WEST SIDE STORY reviews: opened Feb 20 2020- Page 5

[Scarlet Leigh]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 1:29pm

I can recall a few years back, when Ghost rolled into town with its use of projections on screens and how everyone was just AGHAST at such a concept. And now... here we are where it's not just an accent in the background of a number, it's the star of the show. (NOTE: I'm not saying Ghost was a good show or used good projections, just the use of them alone was a big talking point back then)

And everything I am seeing and hearing about this just feels like someone that is trying to use the Oklahoma revival as an inspiration but missing what made that revival so innovative. The beauty of the Oklahoma revival was not in making the story bigger than it already is but striping it down and taking it back to basics. When you are not distracted by the sets and the costumes and the over the top acting and dancing, you really see the text and how it can carry over into modern day. It makes the story timeless.

You don't make it so big and loud and extra that you lose the characters and the story to all the spectacle. And considering I see little to no reviews for the actual actors in this production beyond some version of "they were good" in the bulk of the reviews, it's clear that the focus here is the tech above all other things.
 

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 1:31pm

New Yorker has a review out:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/02/a-grim-take-on-west-side-story

[JSquared2]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 1:34pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "And I mean, great, good for you, Ivo, but people are not going to stop to think about that deeper meaning,by and large, hence the word of mouth here. Theater is a broad art form, and sometimes you have to paint with broad strokes. It's not very subtle, but theater doesn't have a hell of a lot of room to work with when it comes to subtle. You can understand what he was doing with the Jets and still think it was a mistake; I definitely do."

Good for you then. So you are saying that directors should never try to instill any deeper meaning or subtext into their work because the average person is too dumb to get it?  The people who like their theatre without having to do any (gasp) thinking can still just sit back and either enjoy it or hate it based on what they see on the surface.  Or they can just go and see SIX!

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 1:37pm

I concur with those who've said that the hopefulness of the love story being lost, is a really bad thing. I have not seen the production, but as a writer, I wholly believe that balance is important when you are telling a story with as grand a scope as this one. It's part of the reason I despise the work of Sarah Kane and others like it...it's just too morbid/grim. I get nothing out of it but despair, which is not why I go to the theatre or make theatre, for that matter. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and we must acknowledge that- no matter how small and even in tragic tales. That light is what will inspire audiences to action.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 1:47pm

gibsons2 said: "I don't read theater critics (is this even a real profession? ) because I just can't take a questionable opinion of some pompous individuals and make it decide for me if I want to see a show. Did these people create anything themselves to be so snarky, lol? Thank god for social media and boards like this where I can find reviews of real people who pay money to see these shows."

Why is a critic's opinion questionable but any other random person's not? I will never understand this argument. Why does being paid to write about your opinion somehow make that opinion invalid?

As for the other half of this... What if a person on this board has never "created anything?" Doesn't that undermine their opinion, based on this logic, and make it not worth hearing?

[Impossible2]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 1:59pm

perfectliar said: "gibsons2 said: "I don't read theater critics (is this even a real profession? ) because I just can't take a questionable opinion of some pompous individuals and make it decide for me if I want to see a show. Did these people create anything themselves to be so snarky, lol? Thank god for social media and boards like this where I can find reviews of real people who pay money to see these shows."

Why is a critic's opinion questionable but any other random person's not? I will never understand this argument. Why does being paid to write about your opinion somehow make that opinion invalid?

As for the other half of this... What if a person on this board has never "created anything?" Doesn't that undermine their opinion, based on this logic, and make it not worth hearing?"

I don't find critic's options any more 'valid' or less 'valid' than anyone else's.

But when they descend into very clearly intentional & premeditated 'snark' I lose all all respect for their 'professional' opinion. 

Reviewers these days seem to do little more than 'out - arsehole' each other, which I have no interest in reading.

I don't see how this Brantly person has any credibility or sway what so ever as he always comes off like the Perez Hilton of the theatre world to me.

There is enough nastiness in the world x

Updated On: 2/21/20 at 01:59 PM

[perfectliar]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 2:14pm

I totally agree that reviewing has become a lot more about being the wittiest or the most shareable or clickable, but I don't think that's unique to paid reviews either.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 2:31pm

"Less wise was the casting of Amar Ramasar as Bernardo, a performer plagued with controversy after he disseminated sexual images of fellow female dancers during his time with the New York City Ballet. The casting decision has surely caused a headache for the production and ethical reckoning for some viewers which seems, given the performance, not worth it; Ramasar’s Bernardo fades to the background, upstaged by a magnetic Yesenia Ayala as Anita, Shereen Pimentel as Maria and a smoldering ensemble of Sharks." They enjoyed the show otherwise. 

