Under The Knife

The first Broadway revival of Clifford Odets' 1940s Hollywood drama The Big Knife just opened, and the reviews aren't great.  The cast, including Bobby Cannavale, Richard Kind, Marin Ireland, Joey Slotnick and Chip Zien don't seem to be able to bring the piece to life.

I'm not surprised.  Even on his best day Odets' isn't a great playwright, and this is definitely second-tier work.  The original production, starring John Garfield, wasn't much of a hit either.  (The movie version, starring Jack Palance and Rod Steiger, has some fans, but not me.)  So why was it revived?

When it comes to movies, I don't like remaking great films--they still exist so why do it again and do it worse.  I belive in remaking good by flawed films, and fixing them.  But that's not how it works.  Movies cost a lot, so if you're going to redo a title, it better be a special one.

In the theatre, however, old productions are long gone, and new productions give new actors and others another shot.  So I favor revivals of fine work to see what can be wrought from the text, as well as giving new generations their own production.  Seriously flawed played have less reason to be done.

But I guess directors and producers like to "rediscver" work.  Take old, almost forgotten titles and see if they can't breathe new life into them--that's what revival means, after all.  Well, maybe, but The Big Knife is mostly slow and obvious.  I don't think there's a better play lurking inside.  And I'm guessing there won't be another Broadway revival any time soon.