A CHORUS LINE...- Page 2

[Holliwoodblonde]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 6:58pm

For me, ACL is what made me want to dance, made me want to act, and what made me want to perform. I saw a regional production when I was six (my mom wasn't aware of some of the more adult subject matter) and so my only recollections of the show are the feeling of awe that I felt and a memorized OBCR.

It's very easy for adults to say that a revival should be something new, a chance to enhance classic material. But when ACL, which, as aforementioned, was created to be pure perfection, how can one enhance it? One can't. We all know the story of Bennett wanting to make a show about gypsies, the long work-shops, the endless rewrites, etc. When a show was created with such heart, (something that I personally feel is now lacking on Broadway) it is blasphemous to try and change it. It would completely and utterly tarnish the impact ACL has had on so many people, whether they are "Theater people" or businessmen, one cannot deny the tremendous impact ACL had on theater. Isn't it more selfish and arrogant to deny my generation that indescribable feeling that one gets when 30 or so dancers in gold start belting out "One"?

[wickedfan]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 6:58pm

There are many revivals that have been wonderful, Kiss Me Kate, Cabaret, Chicago and the current Sweeney Todd revival being my favorites. What those shows and what A Chorus Line have in common is that they are all wonderful musicals. Brilliant.
What they DON'T have in common is that ACL takes place in one area for the whole night, with characters that you CAN'T reinterperet because they're personalities are so clear in the show.
You can't say that Zack hates Cassie and casts her out of spite in a "revisal" of the show, because it's simply not true. Everything is explained for you in ACL or at least you're given guidelines to each character's soul. Making it easy to interpret them. Normally this would be considered sloppy writing, when actually, since each character is so fascinating-it's a gift to us by the authors.
What's so brilliant about the other musicals I mentioned is that the characters are not as fully developed on page, leaving much more work room for a director. Leaving brilliant directors like Sam Mendes and Michael Blakemore (who didn't do a "revisal" as more of a "dusting" of Kiss Me Kate) to do revisals of these shows.
With ACL, however, if you try and stray too far from Michael Bennet's vision (having seen a National Tour of the show), you could seriously damage the work. ACL is too amazing a show to let that happen.
I, for one, would LOVE to see a Broadway mounting of the original production, having been born literally a month before it closed. I fully agree with Margo.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 7:17pm

I agree that Ragtime's staging flowed seemlessly scene to scene and I credit that more to the work of director Frank Galati (who had a lot of experience with large cast ensemble shows) than to Daniele's contributions which were mostly, I believe, the handful of individual production numbers with dance (featuring Evelyn Nesbitt, Coalhouse etc...) which were fine and appropriate for what they were within the confines of what, as you point out, is not a dance show.

When she has done more dance-oriented shows -- Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Chita's current show -- her use tango and Latin dance is competent enough, but tends to grow more lanquid and monotonous as the show progresses, as if she simply runs out of ideas at a certain point. Great choreographers know how to build a number, creating peaks and valleys along the way, varying the steps, creating surprises, culminating with an explosive finish. I've never seen her do this, all the more puzzling considering the electric fiery nature of Latin dance when it's in the hands of the masters of the form. Perhaps I shouldn't characterize her as third-rate (she's more second-), but, after seeing more than a half dozen shows from her, I'm hard pressed to recall even one number of hers that stopped a show or that I would describe as particularly distinctive or memorable -- especially in comparison with Bennett, Robbins, Fosse, or even Stroman.

[FoscasBohemianDream]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 7:25pm

Margo, to go a little off-topic, you seem to be a very educated person in terms of theater so I'd really like to know your opinion on Jerry Mitchell and Sergio Trujillo who I think are the only choreographers with some potential to do something big at some point in their careers.
I'm personally very upset with Graciela Danielle's "Latin" choreography because as an Argentine woman I expect her to be full of vibrant steps and that sort of fast-paced, feisty rhythm so typical of us Hispanics, but her Latin moves get old real fast, and I often wish I had seen Chronicles of a Death Foretold because I wonder what she did with that show.
Another question, I was wondering if someone knew if the role of Cassie is going to an unknown or to someone sort of comparable to Donna McKenzie when she did it back in the 70s.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 7:55pm

I think it's a little premature to make any judgment on Mitchell or Trujillo yet. I haven't seen Jersey Boys yet, but I imagine that Trujillo's choreography had to necessarily fit within the context of the Four Seasons stage act, which, while energetic, was not known for virtuouso dance moves. His Off-Broadway shows weren't dance musicals. It'll be interesting to see what he does with a real dance show.

