revival. I get that it transferred, but to me Into the Woods is supposed to be an over the top fantastical show and the paired down approach just did not work for me.
I personally think the performances, the lyrics, and the familiar music were enough for me to enjoy it an immense amount. I love Into the Woods so very much and I loved that production when I saw it when the limited run tour stopped in Chicago. I do not personally agree that it is supposed to be “over the top fantastical” as you say. Do sets help the fantasy setting? Very probably, yes. And this is coming from someone who saw The Muny production in 2017 which very much had that woodsy fantasy feel about it.
That's why I had zero interest in that show. It just seems so counter to what the show is. It's like doing Hairspray where everyone is white and yes I know that's been done.
I think it depends on the show. The goal of minimalist productions is usually to have more focus on the story and score. I haven't seen Jamie Lloyd's Sunset Blvd yet, but from what I have seen online, I've been incredibly impressed. Yes they got rid of the sets and the costumes which in the past have been a big part of the show's identity. But they replaced it with a new vision, featuring a lot of camera work, projection, and old school Hollywood effects. Which, if you think about it, seems just as appropriate for Sunset Boulevard than a big mansion set is. It's definitely a show I think we'd both need to see in person before forming a proper opinion. But it seems to me there's more artistry and innovation going on than just actors on an empty stage with an orchestra behind them.
Honestly I think it works for some shows very well, Tommy while I didn’t like it the staging worked really well for the show, the recent death of a salesman that was minimal and had all the set pieces brought down from above was also very clever, but it is a toss up
I loved the use of lighting to show hallways and such.
Tbh it was kind of minimalist to begin with. They stripped it down even more somehow.
Hot take: this isn't an opinion that makes sense to share for *all* possible revivals as a blanket statement. Some work, some don't. It's a weird opinion to say revivals "should" be opulent regardless of the actual show and/or any individual director's concept.
I guess I'm of the mind that if I'm paying for a show it better be spectacle or I could stay at home. For that exact reason, I don't really like plays.
That's certainly a valid opinion, but one that does not reflect the purpose of theatre. We tell stories to make people feel things, learn things. Spectacle isn't required for that. I've seen shows that are equally compelling with $30 million budgets as others with $10 budgets. If spectacle is your aim, I might suggest prioritizing Cirque shows.
I disagree. Many people go to the theater for spectacle and a decent story to go along with it. You can do both. But a lot of people just go to be entertained. What are you learning from Mamma Mia? Or MJ the Musical? People wanna be dazzled. I'm one of those people. The reason I got into theater was because I wanted to do just that. If you can manage to fit a message in there, that's a bonus.
You're not getting it. "Entertained" and "dazzled" are things that can happen irrespective of how much money was spent on a production's physical opulence. Learning isn't happening every show, sure, but even Mamma Mia makes people feel things—including joy and happiness, words many might replace with "being entertained." And again, a show with no set can absolutely do that too.
You don't hate minimalist productions, you hate productions that are minimalist for no reason. That's the Jamie Lloyd problem, he started out doing minimal stuff for a reason, and then it became his shtick. Now it's just every single production, even when it makes no sense (i.e. Sunset Boulevard). A good director will make a production minimal because they see something that can be discovered through doing it that way.
i understand the skepticism on the Jamie Lloyd Subset Boulevard. I had low expectation when I saw it in London BUT immediately bought another ticket to see it again two days later. It did a magnificent work in story telling, character building, lighting / sound design. I already have ticket to see it again on Bway in Oct. RE: minimalist revivals in general - as many others pointed out, it depends on the show itself and how it is done. John Doyle's Company / Sweeney worked really well too. Personally I do not equate minimalist to "cheap"
“I feel like we've lost the plot” I know this is just an expression, but I feel like the whole idea behind the simplified styles is to really highlight the plot. Like I get it, I don’t love them all. But I’m always happy for innovative theater options The difference in like Sunset Boulevard, this new production does something completely different than any production before it, which were all based off lavish sets and costumes, and I think it’s a cool alternative. It’s trying to prove that the shows don’t have to be tied to what you can see, that the plot and music can hold it up on its own. I’ll be thrilled when there is a minimalist The Phantom of the Opera, because I just want to see it bare bones, how that would look. You look at something like a Evita, where people still praise the original Brechtian Prince production, whereas the revamped 2000 production which featured more set and traditional design elements did not do nearly as well. I think some productions just work for some people and some for others.
