A Chorus Line... Still Relevant?- Page 2

[musicandtemiror]

Posted: 4/25/08 at 11:50pm

I do think its still relevant but I sometimes find my self thinking that im watching a current show (until paul gets up there and starts that monologue)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 12:20am

Lots of theatre makes references that are period. There's nothing wrong with that. That's not the same thing as relevant. As long as people lust over pop icons, they will be able to comprehend the references.

As for the choreography--there's no doubt that the original choreography is sublime. However, the show can absolutely be done with other choreography and has. I know of a production that was done entirely in the style of Fosse.

[puppetman2]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 12:54am

What many posters are forgetting is that each of the stories are TRUE. They are taken from tapes made of sessions with real people, most of them in the original cast. How can a person's real story not be relevant? Read one of the 2 or 4 books on the making of the show and you will see what I mean.
As to Paul's story about being discovered in the drag show, outside of New York this is something that still can shock. How many are still in closets afraid to make their true nature known. It was a really big shock to many of us when a close friend finally came out.
My vote is that Chorus Line is still very relevant.

[Mealz1042]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 12:56am

I apologize, by relevant I did mean dated. (though i know many of you disagree with that as well)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 2:03am

Only in that dated implies the audience can not understand the piece at all.

Sincere question--do you think In The Heights will become dated? Rent?

Yes, they make references to things people one day may have no knowledge of, but is the story universal enough?

[winston89]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 2:46am

I don't think that this piece is that much dated. I think that the references in terms of pop culture are heard of.

I know that there are people who knew that Goulet was an actor and that is all that they need to know about him in order to understand the refrence to him in the show.

I think that the show is still relevant and not as dated as people make it out to be.

I remember watching a video interview with members of the revival cast. They said that they were performing the revival as a period piece and not trying to make it modern by any means.

In terms of something like Paul's monolouge being dated I never saw the original production (I am 1 but I cried the first time I heard that. And that was the first time I have ever cried in the theatre.

[broadwayrob]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 3:54am

I'm not much on things staying in a theater for too long.. but this to me is a show that never really goes out of style.

I was one of those *distant-loathers* ya know.. someone who hates a show because of a song.. or a stigma. I heard "One/Reprise" about five billion times. said to myself i'd never like the show.

then i saw it.

i find it hard to believe that a show that some people refer to as dated and irrelevant can make me want to change my life. Honestly, relevance is such an objective statement to begin with. I mean there are people who identify and the story hits close to home. Then you have people who would much rather see something new and fresh.

However, there is something to be said for a staple. Something that changed so many lives over the course of the last 30+ years.

In my opinion to say that something with that sort of staying power is irrelevant, doesn't seem like a strong argument to me.


FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT.

four words. one of the most exciting things to see on stage.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 12:39pm

Does anyone find GYPSY "dated" because it mentions Fanny Brice, the Lunts and revolves around a long demised form of entertainment: vaudeville?

As for Paul's monologue, it isn't suppose to be some flag of gay community representation. It is a very specific story of a disenfranchised individual. The truth, the heart, the pain behind is story is what he communicates.

If you can't hear that, it is because you are listening with your own gay political agenda... or perhaps not listening at all.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 12:47pm

Bravo, BFB!!!!

[Tom148502]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 12:58pm

A CHORUS LINE is irrelevant like The Bible, gone with the Wind and My Fair Lady. All should be banned.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 1:03pm

Here in the UK, A Chorus Line was (and still is) overshadowed by Fame (the film, then the TV series, then the stage version which tours endlessly)

I have always considered this to be a travesty: A Chorus Line may be dated but the quality of the whole work makes it a masterpiece. In comparison Fame, though superficialy similar, doesn't even scratch the surface.

Who knows - maybe there are ghosts of c19th Norwegians rolling their eyeballs when the RSC does Ibsen?

[KrissySim]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 1:20pm

I have only seen the film and was not particularly impressed. Maybe I'd like the stage production better, but there was nothing there that grabbed me in the movie. This may just be me. After the collapse of the Soviet Union I travelled throughout Eastern Europe and the former USSR for two years and what I experienced and saw around me made the dramas of Chorus Line seem very small and unimportant. (I saw Chorus Line within a few months of my return to the West.) So, perhaps my viewpoint is not a fair representation.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 2:03pm

The film was messed up by an English director who failed (like most of the rest of us) to appreciate the piece.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 4/26/08 at 2:06pm

Thanks for that, Scripps2. I really should give the stage production a visit.