"A Chorus Line" SF Bay Newspaper Review Thread: SF Chronicle Rave

[jimnysf]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 4:15pm

Here' the first one. From Variety

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931222?categoryid=33&cs=1

Chorus Line

(Curran Theater, San Francisco; 1,665 seats; $90 top)

A Vienna Waits production of a musical in one act conceived by Michael Bennett, book by James Kirkwood and Nicholas Dante, music by Marvin Hamlisch, lyrics by Edward Kleban. Directed by Bob Avian. Choreography restaging, Baayork Lee.

With: Ken Alan, Brad Anderson, Michelle Aravena, David Baum, Michael Berresse, Mike Cannon, E. Clayton Cornelious, Natalie Cortez, Charlotte d'Amboise, Mara Davi, Jessica Lee Goldyn, Deidre Goodwin, Tyler Hanes, Nadine Isenegger, James T. Lane, Lorin Latarro, Paul McGill, Heather Parcells, Michael Paternostro, Alisan Porter, Jeffrey Schecter, Yuka Takara, Jason Tam, Grant Turner, Chryssie Whitehead, Tony Yazbeck, Joey Dudding, Lyndy Franklin, Pamela Jordan.

By DENNIS HARVEY


This sturdy revival of "A Chorus Line" lacks nothing except the excitement of rediscovery, since it's pretty much the same show that opened on Broadway in 1975. Director Bob Avian (then its co-choreographer) faithfully reproduces Michael Bennett's masterful first edition, there's a hard-working and likable new cast, and much of this great musical drama's potency remains intact. But the Gotham-bound show (previews begin Sept. 18 at the Bernard B. Jacobs Theater) has been gone from N.Y. only 16 years and begs the question: Can a verbatim revival conjure enough "event" status to re-conquer Broadway?
The original hit a then-record 6,137 performances and spawned endless touring, regional, community and even school productions. New version is not necessarily aiming for another record-setting Broadway run, but it remains to be seen if it can last long enough to break even and attract young auds as well as nostalgists who know every "step-kick-kick-again-please" by heart.

There's certainly legitimacy to Avian & Co's decision to keep "Chorus" a period piece, not updating the text (down to one chorine's dream of being "the next Jill St. John") or its psychological underpinnings (which remain matter-of-factly progressive anyway).

Design contribs don't stray from the original's brilliant simplicity, with Robin Wagner's set of mirrored panels and Theoni V. Aldredge's costumes nicely evoking the mid-1970s sans caricature. Tharon Musser's superb, complex lighting scheme is merely "adapted" by Natasha Katz. With a couple of he-manly exceptions, the cast members are slender rather than body-built in the way of contemporary show dancers.

Bennett's blocking and choreography (latter restaged by Baayork Lee, the original Connie) remain much the same. While individual moves may seem dated, the constant reshuffle of group formations (heightened by Musser's pinspot ingenuity) remains a wellspring of striking dramatic tension and aesthetic stimulus.

The most adventuresome and brilliant passages remain those when conventional music-theater showmanship is abandoned in favor of free-form song-and-dance eavesdropping, thanks to lyrics (Edward Kleban), book (James Kirkwood, Nicolas Dante), score (Marvin Hamlisch) and Bennett's conceptual impetus. ("Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love" is not so much a ditty as a title slapped on a superbly fluid sequence intercutting among various dancers' memories.)

The brassy ordinariness of Hamlisch's score always seemed apt enough for a show about the perspiration, rather than the inspiration, behind showbiz glitter. Comedy spotlights ("Sing!" "Dance: Ten; Looks: Three") hold up, but the stabs at big emotions not so much.

Hamlisch's music (and Kleban's lyrics) still triumph more in the fleshing out of ensemble emotions rather than showboating individual ones. All sounded terrific, however, on opening night in Acme's sound design and under the baton of conductor Patrick Vaccariello.

A tad more racially and physically diverse than in '75, the new cast ingratiates itself as the evening goes on, just as they should. There are no star-making turns. But Jason Tam makes a plaintive impression as damaged-goods Paul; Deidre Goodwin is a snappy, sassy Sheila; Mara Davi as Maggie sports perhaps the evening's sweetest pipes; and Ken Alan gives good Paul Lynde as Bobby. Dance 10, vocals seven for the lot.

The show's only notable departure from the Bennett School of 1975 at the very end, via a feel-good decision that feels like a heinous error. "A Chorus Line" originally ended, meaningfully, with a spotlight tracing the invisible marquee star's softshoe path while the dancers, who'd knocked themselves out to get this far, smiled and sweated in the background.