As for Mitchell, I've liked that his work is typically very energetic and he has worked in a variety of styles. I liked his work on Hairspray -- it managed to capture the period without merely copying the steps. I missed Never Gonna Dance. I thought that the choreography for Les Cagelles, while certainly quite impressive in many ways, was perhaps a bit too gymnastic and athletic and out of character for those supposedly winsome and alluringly feminine creatures. His work on DRS was fine, but nothing great. I want to wait till he has the opportunity to really put his own personal stamp on a new dance-oriented show that isn't a period piece, before making up my mind about him. I think he has potential, though.

No word yet on who they're casting as Cassie, but remember Donna McKechnie was a known quantity in Broadway circles. Not a star yet, but had been in a half dozen Broadway shows at that point and had done standout featured roles before. She even was chosen to join Gwen Verdon, Helen Gallagher and Paula Kelly to open the 1973 Tonys that featured the four of them dancing and singing in an extended production number. Obviously, she was thought of as one of the great triple threats on Broadway and was just waiting for Cassie to come along to become a star. I imagine Bob Avian and Baayork Lee are looking at similar kinds of veteran dancer-singers to play Cassie for this production. Whoever gets it won't be a complete unknown -- the role is too demanding for that. It'll be interesting to see who they choose.

[LaVieHilary]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 8:07pm

I'm so excited!!
since its opening 23rd of september (i think) and i will be in NYC in mid november im pretty sure i will get to see the revival cast! cannot wait!

[dancinfan]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 8:32pm

To go on a bit of tangent for a moment: Around the time that Ragtime was in previews, I heard from people close to the production that Frank Galati's inexperience with musicals was showing, and Graciella Daniele was leading the way on all of the ensemble staging as well as many of the scenic transitions, not just working on the dancier numbers.

My favorite Jerry Mitchell show is actually The Full Monty. I think that it was a great showing for him because he was able to organically make guy movers dance, and it also showed off all his years of Broadway Bares strip'ography experience. Never Gonna Dance had some good numbers in it, too, and Hairspray is a blast, though not choreographically innovative.

Now back to the topic: I love and respect the original ACL very, very much, and I am glad that it will be faithfully revived for all of us to see with fresh eyes. I have yet to see any non-Bennett production of the show work in any way. Honestly, they've all been utter disasters.

Now to veer to What's Missing from Broadway Choreography These Days: I am not sure where to lay blame for this, maybe on the producers/businesspeople, maybe on the writers, maybe on choreographing artists themselves, but if you look back at Robbins, Fosse, and Bennett, what you see are great Director-Choreographers who made the work happen and were given the opportunities to push the envelope with innovative material. Bennett created ACL from scratch and got it all the way from gab sessions to The Public to Broadway. Fosse similarly created or had a heavy hand in writing most of his best works. Producers helped them get it all done. I don't see that happening today. I don't see anyone bringing great stuff to the viewing public if it's even out there to begin with. (Movin' Out is an exhilerating ballet/dance concert, Matthew Bourne's Swan Lake was a tremendous ballet, Contact was a series of so-so ballets.) Maybe if Twyla were to get out of the songbooks and direct/choreograph a book musical, we'd come close.

[FoscasBohemianDream]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 1:31am

That someone could say that Margo is just someone that writes long posts and doesn't know what he's talking about is mind-boggling. But whatever, I guess ignorance should not be a shocker.
Back on topic, I do realize that McKechnie had a reputation on Broadway but I didn't know she had danced along with someone like Verdon on Gallagher at the Tonys. I did know she had a showstopping solo in Company and that she actually had the solo in "You Should Drive A Person Crazy," wasn't she in Seesaw too? I was wondering how her career went after Chorus Line, I saw her in Follies back in the 90s which I thought was interesting casting, but for someone who was in the front cover of Newsweek I wonder if her career now is what she expected it to be.
I am intrigued about who they're going to get for Cassie and I'd like to see the reaction of some of the members of the original cast (the ones left anyways). They all seemed to have a very hesitant attitude towards their replacement on the book On The Line which talks about the making of the show, great book, everyone should read it.