The Guardian

My favorite review is from the Wall Street Journal whose title is hilarious and telling: "Worst Side Story" 

WSJ

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 2:58pm

Is there any way to access the WSJ review? I keep running into the paywall.

Edit: Nm, was able to access it on mobile

Updated On: 2/21/20 at 02:58 PM

[djoko84]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 3:18pm

Broadway critics have become worse and worse. If a show is remotely different, out of the box, or unusual they go crazy for it. Just like with the terrible Oklahoma last year. This is why Tony voters have been going less and less by reviews anymore.

[Hot Pants]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 3:21pm

djoko84 said: "Broadway critics have become worse and worse. If a show is remotely different, out of the box, or unusual they go crazy for it. Just like with the terrible Oklahoma last year. This is why Tony voters have been going less and less by reviews anymore."

This doesn’t quite make sense. You say the Tony winning revival of Oklahoma had great reviews, yet you say Tony voters don’t go by reviews.

[Kad]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 3:26pm

djoko84 said: "Broadway critics have become worse and worse. If a show is remotely different, out of the box, or unusual they go crazy for it. Just like with the terrible Oklahoma last year. This is why Tony voters have been going less and less by reviews anymore."

Which Best Musical or Best Revival of Musical in recent years was not also critically praised? 

Updated On: 2/21/20 at 03:26 PM

[keen on kean]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 3:33pm

I missed the last West Side Story revival and I was kind of looking forward to this one because Van Hove directed one of my all time favorite (VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE) and all time least favorite (CRUCIBLE) revivals. But I saw the coverage on Sunday Morning (?or 60 Minutes?) and the video made the dancers look like a flea circus. That alone convinced me that I would not appreciate the staging. I go to theater to see performances, not VistaVision projections.

[Zion24]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 4:32pm

Hot Pants said: "djoko84 said: "Broadway critics have become worse and worse. If a show is remotely different, out of the box, or unusual they go crazy for it. Just like with the terrible Oklahoma last year. This is why Tony voters have been going less and less by reviews anymore."

This doesn’t quite make sense. You say the Tony winning revival of Oklahoma had great reviews, yet you say Tony voters don’t go by reviews."

Yeah, Oklahoma! divided audience members but won over the critics, and then went on to win Best Revival, so...

Someone posted above that making the Jets multicultural was meant to show the difference between native born United States citizens and recent immigrants- maybe that was the intent but (i) that would make the already gratuitous Krupke imagery even more beaten over our poor heads, and (ii) is not loyal to the script. Both the Jets and the Sharks are meant to be suspicious of each other, of the unknown, which turns to rivalry, which turns to hate, which turns to tragedy. That was the genius of turning Romeo/Juliet into a story about modern racial animus. The hatred there is a two way street of dysfunction. If the point here is to make it straight up xenophobics vs. victims, not only did it miss completely, it undermines the entire original point going back to Romeo/Juliet. 

I enjoyed this production but the more I hear people explain the thinking behind it the less appealing it becomes. So i urge people to see it- because behind all this noise is a well-performed, novel take on a classic.

[Luminaire2]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 4:44pm

JDonaghy4 said: "Hot Pants said: "djoko84 said: "Broadway critics have become worse and worse. If a show is remotely different, out of the box, or unusual they go crazy for it. Just like with the terrible Oklahoma last year. This is why Tony voters have been going less and less by reviews anymore."

This doesn’t quite make sense. You say the Tony winning revival of Oklahoma had great reviews, yet you say Tony voters don’t go by reviews."

Yeah, Oklahoma! divided audience members but won over the critics, and then went on to win Best Revival, so...

Someone posted above that making the Jets multicultural was meant to show the difference between native born United States citizens and recent immigrants- maybe that was the intent but (i) that would make the already gratuitous Krupke imagery even more beaten over our poor heads, and (ii) is not loyal to the script. Both the Jets and the Sharks are meant to be suspicious of each other, of the unknown, which turns to rivalry, which turns to hate, which turns to tragedy. That was the genius of turning Romeo/Juliet into a story about modern racial animus. The hatred there is a two way street of dysfunction. If the point here is to make it straight up xenophobics vs. victims, not only did it miss completely, it undermines the entire original point going back to Romeo/Juliet.

I enjoyed this production but the more I hear people explain the thinking behind it the less appealing it becomes. So i urge people to see it- because behind all this noise is a well-performed, novel take on a classic."

