A Chorus Line Choreography Question

[sing_dance_love]

Posted: 8/25/12 at 4:54am

I'm preparing to audition for the show in a couple weeks and in researching the choreography for the famous opening jazz combination, I keep noticing a discrepancy and I'm not sure which movement is "correct". Really I'm just curious on some thoughts.

In the double leap section right before the double pirouette, it seems to be consistent that the second leap is essentially a single stag, with the right leg straight and the left leg in attitude.

But in the videos I've been watching from the original production, the revival, every little step, etc... I keep seeing variations on that first leap. Half the people seem to do doing a simple star jump or X jump, basically leaping up in second position. And the other half seem to be doing kind of a tilt with the left leg extending up and the right leg staying more or less in place.

Is one more "correct" than the other? When I learned the dance once, the choreographer that taught it to me said she learned her version from Kay Cole and it might have different variations than what Baayork Lee teaches when she recreates the choreography.

Also, could it have been purposely staged that way? To show how different dancers interpret and perform choreography differently? In the original Tony Awards performance, Robert Lupone as Zach does the X jump variation.

Any thoughts would be great, or on the dance as a whole. What unique, exhilarating choreography.

Here's an example of what i'm talking about, the difference between what the Greg (in the yellow) and the Mark(?) in the blue tank top does at 5:26:


Chorus Line Tony Awards

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/25/12 at 8:54pm

I don't have the dance knowledge or vocabulary to answer your question, but I think you are correct that the discrepancies are deliberate. The number is supposed to represent dancers of differing abilities performing a combination they have learned on the spot for an audition.

Michael Bennett wouldn't have been so careless as to stage the number so that everyone danced in perfect unison.

So I suppose if I were you, I'd pick one of the characters who gets cast in the end and do it "his" way.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/25/12 at 9:14pm

Gaveston is correct. The opening number actually has different dancers do stylistically varying versions of that jazz combination. In one of the more obvious attempts to show this, there's a female dancer who is cut that obviously has her roots in ballet. Bennett intended to show a sort of 'hierarchy' of ability in his groupings in the opening number with the first few groups being proficient and the last all-male group dancing it closer to how it was meant to be danced. There is a noticeably diminished sense of chaos when that group does it as compared with the others. I've always loved how Cassie does this really odd variation of it that almost seems incorrect, but it's as unique as she is.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/25/12 at 9:26pm

Isn't "Mike" usually one of the better dancers in the show? Is that who Wayne Cilento (blue top, handkerchief around neck) is playing? He might make a good model for the correct way to do the routine.

Thanks for the elaboration (that even I could understand), My Oh My.

I can't watch that opening without thinking of Fosse bitching about how A CHORUS LINE had a lot of people talking about dancing but little dancing. What show did he see?

The opening number alone is, as you explain, practically a master class in dance styles, even for those of us with no dance knowledge or experience.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 2:35am

Gaveston,
In the opening number, Zach and Larry are the ONLY characters you can objectively state do the choreography "correctly". Anything that you do not see one of those two dance, as an audience member, can not be known with 100% certainty who is doing the choreography correctly as taught be Zach and Larry(unless Bennett himself told you but, as was often the case with Bennett, different people would be told different things to keep everyone on their toes. Even Baayork Lee has her own interpretation of Bennett determined.).
You can safely assume that the cut dancers are doing in substandard and that Cassie is performing a spiced up version, Sheila is marking through it correctly but with not high degree of effort, that Mark is trying his absolute hardest and that Zach's set choreography is probably a happy medium of what Paul and the dancers who get the job are demonstrating.
Even Kay Cole, essentially, knows the combination as it is true for Maggie, not as it was set by Zach. Those movements are set into her body.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 10:21am

I can't watch that opening without thinking of Fosse bitching about how A CHORUS LINE had a lot of people talking about dancing but little dancing. What show did he see?

Did he really say that? Wow.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 9:45pm

Yeah. I don't have a source, but he claimed it was his inspiration for the review, DANCIN': to create a show that actually showed off dance as an art form.

***

Thanks, broadwayguy2. Good advice for the OP.


Updated On: 8/26/12 at 09:45 PM

[sing_dance_love]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 10:04pm

Thanks for your responses and insight! I've always noticed the slight variations in the dancers (as there naturally would be) but never fully placed how purposeful that must have been. Such great staging/concept/execution.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 10:21pm

I admit that dance is my least favorite of the arts that go into musical theater. (I know, I know. I will be available for stoning tomorrow at dawn.)

So to me, my love of Michael Bennett (as with Jerome Robbins) is based on his gift for directing dance and using it to tell a story. That isn't to say I don't like his choreography for its own sake, just that that isn't as important to me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 10:57pm

I've seen a couple of productions of "A Chorus Line" where the opening starts and all the dancers on the stage are doing the choreography perfectly. (Well, not perfectly, but they are all doing all of the steps.)

