50th Anniversary Revival of A CHORUS LINE still on track for 2025? — Page 2

Jordan Catalano said: "I so disagree with that statement that it doesn't hold up anymore. The City Center production a few years ago was BRILLIANT. This might be the one show where I'd personally be ok if they never changed it. For me, it just works so perfectly as is. Obviously that's not how theater works but any chance I get to see that show (as done originally), I'll jump at."

Although I think there is always room for invention/innovation, the above post is spot on. There are few elements of the show that are open for reinvention (IMO). Costuming, Lighting, and Choreography are the only three that come to my mind, initially.

Please, please, please... No gender swapping, no additional scenery, etc... The reason the stage is bare (save for the line) is because this is not a show about "a show". It's solely about the people auditioning; their "real" lives, their talent, how they got to where they are (being on that line, in the real time in which the show transpires).

I would hope that any reinvention of this show would begin with the actors/director using the rehearsal time to mine the monologues for any fresh perspective - but without changing a word. For example, I'd like to see a Paul that brings a previously unseen perspective on how he completes that Anna Mae Wong line, "It was so...", and also reflects his *specific* ideas re: "what it means to be a man". The entire Paul monologue can be delivered differently based on what an actor believes about those two lines

In the last revival, I loved how casting an AA actress who brought some "soul" to Sheila created a new and interesting perspective (and humor) to the role. I'd like to see more of that kind of casting in the WHOLE show; not just one role. I don't, however, think a drastic change like a gender swap, revision of sexual orientation, etc. should be done unless it enhances the character, or brings a fresh perspective without having to change a word of the original book.

Bottom line is that IMO, other than the afore mentioned three components, any major revision to the show needs to be developed by the actors playing the roles, as the show is about them. The book and the score are fine as is.

Valentina3 said: "Ariana DeBose is the obvious and yet perfect choice for Cassie, right?"

miss debose would make a magnificent cassie.

i can only imagine how off the charts her “music and the mirror” would be.

Technically, Ariana DeBose would be magnificent. Should an Academy Award actress play the role? Probably not. It would arguably distract from the concept that these performers (including Cassie) are simply chorus dancers.

Jordan Catalano said: "^100%

Any “star” casting takes away from the role and the show."

Yes, however, I also feel like there are certain roles (Cassie, Shelia, Paul, Diana, Mike) have become "star-like" roles, so I don't care who plays Bebe or Maggie...but Cassie, Shelia, yes. So, to a point, some "star casting" is done.

"Star" is subjective, but mostly anyone who would be good enough to dance in ACL wouldn't be a "star" outside of Broadway circles. Even Ariana DeBose is not a money name post-Oscar.

As time goes on, the idea of Cassie being 40+ is more interesting than a Cassie in her 30s and adds more dramatic weight. Donna was 36. Charlotte was 42. I didn't like Charlotte in the part, but the stakes of a theatre dancer in her mid-40s are very compelling.

I guess the other question is if they would ever allow the text to be tinkered with to represent the lived experiences of the people playing the roles in that revival. Not drastic changes, but sentences or lyrics here and there to clarify things. The authors already made concessions for Connie, for example, when a white person had to play the part as an understudy or regionally.

It’s way too soon for revivals of ‘ACL’, ‘Gypsy’ or ‘Sweeney Todd’. Let’s get some new, original productions not based on movies.

The core aspect of this show, which for me was showing a bright spotlight on a deeply ignored, integral part of a huge industry, their struggles, their humanity, and their charismatic talent, is very very relevant. I think a truly fresh look at the production would bring the characters to 2025 and not leave them in 1960s. With the possible exception of handful of lines, everything will still feel very very current imo. A smart director would highlight the power dynamics, including sexual dynamics, between Zach and Cassie to connect to today's audience.

As for DeBose being "too big" for the part (which I don't think she is frankly - she truly feels like she can inhabit whatever the role will demand of her)... to me the answer is to cast people who are just as charismatic, and potentially successful, as she is. Hard to find people like that for an economically viable cast which can do justice to the choreography and acting chops needed for this show, though.

Valentina3 said: "The core aspect of this show, which for me was showing a bright spotlight on a deeply ignored, integral part of a huge industry, their struggles, their humanity, and their charismatic talent, is very very relevant. I think a truly fresh look at the production would bring the characters to 2025 and not leave them in 1960s."

1970's. The show is of its time and should remain in its time. And it can still speak to us today from that vantage point.

Well since everyone is talking about what they do and don’t want, I don’t ever want to see A Chorus Line without the original choreo. The clips from The Curve didn’t excite me at all.

John Adams said: ""A Chorus Line" is an extremely intimate show. The original cast was neither creating characters, nor "acting". They were intimately exposing their real lives with an audience."

I'm grateful that no one roasted me for it yet, but I was thinking about what I posted while I was at work today. I'm wrong about saying the original cast was exposing their real lives on stage, and that they were neither creating characters, nor "acting".

The characters are based on what was shared by the actors in workshop, but I don't think the characters are 100%, real life re-enactments of themselves.

What this show never needs again is a re-stager. It's fine for the choreography - Bennett's choreography is brilliant and works, but you need someone to come in who hasn't done it a zillion times. And you need an actual director who knows how to cast and knows how to direct actors. That's always been the problem with re-stagers.

Ryan Murphy has a new Netflix film and I’m just ready to find out more about that miniseries as well as this potential anniversary revival.