I find this an interesting discussion on the show. 
 

I fully support color blind casting when race is not integral to the plot or story as written. Clearly the director wants to tell a different story here, with a different message that is very relevant to today’s audience. I think it’s an important story and topic, but I wonder if he’d have Been better suited to tell that story through an original work, instead of trying to adapt an existing and classic story to tell that message/story? 

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 4:51pm

djoko84 said: "Broadway critics have become worse and worse. If a show is remotely different, out of the box, or unusual they go crazy for it. Just like with the terrible Oklahoma last year. This is why Tony voters have been going less and less by reviews anymore."

And this is a terrible outcome cause it may lead to Tony voters actually having to vote based on their own opinion of the shows they were asked to attend and evaluate rather than BWW's review round-up, clearly not what the Tony Committee intended.

[Zion24]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 4:53pm

Luminaire2 said: 

I find this an interesting discussion on the show.


I fully support color blind casting when race is not integral to the plot or story as written. Clearly the director wants to tell a different story here, with a different message that is very relevant to today’s audience. I think it’s an important story and topic, but I wonder if he’d have Been better suited to tell that story through an original work, instead of trying to adapt an existing and classic story to tell that message/story?"

Someone commented on this perfectly earlier in this thread: if race isnt part of the plot, color blind away! I once saw an African American Hodel and heard grumbling- how utterly ridiculous. She did a good job. It takes most people .04 seconds to beleive they are looking at Anatevka, not a stage on 45th Street, and part of that is accepting black Jews in Anatevka or black cops in 18th century Paris. But if Hodel was in a Jewish gang fighting Ukrainians of African descent, or if Javert was out looking to arrest chambermaids of color, suddenly the "color blind" is just plain silly. 

Here, Riff being black undermines a key plot point (the Sharks say, point blank, how its only fun living in America if you are White- a fair point, lost entirely in this production, and i am assuming edited out?), whereas Laurey Williams' being played by a woman of color lends a depth to the plot without in any way undermining/contradicting it. 

 

[Luminaire2]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 4:57pm

JDonaghy4 said: "Luminaire2 said:

I find this an interesting discussion on the show.


I fully support color blind casting when race is not integral to the plot or story as written. Clearly the director wants to tell a different story here, with a different message that is very relevant to today’s audience. I think it’s an important story and topic, but I wonder if he’d have Been better suited to tell that story through an original work, instead of trying to adapt an existing and classic story to tell that message/story?"

Someone commented on this perfectly earlier in this thread: if race isnt part of the plot, color blind away! I once saw an African American Hodel and heard grumbling- how utterly ridiculous. She did a good job. It takes most people .04 seconds to beleive they are looking at Anatevka, not a stage on 45th Street, and part of that is accepting black Jews in Anatevka or black cops in 18th century Paris. But if Hodel was in a Jewish gang fighting Ukrainians of African descent, or if Javert was out looking to arrest chambermaids of color, suddenly the "color blind" is just plain silly.

Here, Riff being black undermines a key plot point (the Sharks say, point blank, how its only fun living in America if you are White- a fair point, lost entirely in this production, and i am assuming edited out?), whereas Laurey Williams' being played by a woman of color lends a depth to the plot without in any way undermining/contradicting it.

"

Precisely. And there has to be a point as a director where you need to say to yourself, “is the story I’m shoehorning I’m going to work in the context of this existing work? Should I do this, or should I create a new show to tell my story? “

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 5:10pm

A better solution compromise between the period-specific racial animus of 1957 NYC (recent white immigrants vs. Puerto Rican immigrants) would to have today's Jets be White Nationalist gangs. But I don't think Ivo van Hove really wanted to go there.

Which brings me to a big difference between the Fish Oklahoma! and this WSS. I didn't love everythng about the Fish Oklahoma! but it was truly a rethinking of a classic. From the blue-grass re-orchestrations to the emphasis on Jud's incel personality to the darkness of the finale, Fish had a vision and executed it well. I never thought of Oklahoma! as such an example of the arrogance of manifest destiny until i saw Fish's production. It was however never a commercial hit on B'way. I remember there were tickets on TDF and TKTS throughout the run. It was very heavy-going for most theater-goers. 

This WSS is not really a rethinking of a classic. I think of it more as a repackaging -- the video, the modern dress, the tattoos, the rechoreographing are really cosmetic changes. When people talk about this production they don't really talk about the vision behind the production. It's more about the production values -- whether you like the use of video, the rain, the new choreography. When van Hove tries to go "woke" it's half-baked -- Officer Krupke has videos of police brutality but the jokey lyrics still got laughs from the audience the night I went. So as I said, cosmetic changes. If you like the production values you're going to like this WSS. If you didn't like the production values you probably didn't like this WSS. 