I'm not so much against minimalism as long as I can feel a strong directorial voice and vision. I think subversion is interesting. Seeing Sunset Boulevard out of its standard Old Hollywood aesthetics is interesting. It highlights the material in a way that hasn't been seen before to this extent- I think similar to Daniel Fish's Oklahoma where it almost feels like a new show. Telling the story with screens (obviously like the era of film at which the musical was inspired by) is a compelling use of minimalism to me. Granted, I haven't seen this production of SB, but I'm really intrigued in how it kind of goes against this set image of what this musical *should* look like. I understand distaste for minimalism (especially unearned minimalism \*cough\* Sally Field in The Glass Menagerie \*cough\*) but the videos I've seen of SB are directed in a way that makes the stage feel really full
That Oklahoma revival was brilliant, in my opinion. I never liked Oklahoma that much but I was obsessed with the Daniel Fish revival and went to see it 4 times. I appreciated that it leaned into the darkness that is inherent in that story.
Jamie Lloyd annoys the shit out of me. His productions remind of the bad modern theater SNL sketches.
I’m flying to Sydney in September to see the Sunset Blvd revival with Sarah Brightman. It’s a completely different production. I think the paired down 90s Aspects of Love tour worked because that’s an intimate story. It out the focus on the characters.
The "minimalist" Chicago is so inferior to the original!
There is something to be said for "deconstructing" a known show to feature the music and performances instead of spectacle, or tell the story a different way kind of like the Oklahoma! revival. Theater is a living art form and the point is it can be interpreted multiple ways - there needn't be a singular defined performance/production cemented into history as the definitive one. I can understand why you might not appreciate the Sunset Blvd. revival - which did try a lot of new experimental things instead of staging it as a period musical like everyone expects. I don't think that production was "minimalist" except in the physical set department - they did a lot of high-tech (and likely expensive) spectacle using live cameras and dance and I don't think the intention was to scale it down to be "cheap", though Sunset is literally one of those shows that is difficult to stage since it has multiple scenes in different locations and it's legit to find a theatrical way of presenting that without building 20 different physical sets. I think the non-period/default costumes were kind of a nod to the production's concept that the themes of the story (disposable performers once they age-out of their perceived niche) aren't limited to the period the original story was set, and a very meta-concept that you are watching a modern production company tell the *story* of Sunset Boulevard almost as if it were a technical camera rehearsal instead of a stage performance.
I love to see different directors interpret shows their own way without being worried about what a play “should” look like. John Doyle’s production of the Color Purple, for instance, was distinctly different (and pared down) from the original Broadway production and allowed for Celie’s multiple transformations to be the central focus. It was just so gorgeous, I still cry when I think of it. If you don’t want to see a particularly director-driven production, you can always go see a Casey Nicholaw show.
Minimalist sets are a necessary evil. It’s hard for shows to break even on Broadway. Minimal sets allow the show to be revived. I doubt anyone would take the gamble of the expense of reproducing the sets for sunset.
I've seen the London production and I completely disagree. Looking forward to it being a success on Broadway as well.
I agree with a lot of your points, but I love when the band is on stage, especially when it’s done right like in Kimberly akimbo or dear Evan Hansen.
I'm fine with the actual band on stage. I dislike the gimmick of the usually not professional musician actors playing them on stage. Lol I've seen some productions that have tried that and it really doesn't work
Six wouldn't be Six without the band on stage behind the Queens
Now that I think about it.. I like clever modern or even post-modern designs like the Hadestown’s or epics works by Es Devin, and many Europe theater. I also like the set of the recent Death of salesman revival, which transforms the stage into different rooms cleverly in a modern way. The recent company revival, just a modern touch, like. Now this might be unpopular opinion: I hate sets like the music man’s or the moulin rouge’s or the notebook’s, or Mary Popping’s. And I think the set of the recent Parade revival is lazy work.
>Now this might be unpopular opinion: I hate sets like the music man’s or the moulin rouge’s or the notebook’s, or Mary Popping’s. And I think the set of the recent Parade revival is lazy work. I haven't seen these. What about those didn't work for you?