[Karma76]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 9:45am

I have done chorus line with the original choreography (taught by a former cast member of the show) I am a dancer as well so I know my stuff...I was not a die-hardfan of it. He did things in counts of 6 not 8 but then at times throws a 7, 8 in there out of no where so it is not the most logically put together. I mean you can do anything you want when you choreograph but to say he is the best I do not agree. But again you have your opinion and I have mine.

Also when you do this show just like the original like we did ....you have no room to develop your own character as an actor. You can not play Val, Bobby, Connie, Sheila etc to your ability you play it as a replica...because your hand has to be here when you say this line, or you need to have inflection on this vowel because that is how the original was. I think it can hinder a production honestly. I think it can get too particular on being exactly like the original cast member that you really are not an actor so much as a carbon copy. Sounds like it may be heading in that direction.

My personal opinion is yes chorus line is a GREAT show!!! It is also a rare show where almost all 19 principles are on stage the whole show. No intermission as well so it is very demanding, a great experience and a challenge. BUT I would LOVE to see new choreography thrown in with the old. I think anyone can restage this show...and yes there are little character pieces on the side that are the minute details you discuss (trust me we had to do them right down to exact way the original was) that are fun to have but honestly It would be great to see some new life in this show. I just think a lot could be done in ways that would only enhance the show not take away. Again only my personal take from doing this show exactly like the original.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 10:02am

Donna's career post-ACL was not what most expected to be, or what she expected it to be either. She went back into the role of Cassie on Broadway a few times, as well as playing the role in L.A. and in London.

I saw Donna's one-woman biographical show not too long ago in Los Angeles, and she discusses it in great detail. (Somebody correct me, if I have the facts wrong)... Donna was diagnosed with severe debilitating arthritis and was told she could never WALK again, let alone dance. I believe this was in the early '80s. She ended up going on an incredibly strict diet of "only certain foods," and I believe it was considered a radical "holistic" treatment at the time. But that, combined with exercise (and an iron will) brought her back to the point that in 1988, she took over the lead in the Broadway revival of Sweet Charity. It was a personal triumphant moment for her, since most people weren't even aware that she had become so sick. Donna's last Broadway appearance was in State Fair years ago. But recently she has been seen all over the country appearing in her one-woman show.

I will confess something (that might get me jeers from a few)... I found her one-woman show to be both glorious and depressing, all at the same time. To see this older woman dance now is a complex, multi-layered "play" of emotions in and of itself. She is far past her prime, yet every now and then I caught glimpses of what made her (at one time) the most sensational dancer on Broadway. You can still get hints at the unique interpretation and talent that stopped several shows. She can't do the steps full-out anymore, but she sells her numbers for all they're worth. Her performance left me feeling old and tired, and sad that time had marched on (for both of us)... and happy and grateful... and blessed that I had been able to spend even a short amount of time in her presence, seeing her "relive" and do the thing she loves the best.

[EffieWhite]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 10:03am

It is common knowledge among those of us who actually WORK in the theatre that Ms. Daniele was completely responsible for ALL of the musical staging in RAGTIME--just as she really co-directed and choreographed PIRATES (in a seminal production that changed the way that show has been staged ever since)and DROOD due to the failing health of the director.

[LeaGirl]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 10:12am

I'm going to go with Margo on this one.

Having seen ACL BEFORE I went through puberty (it was my mother's favorite show) - even I as a young girl "got" that I was seeing something fabulous. The idea that I will be able to take this show in NOW - or SOON, at 26, the way it is meant to be seen with a greater understanding and appreciation of the material is SO exciting.

And I work for the LC, I've seen the tape, watching the tape is NOT enough.

