A CHORUS LINE 50th

Has there been any scuttlebutt about how they might be celebrating the 50th anniversary this year?

Make your own party and see it at Goodspeed in September-October.

This show was my entire personality as a kid. Does anyone else feel like it hasn’t aged all that well?

Its sound and style are so specific that it feels almost impossible to reinvent, and I wonder if that’s why it’s started to fade into more of a museum piece—something we admire from a distance rather than re-engage with.

DaveyG said: "This showwasmy entire personality as a kid. Does anyone else feel like it hasn’t aged all that well?

Its sound and style are so specific that it feels almost impossible to reinvent, and I wonder if that’s why it’s started to fade into more of a museum piece—something we admire from a distance rather than re-engage with."

For me, a show doesn't need to be open to reinvention in order to age well. This one sure is time specific! But that doesn't seem to me a strike against it. No show captures the passion for performing, the hunger to be onstage, the way this one does. And the pictures from these character's lives are vivid and real (in the numbers--not just the text, which is likely often verbatim from those original taped sessions). I'm not sure if you're saying a show needs to give the impression it was written in the last decade or so, perpetually, in order to retain lasting value. But if so, I disagree. I love this show to distraction, even acknowleging the glaring problem of the Cassie/Zack storyline (which doesn't feel real on any level). But even that provides us with the electrifying "Music and the Mirror"--again, as perfect a distillation of the need to perform as any show has ever presented.

DaveyG said: "joevitus said: "For me, a show doesn't need to be open to reinvention in order to age well. This one sure is time specific! But that doesn't seem to me a strike against it. Noshow captures the passion for performing, the hunger to be onstage, the way this one does. And the pictures fromthese character's lives are vivid and real (in the numbers--not just the text, which is likely often verbatim from those original taped sessions). I'm not sure if you're saying a show needs to give the impression it was written in the last decade or so, perpetually, in order to retain lasting value. But if so, I disagree. I love this show to distraction, even acknowleging the glaring problem of the Cassie/Zack storyline (which doesn't feel real on any level). But even that provides us with the electrifying "Music and the Mirror"--again, as perfect a distillation of the need to perform as any show has ever presented."

I totally get what you're saying. And I love this show with my whole heart. It just feels like it isn't produced nearly as often as it used to and I'm wondering out loud why."

It's a really good question. I think--and maybe this was what you were getting at--the ethos is out of synch with our time. It is not remotely a sentimental show (even acknowledging "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love"), and it's soaked in desperation. The characters are likable to me but they are very real and most of them have an unpleasant side (bitchy, sexist, etc., warts-and-all I think might be the best expression). In an age of uplift, empowerment and ulitmately happy endings, the ambiguity and anxiety with which the the show is infused may be a turn-off, either to audiences or creative teams.

The show has not aged well seems to be a consensus opinion on this chat. Perhaps so. I think the show was greatly damaged by the movie version. The original was thrilling in the theatre, but the revivals have lacked that same power.

Some reflections off the top of my head:

The confessional monologue style of book -- a novelty at that time -- has been done over and over and over again. Sometimes actual shows have copied the style, more often musical songs now have adopted the "pour out your desperate, angry, anguished guts " and may have become a cliche.

The life of a dancer, especially a Broadway gypsy, no longer has the same magic for the public imagination. And the "we are all on the line" in life ethos is no longer true in the Trump era: only the richest of the rich can be on the line in life, the rest of us have been discarded in the stage door alley in Trump's America.

At The Ballet still is one of the most beautiful moments in musical theatre, and the Hello12-13- Hello Love montage is beautifully written. So the construction of the show still has innovative power.

Make your own party and see it at Goodspeed in September-October.

I can't imagine how they are going to fit all 17 characters "on the line" on that tiny stage.

Maybe it's a distinction without a difference, but I think it's important to differenciate between a show "being of its time" vs. "has not aged well." I mean, what exactly has not aged well in A Chorus Line, in terms of attitudes or presentation (how are the confessional monologue aspects of the show so different than, say, Hamilton, or parts of Les Mis?). I'd say any production you see of the show, you're going to be aware, "This is very 70's," in the same way watching Oklahoma! or Carousel you're going to be aware, "This is very 40's," but I don't think that means any of these works aren't still entertaining, artful and resonant. It seems to me that one would have to look at these shows in very trivial, surface ways (sythesizers??? references to Peyton Place???) to say they haven't aged well simply because they bear the cultural marks of their era. If that's the standard, literally nothing ages well because one is always aware of the age in which a work was written, whether it be Aeschylus, Shakespears, Ibsen, Williams, Wilson or whomever (I hate that all the playwrites on that list are men).

To me, when we say a show hasn't aged well, that refers to specific things related to content and form, like offensive/outdated characterizations or poor integration of dialogue, song and dance.

Updated On: 4/4/25 at 03:18 PM