Presumably modern auds need an upbeat message, so the entire cast marches out in shiny gold uniforms, each in turn getting curtain-call applause. They deserve it, but where's the hard-as-nails showbiz irony? If Broadway can't accommodate the bittersweet, what's the relevance of "A Chorus Line," as the original "American Idol"?

It will take another "Chorus Line" to take things a step further: One can easily imagine a slimmed-down revision running 90 minutes or so. That tighter version could trim the rambling ex-lovers' spat between director Zach (Michael Berresse) and crawling-back-to-the-chorus former "featured dancer" Cassie (Charlotte d'Amboise). It might find other places to cut in some of the ensemble chat about how tough showbiz is -- "What I Did For Love" distills that sentiment crisply enough -- or even (at risk of seeming heretical) such charming but trite numbers as "I Can Do That" or "Nothing" (songs nicely performed here by Jeffrey Schechter and Natalie Cortez, respectively).

Sets, Robin Wagner; costumes, Theoni V. Aledredge; lighting, Tharon Musser, adapted by Natasha Katz; sound, Acme Sound Partners; music direction/supervision, Patrick Vaccariello; orchestrations, Jonathan Tunick, Bill Byers, Hershy Kay; vocal arrangements, Don Pippin. Opened, reviewed Aug. 2, 2006. Runs through Sept. 2. Running time: 2 HOURS, 5 MIN.

Updated On: 8/5/06 at 04:15 PM

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 4:15pm

Thanks for posting! Updated On: 8/3/06 at 04:15 PM

[Katurian2]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 4:18pm

Thank you so much for posting this!

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 4:20pm

Wow... mentions nothing at all about the cast, really.

I guess the stand-out of this show is and will always be... the show itself.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 4:25pm

It seems like they're saying "What was the point of the revival." Which I agree with.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 4:26pm

Jim, do you know Rob Hurwitt? I dunno why, but he's the guy I get all my reviews from.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 4:37pm

I'm not sure if the Chronicle sent him or Ruthe Stein (I think that's her name).

[WestVillage]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 4:42pm

"The show's only notable departure from the Bennett School of 1975 at the very end, via a feel-good decision that feels like a heinous error. "A Chorus Line" originally ended, meaningfully, with a spotlight tracing the invisible marquee star's softshoe path while the dancers, who'd knocked themselves out to get this far, smiled and sweated in the background."

I don't know what this critic is talking about ... ACL never had a spotlight representing the star of the show in the finale, and the cast always got their indivdual bows as they entered in "One".

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 5:13pm

Yes, that confuses me as well. The show ALWAYS ended with the dancers doing "One" and taking their bows individually in gold lame' costumes at the finale.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 5:20pm

Thank you for posting But this guy sounds like he does not know what he's talking about.

Updated On: 8/3/06 at 05:20 PM

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 5:25pm

I emailed him. We'll see what he says.

[WonderBoy]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 5:28pm

Maybe he is thinking of the green lights that hit during the kick line?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 5:34pm

It sounds like he is mistaking the original ending and one of Michael Bennett's ideas for the original ending, which would have included the dancers doing their routine behind a spotlight - a symbol for the "star" they would no doubt be dancing behind.

[tcoppola]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 5:53pm

West Vill--thank you for pointing that out. I so don't know what he's talking about there....

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 6:00pm

So, am I to take it Variety has a West Coast critic that has never actually seen a professional production of A Chorus Line until now, but has maybe read a few things about it (or maybe saw some bad knockoff production of it somewhere that cut the finale) and from that feels entitled to criticize this revival for adding something that was ALWAYS in the show to begin with? Not to mention having the temerity to suggest revisions and edits to the piece ?????

Way to go, Variety ..................

Updated On: 8/3/06 at 06:00 PM

[OzarkElphaba]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 6:03pm

He's a critic, they make mistakes. I'm inclined to agree with Michael Bennett about it being an early idea that was decided against. Personally, it really does seem to me like he knows just about what he's talking about, even if it does take the "Why revive ?" stance.
Updated On: 8/3/06 at 06:03 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 6:22pm

I disagree. It's clear he doesn't even understand the point and the very irony of that finale -- that after spending two hours baring their souls to Zach and each other and demonstrating how special and unique each and every one of them is, at the end they're just a bunch of anonymous, identical, nameless, faceless automatons, smiling and kicking away as the lights fade and the curtain descends. That was the job they killed themselves to get, the dream that those 8 were able to achieve -- not stardom, but total anonymity conforming to everyone around them, not standing out in any way as they back up some star whom the audience actually cares about and embraces. And by extension, everyone in that audience who identified with those characters and their struggles to be "somebody," has to face the reality that when the dazzle fades and they leave the theatre, while inside they may be very special, to the rest of the world, they're just another face on the line.

