A CHORUS LINE 5th Preview (9/22/06)- Page 3

[Petra]

Posted: 9/25/06 at 12:16pm

Thank you for this wonderful review.
And for posting the picture of the Playbill.

Posted: 9/25/06 at 12:27pm

It’s only as large as it is because of Donna Mckechnie , and what she made the role herself (with absurd amounts of help from Michael Bennett)

I think if you read the literature on how the number was created, you'll find McKechnie did alot of the choreography herself with Bobby Thomas on drums and Bennett just edited it.

[PARISinNYC]

Posted: 9/26/06 at 12:19am

I hope the Playbill is still in color in June.

[justme2]

Posted: 9/26/06 at 1:05am

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one thinking Zach's character is a weak spot in this show. I was chastised in another thread for daring to point out that Zach seemed unimportant in this show, and it's nice to see I'm not alone in the assessment.

I'm so glad I never saw the original version. I enjoyed the hell out of this show when it was in SF, and like others are saying here, I think it has a lot to do with going in to the theater with one's eyes on the cast on the stage, not the cast in memory.

For whoever was asking earlier, SF had the horizontal windowcards (which pictured the cast on the line and a red background), magnets, Pins, Chorus line books, and T-shirts. I think there may have been a baseball cap as well.

[DramaLady2010]

Posted: 9/26/06 at 1:43am

hm strange-when I saw the show in SF I felt like Sheila was the weakest link because her voice wasn't quite up to par-her acting was good though.

[ken8631]

Posted: 9/26/06 at 8:24am

I agree totally with this review, even though I've seen the play and the movie. Charlotte is perfect for this part!

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/26/06 at 8:48am

>> Would it be possible for any revival of A Chorus Line to stir in us what the original did?

Just my 0.02, and no doubt worth every penny, but...

I dont think any revival can capture the spirit of the original, unless the producing and artistic team look at it as a brand new script and find the same multiple layers of meaning that meant so much to the original team. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned the various revivals of FOLLIES and how they never quite captured the spirit of the original -- and my contention, as I noted in another thread, is that most of them feel they dont have to: they can coast, based on the show's historical importance. A lot of us -- far too many to count, probably -- waited for *months* to see the Roundabout revival and walked out of the theatre stunned at how completely wrong-headed it was. It was a short-hand version of a densely written, multi-layered musical, and as a result it was almost insulting to those of us who remember the care and the sense of detail that went into Prince's production.

So now we have a photocopy ACL, something that's pretty well the original production recreated with all the care and attention of a museum piece. Based on what I've read here and in other boards and online reviews, it's just as exciting and emotionally involving as it was the first time around, and that's great. But it begs the question: why did they bother? If there's nothing new broght to the table that amplifies the experience, if all they did was look at a tape of the original staging and match it gesture for gesture and note for note, why bother? It's almost like coasting of a different sort, taking the easy way out because they know nostalgia will fill in the blanks and tickets will fly out the box office window.

:: sigh :: As glad as I am that a show like ACL can return to Broadway, my fear is that the people who did it did so strictly because it was a great business idea, confirming yet again that NY theatre is just a profit-motivated business and nothing else. Sure, every business is supposed to make a profit, but when it comes to issues like entertainment at $125 (or more) a pop, sometimes you just want a little more for your money, y'know?

Will I go see this revival? I doubt it. I mean, really, been there, done that, *still* have the t-shirt.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/26/06 at 8:51am

I totally agree with you.

Though I will see this production..I never saw the original.















live.

[ken8631]

Posted: 9/26/06 at 10:51am

For those who didn't see the original, or can't remember much of it (like me), it's great to see it's back!

[broadwayplayer]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:21am

I too feel this Zach was a little weak. He also felt a little effiminate to me and when he went to go and console Paul's character after the speech i felt he was more into him that he had ever been with Cassie. The whole Cassie/Zach bit I felt looked forced and stale. I saw no spark bewteen them.

I didn't care much for Cassie either. Many people love her. I am not one of them. She just felt mousy to me. I couldn't buy she had that star potential she is suppose to have. I didn't find anything special or spectacular about her.

The show felt dated to me...don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed it for what it was, but it felt dated. I feel its lost what the original production had: that spark of a new idea or the shock of some of the lines. This show is so universal, the need to perform, the love of it, the odds against such a dream and the many people who despite it all go after it. It is so beautiful, I thunk why not put it into present day? I feel it would feel more real, more raw it would be like the audience were part of the audition panal and hence almost make them a character in the the show. I think it would have worked better in present day. The period setting of it makes it feel more like a "show" and less of an actual audition, which I think would be very exciting.

I did love natalie cortez, sheila, and paul. I found each one of them to be great in theor charactorizations and had it all working for them. Natalie, I thought had a great voice and really touched me with her songs "Nothing" and "What i did for love". Paul really touched me with his monologue, which I have seen quite a number of people do and can be quite a bit much, but he pulled it off nicely and Sheila just craked me up! She is utterly fabulous. Now here is one thing I kept thinking, wasn't the "Dance Ten, Looks Three" girl (name escapes me) suppose to be more of the sexpot? She was rather homely and dull. (And her costuming did nothing for her charater). She was terrible. I just got no sex appeal from here. And her song, I felt was flat. Also, she felt like a caricature as opposed to a real person...I guess this is what my impression of the show was, it felt very caricture-y and not very genuine and sincere. I just thinking that by making them more realistic, we could idenitfy with them more and feel for them.

I saw the show in the last San Francisco preview and all this coudl have been changed. And this could be dated. Despite all my issues with it, I did feel it was a fun show with great dancing and much appeal.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 10:26am

thanks for your review, broadwayplayer. sorry you didn't love it as much as i did.

...and I FINALLY understand why the thread of the off-topic board is called "Can The Adults Please Smoke!" Before last Friday evening, I had NO IDEA this was a line from A CHORUS LINE!
Updated On: 9/27/06 at 10:26 AM