The fresh talent should make this very exciting. And I honestly believe that the choreography for THAT show can't be topped.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 10:23am

Not to start a war here, but Effie's right. Graz did (probably) 90 percent of the staging in Ragtime. People who worked on the show know this. I'm not discounting Gilati's directorial contributions, but Graz staged it. So if you "marveled" (as I did) in the brilliant, seamless staging in Ragtime, kindly tip your hat to Ms. Daniele, with no "qualifier."

I agree that it's not always easy to tell when you're talking about a collaboration... but Margo has clearly gravitated toward the one-stop-shops of Fosse, Bennett, Robbins & Stroman (not a bad Mount Rushmore, if you think about it). I guess that makes it easier to tell "who did what" if it's all one person. I noticed there was no mention of Agnes De Mille. She is at the VERY TOP of any short list of the most brilliant choreographers ever. I would go so far as to say those "Mount Rushmore" legends wouldn't have had CAREERS if it wasn't for Ms. De Mille's ground-breaking brilliance. Quite honestly, I just watched the film "Oklahoma!" again recently, and STILL nobody can hold a candle to what she did, not only by inventing a modern dance "language" for musical theatre, but by inventing the very format itself.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 10:41am

A theatre performance exists only for a moment in time. Once it is gone it is gone. Stop clinging to the past. While I'm sure that the original A Chorus Line is as great as everyone says it is, it had its day. Why revive something if you don't want to reinvent it (I'm not talking about dialogue...I assume most of it doesn't really date the show). Times change, styles change, AUDIENCES change. Isn't that why the show closed? It had its run. The audience had changed. It's time for a fresh look. You shouldn't assume the original is the best version. You can't know that. When I worked on Show Boat in Chicago, people would comment that they thought that Chicago had the best cast. People in New York thought THEY had the best cast. Why? Because they saw those respective casts FIRST. Their opinion will forever be tainted with that impression. When I first saw Chicago on tour, I liked it. When I saw the movie, I loved it and thought the choreography was fantastic. When I saw the tour again I thought, in comparison to the film, it was dreadful and lifeless. I didn't just "tow the line." Opinions can change, styles can change. To only say the original A Chorus Line staging would ever be good is arogant and unfair. There is no point in reviving the same show people stopped wanting to see 15 years ago.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 10:59am

Fosse76 -- I see both sides of the coin here. I agree with Margo that we would be hard-pressed to find a better staging of A Chorus Line ever, simply by virtue of how the show was created and evolved organically. And I agree that MOST (not all) of the recent wave of revivals have paled in comparison to their original staging.

BUT...

I'm OPEN to the idea of new interpretations of shows. I WOULD like to see someone reinvent A Chorus Line, at some point. Best of luck to them, and no, I don't know of anyone around right now that's up to this challenge. But I'm not "closed off completely" to the idea of it, as Margo seems to be.

I'm also not in agreement with you that simply because the show is past its original run, the original choreography/staging should be abandoned for all time. That's as silly as saying let's throw out all the original orchestrations or even the songs! Never to be heard or seen again. And you said (I believe earlier) that Fosse refused to do revivals and thought they were a bad idea? His last show to run on Broadway was the Debbie Allen revival of "Sweet Charity," under his direction & with his original staging.

Honestly, I think both Margo and Fosse76 are showing us "extreme responses" here. I admire your strong passion, though. There is room in theatre and on Broadway for BOTH new interpretations as well as revisiting the original ones.

Personally, I'm very happy that I will have a chance to marvel at A Chorus Line with its original Bennett staging again. But I also look forward to seeing someone else's vision of it at some point... and I wish them the best of luck.

Updated On: 1/25/06 at 10:59 AM

[Karma76]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 11:03am

I will tell you I think people might be surprised when they see it. Like I said I did it with the original choreography and people enjoyed it, we won awards for it, it was a very well done show...but the fact of the matter to me was I was not overly impressed with it. People might see it now and say really that is what I was so impressed by when I was 8. I saw a production of it with other choreography and although the show was not spectacular my thought was wow i really like the choreography if the people tightened up. It was so refreshing to see. REALLY WAS.