That's the very bittersweet "hard-as-nails showbiz irony" the critic says is missing from the ending. Not everyone gets it because the number is so dazzling, but it's what Bennett fully intended it to mean and it contradicts everything that idiot critic has to say in his final paragraphs.

And I'm sorry, I find it impossible to believe that anyone who actually ever saw a professional mounting of this show -- or heck, a friggin commercial or poster of it from the last couple of decades -- doesn't know about and/or remember that huge splashy finale. To many, it's the most memorable aspect of the show (aside from the line itself)and for him to write what he did tells me he'd never seen the show before last night, but is pretending that he did, which is unprofessional and deplorable.

Updated On: 8/3/06 at 06:22 PM

[mallardo]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 6:22pm

"I Can Do That" and "Nothing" are "charming but trite"? What??? Who is this guy?

[mallardo]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 6:22pm

"I Can Do That" and "Nothing" are "charming but trite"? What??? Who is this guy?

[FoscasBohemianDream]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 6:42pm

Michael Bennett, I was thinking the exact same thing. I remember reading on the book "On The Line" Bennett's idea for the finale, he also had another idea which was to take someone from the audience and have the dancers perform a number around this person (following the same line of thought as having the spotlight to represent the star) to portray how the chorus dancers are what make a star.
What I found most insulting about this review is the fact the critic takes a prescriptive approach in his article and when talking about A Chorus Line you have to be very careful in the kind of suggestions you make about the book or score itself.
"While individuals move may seem dated..." What is that supposed to mean?
Regardless of how dismissable this review and the critic are, I found it quite interesting that Charlotte D'Amboise, Natalie Cortez, and Jessica Lee Goldyn were either mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all. I'm starting to feel a bit iffy about the quality of this cast.

Posted: 8/3/06 at 7:06pm

Kind of what I said...no one is a star...they are just all OK...I think he went really easy on most of the cast, I would have given them dance 10, voice....4 or 5. But it's what everyone has been saying...to early for a revival!....I wish them all well in NYC....

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 7:39pm

Ron Hurwitt said that the review should be in tomorrow's SF Chronicle.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 7:50pm

That sounds about right. There is usually a two day lag before it gets into the paper.

[Kent]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 11:42pm

..."the point...[of the finale is] that after spending two hours baring their souls...and demonstrating how special and unique each and every one of them is, at the end they're just a bunch of anonymous, identical, nameless, faceless automatons...."

It's interesting, I know enough about A CHORUS LINE and its history to be aware that this "faceless" quality is what Bennett was aiming for. And I guess on one level I accepted Bennett's concept intellectually. But in truth the Finale has never really hit me this way emotionally. What the Finale actually FEELS like is a celebration - a way of taking all the tension, sweat and tears of the previous two hours; taking the lives of each of the dancers and "what they did for love;" in fact, taking the hopes, anxieties and angst of every single person in the theatre, holding it up before us and collectively "applauding ourselves." Applauding ourselves for trying, for doing our best, and maybe for just being alive.

(Yeah..I know this may sound like a bunch of high brow airy-fairy nonsense, but hear me out.)

See, at first I couldn't figure out why it was that I always seemed to burst into tears during the finale (I'm not THAT emotional). But over time I've come to understand that the Finale delivers such a powerful emotional punch because it carries an almost mythical quality of "purification and resurrection" of the collective human experience. It takes all the experiences, pains and sorrows of the individual characters and recreates them as a triumph. And as the music swells, the lights brighten, the mirrors turn into the starburt, the cast reforms upstage, hits the line, turns and begins moving downstage "as one," the Finale peaks in a "singular shining moment" that literally explodes downstage out over the footlights and into the audience.

The more you examine the Finale the deeper it seems to go, embodying universal spiritual overtones of forgiveness and rebirth. There are no winners or losers here, no rejected dancers, no injured Paul (the lame are literally healed). For in the end there is no separation - only love, unity and "oneness." And for me the impact of the Finale DOES feel something like a religious experience, carrying as much power, joy and perfection of artistic expression as anything I've known. In one brief scene A Chorus Line manages to encapsulate everything I personally strive for as an artist, and stands as a benchmark for what theatre at its finest can achieve when everything comes together and everyone hits their mark.


















Updated On: 8/4/06 at 11:42 PM

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 8/4/06 at 12:18am

After reading some of your intelligent comments and deep thoughts, it made me realize how odd/wrong the movie version's Finale is... Since it zooms in on the actor's faces to the point where you recognize them, the irony about the whole show is lost.

Updated On: 8/4/06 at 12:18 AM