A CHORUS LINE...

It is still on. A San Francisco try-out is already scheduled to play July 9 through August 6, with Baayork Lee (Connie in the original cast as well as the dance capitant) re-creating Michael Bennet's original choreography and Bob Avian (co-choreographer of the original production as well as Bennet's partner in other shows) re-creating Bennet's direction. The Broadway previews are supposed to start sometime in September but a theatre has yet to be found. I'm not too sure what theatre they're looking into, hopefully a small theatre. I doubt it's going to be the next Chicago which is going to be interesting since A Chorus Line was one of the major reasons the original production of Chicago failed to soar. However, it should be a good show if new life is injected into it. From what I know, they're casting gypsies just like in the original production, and I hope they stick to that. I wonder if they're coming up with a major gypsy (Rachelle Rak or someone along those lines) to play Cassie but I doubt it.

should be cool
cant wait till it reaches broadway

i wonder what theatre...

Original choreography and a cast of gypsies!! Pure Perfection.

---

I would LOVE for Rachelle to play Cassie.

I'm so excited about this show for so many reasons, the fact that I've never seen it and only the movie and everyone says I have to see it on stage where it's so much better and also for wonderful gypsies/dancers usually in the ensemble to get main parts.

---

This is the major reason for my wife and I to return to NYC this coming October. Can't wait!

Because there is a generation of people who haven't see it and previous generations that fell in love with it as is, why mess with a good thing?

---

No, in the case of ACL, we're getting the original. Baayork Lee has supervised every single national tour and most major international tours (and dozens of individual professional productions) of the show since the 70s. She recreates the choreography and staging down to the most minute of details -- Bennett himself insisted on it and only allowed her to take over the duties of recreating the staging once he was fully satisfied that she was capable of putting an exact replica of the show on the stage. He saw her work many times and even according to him, you can't tell the difference between when Lee mounted the show or when he did it himself.

I for one would have ZERO interest in a "revisal" of ACL. I shudder at the thought of how Wayne Cilento or Kathleen Marshall or Graciella Danielle would butcher this material. Bennett was one of the greatest geniuses in the history of the theatre -- those three, to be kind, are not. They're barely even competent.

Bennett's brilliant staging and choreography is sheer brilliance and is as important and crucial an element to the success of the show as the book or the score. It's also exactingly precise and completely organic to the material -- his is very probably the most clean and efficient staging the show could possibly have (it ran precisely two hours on Broadway; friends who have seen it elsewhere or been part amateur productions that haven't used the Bennett staging tell me the show often runs 2:30 to 2:45 in other versions). And remember, Bennett oversaw the creation of the book and adjusted and rewrote and edited it as he was constructing the staging (though he didn't insist on an official credit, he was also co-bookwriter and the Bennett estate to this day receives writer royalties for the show). Nothing about the staging or choreography is random or easily adjusted without hurting the piece -- every step and movement is integral to the whole. Start messing with it and it can all fall apart.

And what changes would you or could you make that would in any way be significant? The line HAS TO be the line. THAT line. That's dictated by the script. The order of characters in the line is also dictated by the script. And how characters move in and out of it and how groups within it spin in and out of focus, spotlighting certain performers when needed, was painstakingly worked out during MONTHS of workshops and rehearsals and what resulted was the most logical and seemless staging possible. Perhaps you can change a few steps here and there -- but why bother?

Anyway, all of this is moot. John Breglio -- Bennett's friend and lawyer (one of the most powerful entertainment attorneys in the country) -- is the executor of his estate and is fiercely protective of this property. He sees it as a monument to Bennett's genius and has extremely strict stipulations in place for any professional production of it. He's also personally producing this revival, so NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY CHANGE will take place from Bennett's original vision. It will look precisely as it did the last time Bennett saw the show himself in the mid-80s before his death.

I for one think that's great. There isn't anyone around today who has shown that they have a tenth of Bennett's talent -- all these wannabes do is head up revivals that are vastly inferior to the original productions which were created by far more gifted directors and choreographers of the past. They don't have the talent to tamper with masterpieces of the past, so they should leave them alone and create ORIGINAL shows of their own.

I remember seeing Bennett's original staging for ACL and DREAMGIRLS when they were on Broadway and it was like sitting through 25 masterclasses on the art of great direction. There wasn't a wasted moment or movement in the entire show -- every second was bursting with creativity. In addition to everything else, they were almost "how to" guides on blocking, movement, transition from scene to scene, focus, clarity and dazzling showmanship.

In the decades since, I've seen 1000+ shows and have yet to see anything else by any other director that was remotely in the same league as either of those shows. Not even close. Thank god Bennett (as well as, to some extent, Jerome Robbins) has a powerful estate to protect his legacy. This way succeeding generations (including young up-and-coming directors and choregraphers) can see for themselves what genius looks like on stage and perhaps be inspired to create their own new masterpieces in the future.

---

Updated On: 1/24/06 at 03:50 PM

"I for one would have ZERO interest in a "revisal" of ACL. I shudder at the thought of how Wayne Cilento or Kathleen Marshall or Graciella Danielle would butcher this material. Bennett was one of the greatest geniuses in the history of the theatre -- those three, to be kind, are not. They're barely even competent. "

That's complete arogance. It wouldn't matter if new direction and choreography were a thousand times better, you wouldn't like it because it isn't the original. It's thinking like that that makes it difficult for progression in American society. Why even bother putting on the show then? It's only been gone for what, 10 years? It's stupid, selfish and arogant to think that only the original choreographer and director could do justice to the work. Just because some people have biased unchanging opinions does not make them an authority as to the "brilliance" of the work. It's the same with people who refer to the sixties as The Golden Age. Well, how many musicals opened in that decade? How many are actually considered good? Do we just repeat shows over and over again without changes? Why have them live? Why not just make them as movies and be done with it. Styles have changed since the 70s. What worked then may not work now. And, as I said, we aren't getting the original. Just someone's version of the original. It's not the same thing. Michael Bennett surely would have made updates were he around to do it for the revival.