I knew I was in for a rough evening right away, because if the director and/or choreographer of the production doesn't "get" that these dancers are at an audition and learning the steps for the very first time, I figure he hasn't thought much (if at all) about what's going on in the story.

I was right both times. The dancers were generally good throughout, but the productions were cold, badly acted, and mechanical.

Take it as a warning sign.

So much can be done to show how the dancers (and the characters) learn or struggle to learn those opening combinations.

And Gav, I'm sorry you feel that way about dance. When it tells a story and enhances characters it can be as important as any spoken word or sung lyric. That's not always the case (sadly, it's missing from so many shows today), but when it's right, there's nothing better.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 11:10pm

best12, don't you just hate it when it becomes immediately clear that the director has no clear idea what story he is telling? Our local LORT theater is usually like that: I can accept that the mix of union and non-union, local and imported talent will be uneven. What drives me crazy is spending every show wondering, "What the hell did the director think this scene was about?"

***

As for dance, I hope it was clear I was only confessing a subjective preference for language and singing. Not coincidentally, I also have a lot more training in those areas.

But ACL is one of my all-time favorite shows, as is the original CHICAGO from the same year. So it's not as though I am "anti-dance".

And I agree there's nothing like the "Shall We Dance?" scene in THE KING AND I, where the characters simply MUST dance because speaking and singing are no longer enough to convey their feelings or hold them in. Absolutely electric (even though the actual dancing is fairly simple)!

But I'm afraid I agree with you about modern choreography for the musical theater. Most of the time I feel like I'm watching an aerobics class.

[downtoearth2]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 11:22pm

The show starts with the robot- which should be cold and stiff. Then you get to see each person learn the steps in their individual ways. The 'away from the mirror' when everyone dances the combo tutti is supposed to be completely unison- even the cut dancers. It's a theatrical moment, the orchestra kicks in for the first time and the theatrical lighting starts and the audience is hit with a wave of huge perfect unison dancing. Then in groups of four it splits into individual style and ability. If the dancers' legs are at different levels during away from the mirror is just an individual thing, not something Baayork told them to do. She never really specifies how high the left leg should go but she definitely does not teach an X jump. All SHE really cares about is the deep plie between jumps. I also know that if they can, she enjoys the men to split that jump, but it's not required.

I agree that Zach and Larry should be the 'go to' as far as technique, but really it's just Larry. The Zach's tend to be older and by nature don't dance it to the full throttle nature it should have. And yes, the roles of Mike, Greg, Bobby, Diana and Larry should dance it spot on. Mark, Judy and Val should be over the top but in a really amazing way.

Good Luck

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 1:45am

downtoearth,
So true. I should have specified about Zack v. Larry.. the older Zachs, not so much.. the younger Zachs (which I have issues with..) should be spot on, obviously.
As far as which auditioning characters are most accurate, as i said, is really a matter of deducing based up what we learn about each and what happens to them.
In some ways, I view the "Away from the Mirror" section, as it is referred to in "Line Lingo" as the default overture for the show and the story kicks in at the Ballet Mark.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 1:51am

In regard to the Fosse quote:
Yes, he took many issues with Chorus Line. I also think that it is important to be objective and consider what he stated and how it can be taken. Chorus Line is a dance show. It had a *lot* of choreography and dancing... but it is not *about* dancing. It is about the lives, the histories, the struggles, the hopes and the dreams of Broadway gypsies.. NOT about dance.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 2:47am

I hope I'm not alone in this, because it's one of those things that is small but makes a huge difference to me, and it would be awfully strange if I'm the only one who has noticed it or even cares about it. I've never seen discussion of it anywhere, by anyone.

I think even the most obsessed ACL fan would agree that the recent Broadway revival was a very faithful recreation of the original production in every way. I was generally pleased with what I saw in its pre-Broadway tryout in San Francisco but one moment--on of my favorites--was slightly altered to that moments detriment. It effectively erased that thrill that is always guaranteed.

I am referring to the same moment discussed above, the "facing away from the mirror" and ensuing jazz combination in unison by all. In the revival, it was staged and danced exactly as it was originally. What killed it for me was the awfully bombastic orchestration that was altered for that one moment only, where the rest of the show was left untouched.

The original orchestration consisted of a piano and brass which began as low crescendos and steadily growing as the drums beat in intensity and culminates with the iconic brass jabs that we all look forward to hearing (at least I do, hehe). It made the moment so much more thrilling and I always loved the piano mixed into that pulsating mix of brass and percussion.

The revival altered it and instead of that thrillingly "expanding" that climaxes into that burst of brass, the burst of brass begins immediately and very abruptly. It has a terribly cheap effect that screams THIS MOMENT IS AWESOME!

It's actually my only complaint about the revival. Everything else about it was wonderful.

