“Spamalot” and “Merrily We Roll Along,” Or One Revival That Should Have Stayed in the Past

Hint: It's the one that rhymes with "Camelot."

I love revivals. It’s fun to revisit shows from the past, to give fans a win, switch things up, and make new meaning. A revival can be bold and daring, like the 2019 “Oklahoma!”, which my brilliant friend Emily calls “sexy Oklahoma,” and gave us a beautiful cast album so I can listen to “People Will Say We’re In Love” a million times in a row. Revivals can remind us that things have or haven’t changed, like last year’s “Parade,” when the musical received antisemitic protests outside of the theater. 

Unfortunately, revivals can also just be...revivals. Sometimes, an old show comes back to the stage and leaves us wondering why they decided to return to it at all. This was the case, at least for me, of the first of two musical revivals I saw in December: “Spamalot.”

• How I found out about it: Instagram. This show has been great at teasing cast announcements, and there are a lot of fun ones.

• Why I went: I’d never seen the movie the show is based on, and I thought it would be fun! (Spoiler: I was wrong.) 

• How I got tickets: My favorite, Theatre Development Fund (TDF). They sell $60 tickets to all Broadway shows, and you typically end up in pretty great seats (we were in left orchestra).

I went into “Spamalot” expecting a good time, and I think almost everyone around my dad and I did have one. This is to say: I was definitely not the audience for “Spamalot,” but it’s clear that the show still has one. 

“Spamalot” is based on the 1975 movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” a parody of the Arthurian tale. I hadn’t seen the movie, which I think was my first offense. People were laughing and getting excited the second (what I assume are) the iconic parts came out on stage. 

While I was definitely missing the nostalgia and recognition that comes with seeing a movie you love on stage, I don’t think I was missing the jokes. There wasn’t anything I didn’t “get” in terms of understanding. It wasn’t too niche and didn’t require outside knowledge. I just didn’t find it funny.

“Spamalot” originally came to Broadway in 2005, and it felt like we’d be transported back there. The humor felt immature, punny, and repetitive. It didn’t help that the set relies on cheesy, old projections that feel like peak early 2000s technology.

Yet this different sense of humor wasn’t what landed “Spamalot” on my worst theater of 2023 list. Instead, it was that the show refused to update basically anything for 2023, including two songs: “You Won’t Succeed on Broadway,” a song about needing Jewish people in order to have a Broadway hit, and “His Name Is Lancelot,” a song about Lancelot coming out.

These songs aren’t fully damming, but they’re problematic, especially in the way they’re staged. Like the rest of the musical, they’re filled with over-the-top elements and silliness. For example, the “You Won’t Succeed on Broadway” features a “Fiddler on the Roof” bottle-dance parody where the cast swaps bottles for grails. (The only funny part of this, for me, was when they went through a list of Jewish celebrities and included George Santos). I’ll give the show credit: during “His Name Is Lancelot,” they’ve done some updating, and there are signs with emojis and words like “slay” and “queen” on them. So modern.

My dad sums it up well:

The part I did like about “Spamalot” is also what makes me most sad about it. The cast is talented and fun, especially Leslie Rodriguez Kritzer, who plays a very dramatic, beautifully sung Lady of the Lake. Yet it’s this same star-studded cast that makes me realize just how many people are responsible in bringing this show to Broadway again. Why did Broadway stars James Monroe Iglehart and Christopher Fitzgerald and SNL’s Taran Killam decide to be in this production? Did they just need a job or did they really want to be a part of this? Why do so many people still like this show?

Even if I got the jokes, that’s what I’m missing out on: a community that is so clearly nostalgic for this movie and production, they can’t bear to change a thing.

The post-curtain call sing-along, which I did enjoy. Maybe because it meant the show was done.

Luckily, I was able to get the bad revival taste out of my mouth with one of the most talked about revivals of the season: “Merrily We Roll Along.”

• How I found out about it: I feel like my whole social media has been abuzz about “Merrily” since it was at New York Theater Workshop. 

• Why I went: Honestly, it feels like the popular “must-see” of the season. Besides FOMO, it’s Stephen Sondheim, it has three incredible stars, and my friend Ryan from Wesleyan is the Associate Director!! 

• How I got tickets: My grandparents! I honestly don’t think I would have had the chance to see this show without them. “Merrily” tickets are going for as much as $900. While there are some balcony tickets closer to $90 on some days, that’s about as cheap as it gets. There is a “Merrily” lottery you can virtually enter on TodayTix to win $40 seats.

“Merrily We Roll Along” felt like a treat and real experience. Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Jonathan Groff, and Lindsay Mendez, this George Furth and Stephen Sondheim show tells the tale of three friends over the course of 20 years — backwards. We follow Franklin (Frank) Shepard (Jonathan Groff), a famous composer who has deserted his friends to become a Hollywood producer. As the show progresses, we learn about the development of his friendship with Charley Kringas (Daniel Radcliffe), a lyricist, and Mary Flynn (Lindsay Mendez), a writer and theater critic. 

What’s most exciting about this revival is how it, in the most literal sense, has revived this musical. When “Merrily We Roll Along” first premiered in 1981, it was received so poorly that people walked out during previews, and eventually closed after just 16 shows. Now, it’s a hit! (Which is, funnily enough, is a song in the musical about one of Frank and Charley’s shows). 

What I loved about this production was how clear the direction (by Maria Friedman) makes the show what it is today. Like many Sondheim shows, “Merrily We Roll Along” doesn’t have obvious specific staging or design. Apparently, the original production looked like it was in a gymnasium and the characters wore their names on their shirts. Now, it is chic, stylized, and more fluid. The ensemble weaves in and out around our main stars, nearly seamlessly turning back the years in multiple “transition” songs. The design serves purpose: the sets are minimalistic, grounding us in where and when we are in time; the costumes change with eras, and distinguish the show’s main characters from Frank and the ensemble (the latter who wear black and white for most of the show, while the former wear more colorful ensembles). 

Then, of course, there are the stars. This trio is electric and impeccably talented, and each shines in their own ways. Daniel Radcliffe is quirky, angry, and energized (he literally jumps around the stage). His main song, “Franklin Shepard, Inc.” is a masterful chatterbox of a performance that reminded of that time he rapped “Alphabet Aerobics” for Jimmy Fallon. ​​Lindsay Mendez is both hilarious and heartbreaking. Her character, Mary, is helplessly in love with Frank, and there were chilling moments watching her lean into him a little too much, look a little too lustfully at him, or cower away when he was too busy with another woman. Jonathan Groff is clever and complicated (and yes, he does spit a lot). In this production, he’s set up as if he’s reflecting on his life as we watch it; in the beginning, we see him in a somewhat liminal space, pondering. I think this sets him up for some retribution, despite the fact that his character, Frank, is mostly unforgiving. It’s like watching a car crash, realizing how he’s ruining the lives of everyone around him. There’s some comfort in knowing he has some remorse.

For a show that seems like it was far from perfect from the start, to revive it with such critical acclaim is a huge success. I don’t know if tickets are worth $900 (but that begs the question: what theater would be?), but this production feels like it’s about much more than watching the performance. It’s about being there, experiencing history. Being in that audience is a privilege and a story, one I feel like we’ll be telling people about for many years.