A CHORUS LINE... — Page 2

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.

---

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.

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!

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

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.