[ZiggyCringe]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 2:08am

Well, here's the thing. I'm of a "certain age" and that particular "certain age" is a person that knew the opening number of "A Chorus Line." We all knew it. It was the standard. If you showed up at an audition during the early 80's and you DIDN'T know the Michael Bennett choreography of "I hope I Get It", you were cut in two seconds.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 2:18am

Arlene Croce did a scathing New Yorker review of A Chorus Line that's collected in one of her books, where she seems to agree with Fosse. She thinks Bennett's *direction* is wonderful, but that there's very little actual dancing. Of course in the same review, she comes down even harder on Chicago. (Croce is a bit to dance critics what Pauline Kael was to film critics--a huge pleasure to read even though--at least for me--I more often completely disagree with her. Though in Croce's case, she tended to think that anything that wasn't Balanchine and the New York City Ballet was sub-par).

My Oh My, aren't a number of the revival orchestrations re-done by Tunick? I thougth the cast album mentioned that--certainly What I Did For Love is, as well as the moment you mention.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 2:35am

"So to me, my love of Michael Bennett (as with Jerome Robbins) is based on his gift for directing dance and using it to tell a story. That isn't to say I don't like his choreography for its own sake, just that that isn't as important to me."

Like Robbins, but even perhaps more so, Bennett's genius was for directing more than choreography, IMHO (or, I suppose providing brilliant theatrical moments even when he was "just" doing musical staging, like with Turkey Lurkey Time). His dance vocabulary is extremely standard for the time--unlike say Fosse who, limited or not, really created his own style, which has always made me curious to see some of Bennett's Summer Stock work from the 60s (like his own version of Fosse's Steam Heat).

This may be perhaps why you don't quite see the Bennett influence in later work, the way you do everywhere with Fosse. Also, like Robbins to a much lesser degree, and unlike Fosse, Bennett often didn't even do big chunks of his actual choreography, although his final brilliant vision was always all over it--Bob Avian did big chunks of Follies and Chorus Line, Tommy Tune in Seesaw, and most of Dreamgirls was Michael Jackson choreographer, Michael Peters, for example.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 2:58am

Eric,
As I said in my previous posting, A Chorus Line is not about the dancing.. and that is what amuses me about reviews such as that. They wanted one long dance piece when the entire purpose of the show is to reveal more of the dancers BESIDES the dancing. Ah well. People see what they will, won't they?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 3:16am

Exactly--although I will say the dancing they do have is pretty thrilling.

For anyone curious, Google Books seems to have the full review--which on re-reading is much more bitter than I remembered, but kinda interesting (even if I disagree about her take on both shows) http://books.google.ca/books?id=Unl-kVxVs3sC&pg=PT153&lpg=PT153&dq=arlene+croce+chorus+line&source=bl&ots=J8k2CBP7ky&sig=tK8hhtujix1mfroiDIU1uRt7V8w&hl=en#v=onepage&q=arlene%20croce%20chorus%20line&f=false

[morosco]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 7:36am

I am referring to the same moment discussed above, the "facing away from the mirror" and ensuing jazz combination in unison by all. In the revival, it was staged and danced exactly as it was originally. What killed it for me was the awfully bombastic orchestration that was altered for that one moment only, where the rest of the show was left untouched.

I agree! I thought I was the only one. That's my favorite moment in the show and the new orchestrations left that moment with nowhere to go. Originally it had that dramatic build that became more and more intense until it finally exploded with the horns. The new orchestrations completely spoiled the moment for me. It started out big and had no way to build in intensity.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 8:50am

I'm still mad they chickened out and cut the Wah-Wah Pedal guitar that's so prevalent in the opening number!

Nothing says '70s like that guitar sound. They were conceiving the show as a period piece and "exact copy" of the original, but then decided not to follow through after all. If you've seen the show live, you know with all the repetitions of the opening dance combination in smaller groups, it allows the guitarist a chance to really shine and have a ball. The original pit had an incredible musician who really added great licks and riffs with that pedal. "Shaft," eat your heart out!

It was an instant way to take us back in time to 1975, and they blew it by deciding "it just wasn't cool" anymore.

I don't care for hoop skirts today, so should we just cut them from any 1860s stories because they aren't "cool" anymore? Wake up!

[morosco]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 12:25pm

I'm still mad they chickened out and cut the Wah-Wah Pedal guitar that's so prevalent in the opening number!

They cut the funky jazz organ too.

And the revival also had some new synth strings did it not? I can't think of specifically where in the score but they added nothing.

I don't care for hoop skirts today, so should we just cut them from any 1860s stories because they aren't "cool" anymore? Wake up!

All I can think about are those ridiculously short skirts the girls wore in the West Side Story revival.

[morosco]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 12:30pm

And speaking of orchestrations check out this video. The "A Chorus Line Drum Cam". This guy makes it look effortless.
Drum Cam Music and the Mirror

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 12:44pm

That was fascinating! And he's really good. Different than the original, but he brought his own licks to it that were pretty great.

I've played in two pit orchestras in my life (both for operas), and it's a whole different perspective from down there.