Also I was shocked to find out that when original cast members are involved you are not at liberty to do your job as an actor. You must repeat and copy everything from the original to a T (including the way and tone the dialogue is said and even your skip in your step)

The finale should be the same...it is a great number and that dance is key to parts in that show. Plus it is legendary. Other parts can be updated is all I am saying, I think without hurting the show in anyway!! It would be great to see. I mean on the flip side I guess it is cool I can go see the show in 2006 and know everything they will be doing and literally dance along to their new cast recording to the exact choreography.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 11:18am

I'm really excited to see this. I've seen amateur productions that were lacking, but even then you could tell that the material would be really spectacular if well-produced. Any staging will be new to me, but I'd sort of like to see Bennet's original staging since it sounds like it was wonderful.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 11:21am

Karma76, so you're saying Bennett isn't the best choreographer because he changed the counts? How horrible! Didn't he realize that the best choreographers stick to the strict rules of counting and don't dare deviate from them?

The reason they're considered artists is because they don't maintain the rules. They bend them within limits and create something unique and creative, not something that could have been created by a robot.

Updated On: 1/25/06 at 11:21 AM

[Karma76]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 11:34am

no actually I never said that....i was just merely making a point it is in counts of 6 a lot of it. I actually said anyone can do anything they want when they choreograph....you should reread my post cause you did not grasp it. HOWEVER I said IN MY OPINION he was not the best choreographer. I am not saying he was bad at all he is just not my idea of "the best" again was he awful...no he is a great choreographer but he is not my favorite. I have actually danced his steps and they are different a lot very fun!!! I mean hello the finale I think millions of people know it just from watching it. That is awesome but to me he is not my favorite choreographer. to each his own right, or am I not entitled to that..

[dancinfan]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 11:44am

"Fosse, Bennett, Robbins & Stroman (not a bad Mount Rushmore, if you think about it)"

I am not a fan of Stroman, as I think her stuff is all gimmickry and no substance, so I just had to respond to the idea of her sharing a Mount Rushmore with these three director/choreographers - eek. I completely agree that Agnes deMille was a fantastic innovator and storyteller, and I consider her among the greatest WAY above Stroman.

Did anyone else like the chroeography in Sweet Smell of Success? I thought Christopher Wheeldon made a good showing.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:14pm

dancinfan--- Agreed.

Although I wouldn't call Stro "all gimmickry." She seems to be the leader of the pack, these days... by a mile. However...

*grabs chisel... and replaces Stroman's head with De Mille's on the mountain*

Updated On: 1/25/06 at 12:14 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:30pm

A few random thoughts:

1) "There is no point in reviving the same show people stopped wanting to see 15 years ago."

People didn't stop wanting to see the show, as much as everyone had seen it already many times and the show started to run out of audience. It ran 15 years on Broadway and spawned literally dozens of national tours (there typically were several out simultaneously in the US alone at any given time, not counting the dozens of European and Asians tours) that eventually hit every single major and minor city in the country multiple times. I grew up outside of DC, and when the tour came through for the 5th or 6th time in the 80s (using the same tv commercial from 1976) there was a collective rolling of the eyes by everyone I knew. There are only so many times people are willing to see a show (in the space of just a couple of years). Nevertheless, it's remarkable that the show toured non-stop for a couple of decades. But everything has to close eventually (even Cats) and ACL had a longer life and was seen by more people worldwide than all but a couple of other shows in the history of theatre.

2) Personally, I think that there are a handful of shows in which the original director/choreographer's contributions are so completely integral and definitive to the finished work that they rise to the level of authorship -- equal in importance to the book and the score. There aren't many shows I feel this way about, but A Chorus Line is certainly on that short list. Bennett's staging and choreography define that show as much as anything Hamlisch, Kleban, Kirkwood, or Dante contributed. 99% of the rest of the musical theatre canon, I'm more than happy to see a brand new staging of, including shows I adored and thought were staged to perfection originally. For instance many Sondheim shows -- SITPWG, Pacific Overtures, Sweeney, Assassins, Into the Woods, Company -- had great initial stagings, but because of the depth and richness of the text and score, they almost cry out for constant re-interpretation, which I always look forward to.