There nothing arrogant about having a negative opinion about the work of those three after having been subjected it repeatedly over the years and having been extremely unimpressed every single time. I've seen at least three shows from each and in every instance have found their staging and choreography to be pedestrian, ordinary and downright boring, completely lacking of any spark or imagination or innozation. Not one has ever created a single transcendent theatrical moment despite tons of opportunities -- Bennett, Fosse, Robbins, et al created dozens (perhaps hundreds). I don't want them to ruin a masterpiece like ACL and thankfully they'll never have the chance.

Understand, I've seen many revivals of classic works that were wonderful -- better than the original in some cases. I have no bias against the new -- and if you knew me or had read some of my writing, you'd know what an utterly ludicrous assumption that is. What I don't like is seeing masterful original work tossed out and replaced by the vastly inferior work of a hack. It seems to happen whenever any of those three (and several others) are brought on board to oversee a revival. And people wonder why most revivals fail. Typically, it's not because the classic work has become dated or no longer appeals to a contemporary audience (which everyone always says), it's almost always due, in part at least, to lackluster, unimaginative, uninspired direction and choreography. And those three are some of the main culprits and have hurt the reputation of many great shows of the past because of their inferior skills.

Anyway, Bennett is dead. Perhaps if he were alive he might make make some subtle changes to the show -- though it's highly doubtful he'd have allowed a revival of this show during his lifetime anyway (he HATED revivals -- no first rate director in his era would go near them -- and ONLY did new work, unlike these directors).

It's been 15 years since ACL closed. There's a generation of people who never saw it originally (as well as generations more who have fond memories of the original). Feel free to disagree, but I want those teens and 20-somethings who never saw it to see the masterpiece in its original form (and honestly, how many people can possibly view it at Lincoln Center -- in a year, a few hundred?). I don't want them or the rest of us millions who loved the show, to be subjected to some Wayne Cilento revisal. Why settle for second-best, when the original is readily available? And if Mr. Cilento or Mmes Marshal or Daniele are capable of crafting a work of genius, then great. I look forward to seeing it, at which point I'll retract what I've said here. Until then, I stand by my position that third-rate talents should not be given free reign to mess up the works of geniuses. Let them inflict their inferior ideas on ORIGINAL works of their own creation and leave the ACLs and WEST SIDE STORYs alone.

---

Updated On: 1/24/06 at 04:31 PM

I can't wait. I've loved this show since I saw it onstage when I was about 8 and two more times after that. Each time, the story itself was able to surpass the sometimes sloppy choreography and mediocre dancing of these shows, but I've always wanted to be able to see a GOOD production, where it was done in a way that did justice to the original.

I mean, in one of those online surveys people used to email to their friends in middle school, when asked what I would do if I had the ability to go back in time, I said I would want to be there the night A Chorus Line broke the record for the most shows on Broadway. I was obsessed.

---

She only directed one of the shows you named, acting only as choreographer for the rest. I guess I must have nodded off and missed those big classic legendary showstopping dance numbers in PIRATES OF PENZANCE, DROOD, and RAGTIME. And I thought Rivera and Minnelli deserved much better than the lackluster steps she created for THE RINK.

I stand by what I said.

---

Unfortunately, I was about 10 years old when Chorus Line closed on Broadway and my parents never thought it was appropriate for me to see this show at that age. However, I did get to see a regional production supervised by Baayork Lee and it was truly magnificent, the metaphor of the line is so real and the show is just very intense and full of raw emotions. Like Margo said, there is not a moment wasted in Bennet's choreography/direction, every step, every nuance is there for a reason. I think people like me deserve a chance to see this show on Broadway as Bennet created it. I thought the closing of this show was very sudden and unexpected anyways, so perhaps it should still be running.
Also, I find it very sad that I have to agree with Margo, not because I have anything against him but because the comment he made about current directors/choreographers is very true but it says a lot about the lack of geniuses on Broadway right now. The only thing I'd disagree with Margo is that I believe Graciella Danielle had some lucid moments in Ragtime. Wayne Cilento is probably one of the worst choreographers on the Broadway industry, I've heard he was a great dancer in the original Chorus Line and in Dancin', why didn't he stick to dancing? When he stole Sweet Charity of its magnificent Fosse choreography, I was extremely upset because I can't believe Walter Bobbie (who directed one of the most brilliant revivals Chicago, another Fosse show) would let Cilento ruin this show where the choreography spoke so much about Charity and her world. Kathleen Marshall is also less than stellar, her directing skills are ok at best. Even Jerry Mitchell who is one of the sweetest men somehow lacks the genius that his predecessor had, but I think he still needs to fully develop his potential. I just wish he didn't go for shows like Hairspray or Legally Blonde, and tried doing something with more substance.
I wish the next Jerome Robbins or the next Fosse came along already. Also, something interesting Margo mentioned is that very few director/choreographers stick to new works, they insist on going for revivals of shows they should stay away from. I enjoy revisals very much, The King and I is a grand example, Chicago, Sweeney Todd, and my dad tells me the new Sunday is mind-blowing, but A Chorus Line is definitely not a show that should be revised in any way, although I wonder how modern audiences will deal with the score.