[gibsons2]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 5:51pm

perfectliar said: "gibsons2 said: "I don't read theater critics (is this even a real profession? ) because I just can't take a questionable opinion of some pompous individuals and make it decide for me if I want to see a show. Did these people create anything themselves to be so snarky, lol? Thank god for social media and boards like this where I can find reviews of real people who pay money to see these shows."

Why is a critic's opinion questionable but any other random person's not? I will never understand this argument. Why does being paid to write about your opinion somehow make that opinion invalid?

As for the other half of this... What if a person on this board has never "created anything?" Doesn't that undermine their opinion, based on this logic, and make it not worth hearing?"

I find most of the negative "professional" reviews quite disrespectful and nothing but a competition in who's the snarkiest and most of the time the humor falls flat for me. "Calvin Klein fragrance ad", really? I appreciate a good joke, but this isn't good, just like most in these articles. I mean, even if you hate a certain production, which means it's not bad, it's just not your cup of tea, can't you appreciate and be respectful to the colossal effort it takes to put it together? Months or years of work of a team who made this production possible: cast, director and many others? It doesn't take much effort to go see a show for free and then spend an hour or less on a laptop to write an article. Just my opinion.

 

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 6:04pm

How many of y'all know someone in the cast? Just curious.

[FranklinDickson2018]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 6:12pm

Would someone be able to find a way to upload the WSJ review by Teachout?  I can't seem to read it either online or on my phone or through the app.

 

Thank you!

[chanel]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 6:18pm

Quite favorable, but with a couple of caveats about the movement and the videos.

http://www.newnownext.com/west-side-story-review-broadway-revival-spielberg/02/2020/

[CT2NYC]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 6:20pm

gibsons2 said: "perfectliar said: "gibsons2 said: "I don't read theater critics (is this even a real profession? ) because I just can't take a questionable opinion of some pompous individuals and make it decide for me if I want to see a show. Did these people create anything themselves to be so snarky, lol? Thank god for social media and boards like this where I can find reviews of real people who pay money to see these shows."

Why is a critic's opinion questionable but any other random person's not? I will never understand this argument. Why does being paid to write about your opinion somehow make that opinion invalid?

As for the other half of this... What if a person on this board has never "created anything?" Doesn't that undermine their opinion, based on this logic, and make it not worth hearing?"

I find most of the negative "professional" reviews quite disrespectful and nothing but a competition in who's the snarkiest and most of the time the humor falls flat for me. "Calvin Klein fragrance ad", really? I appreciate a good joke, but this isn't good, just like most in these articles. I mean, even if you hate a certain production, which means it's not bad, it's just not your cup of tea, can't you appreciate and be respectful to the colossal effort it takes to put it together? Months or years of work of ateam who made this production possible: cast, director and many others? It doesn't take much effort to go see a show for free and then spend an hour or less on a laptop to write an article. Just my opinion.

"

My problem with Brantley is that he's just not clever. If you're going to use snark in a review, at least have the chops to make it actually funny, instead of the stale "humor" he employs. His jokes smell like mothballs.

[FranklinDickson2018]

Posted: 2/21/20 at 6:34pm

It takes years to develop a critical style, and as a researcher I go back years and years to read what critics said about a show because I wasn't there and they were. Critical reporting is creating an invaluable history of the Broadway musical.  A priceless history.  It does take a lot of effort to write a review. For the New York Times?  One of the most important reviews to be published?  Are you kidding me that it "doesn't take much effort."  But I ask you all --- if the reviews had been laudatory would there be so much "hate" against critics right now?  Or do we dislike them because they are disagreeing with us?   If WSS had been all rave reviews would we be having this conversation?  Criticism is just a point of view.  Take it or leave it.  But please read it and learn from it whether your agree or not, there is something to learn. 

I find most of the negative "professional" reviews quite disrespectful and nothing but a competition in who's the snarkiest and most of the time the humor falls flat for me. "Calvin Klein fragrance ad", really? I appreciate a good joke, but this isn't good, just like most in these articles. I mean, even if you hate a certain production, which means it's not bad, it's just not your cup of tea, can't you appreciate and be respectful to the colossal effort it takes to put it together? Months or years of work of ateam who made this production possible: cast, director and many others? It doesn't take much effort to go see a show for free and then spend an hour or less on a laptop to write an article. Just my opinion.

"