3) How much can you change a show before it ceases to be that show anymore and becomes another entity altogether? Some of these revisals have tossed out the original book altogether (The Boys From Syracuse, Flower Drum Song), cut several songs, added songs from other shows (usually by the same composer), and totally changed the themes and story and the feeling it originally evoked from audiences. Some changes are certainly necessary in some cases because times (and attitudes) change and revisions need to occur in order for the show to work for a contemporary audience. But, if you need to throw out the book and half the score, then why bother reviving the show to begin with? Because the title is still recognizable (even if the show no longer is)? And if the show is primarily known as a "dance show" and you toss out the original brilliant choreography that gave the show its reputation and substitute inferior choreography in its place, isn't there something wrong with still using the same title which will mislead audiences into thinking that what's on stage is basically the original show?

4) While I believe that new directors and choreographers deserve a chance to prove themselves, I think they should do it with new material they create and develop themselves. That's how you become a legend.

5) Why does it seem to be so wrong to some of you that some of us want to see the original staging and choreography that defined a masterpiece? Is there no respect for great work done in the past? Shouldn't succeeding generations have the opportunity to see the work of the great masters of the past? Is there something wrong with wanting to honor a legacy of greatness?

There doesn't seem to be as much of this issue in ballet and modern dance. While there are new ballet choreographers coming along all the time who stage new versions of Copelia and Firebird and Giselle, and those new versions are given a chance and enter the rep for a while, oftentimes, companies nevertheless end up in time reverting to the earlier stagings by Balanchine, Robbins, Petipa etc.... Why? Because those earlier ones are classic and definitive and infused with genius. They have inspired and entertained audiences for generations and still hold up as being every bit as brilliant today. They don't get old and tired-looking, and still manage to hold the interest of veteran audiences who have seen the particular staging and choreography many times through the years, because new virtuoso dance talents emerge constantly, bringing a freshness and verve and passion to the material. There's something very exciting about seeing how a hot new talent interprets a classic solo designed by a master of the past, which has been done by every great dancer for decades.

Similarly, it was great to see what Ann Reinking, Pamela Sousa, Wanda Richert et al brought to "The Music and The Mirror" after McKechnie left the show and there were many fans of the show who returned repeatedly to see what the new Cassies, Sheilas, Dianas etc... were doing with the roles. The same is true of all long running shows -- the fans love to return again and again to check out the replacements in certain roles. Re-interpretation of an established song or piece of choreography is an artform in and of itself and can be every bit as exciting (or even more so) as some brand new version.

Updated On: 1/25/06 at 12:30 PM

[isntitromantic]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 1:01pm

Uh,

Time: 1975
Place: A Broadway Theater

Anything else would negate the genius of Bennett, Avian, Dante, et. al.

[Karma76]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 1:28pm

Margo on the choreography defining this show...other then ONE nothing else in that show really defines it. Yes one is used throughout the show as they learn it so yes all that should be the same.

The Music and the Mirror, if someone wanted to tweak stuff they could. I think that dance is fun, personally and could be kept exactly as it is but it is not essential to the storyline if you add triple turns or more complex leaps instead of the original. That number could be wowed up if they wanted and still hold its entire context.

The opening number can be tweaked as well. Step kick kick leap kick touch can be any step, any kick so again could breath new life into that.

My favorite number actually was the whole montage those dances are so funny. There at times I think is a huge jumble mess at selected points. Not at any fault of the dancers either just a lot going one and different arms. I saw a production where they changed that part of it and i loved the new way they did it so yes you could change things and have them work.

I also saw a whole variation on Ritchie part of the montage too that i liked a lot in another production. It kept some of the choreography but did a different take and it was cool I tell you.

I mean all the songs really can have some new stuff in it. Like I said you do not need to change the whole thing but it would be nice to see some new exciting dance moves in the show WITHOUT hurting this show at all.

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 1:40pm

My unqualified vote for Cassie:

Charlotte dAmboise

After getting screwed by the producers of SWEET CHARITY last spring, she not only deserves a big break like "Cassie" -- she's lived it!