A Chorus Line and the 1976 Tony Awards- Page 2

[jv92]

Posted: 7/21/09 at 2:43pm

Well, I like all three shows, but because the score is so marvelous and because that original production perfectly defined what a concept musical was, I would have voted for Chicago over Chorus Line in many categories. But what a tough year it was! Thank God, I wasn't (and still am not, may I say) a voter. I could have never decided. My three favorite directors were up for Director (Hal, Michael and Fosse), my three favorite songwriters were up for score (John & Fred and Sondheim). Three of my favorite tripple threats (Gwen, Chita and Donna) were up for Actress. What tough choices to make! Can I emphasize that enough?
The one big mistake, I think, that was made was giving Best Actor to...was it George Rose? Over Jerry Orbach? Over Mako? Really?
I always say this, but I wonder what K&E and Fosse and Sondheim and Prince thought of Chorus Line and its success. Well, we know what Fosse said- "Bennett does great glitz." Sondheim apparantly said- "Who cares about those people?" though that is from a trashy Bennett biography. What did they think? They had written two masterpieces too. I wonder...

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 7/21/09 at 2:52pm

I've often thought that since it appears the most voters checked ACL on their ballot (not that they didn't deserve it) but...I've thought that if Robert LuPone were put in the leading actor category that he would have won...if not for the performance then because he was in ACL.

[jv92]

Posted: 7/21/09 at 2:55pm

^Oh, that's for sure. I never thought of that.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/21/09 at 3:54pm

In 1976, I was a junior in college and in love with the theater--most of all, in love with Sondheim, having seen Company, Follies and A Little Night Music multiple times each.

I saw all three of the shows in question and only one excited me: A Chorus Line.

Pacific Overtures was disappointing in comparison to the previous 3 Sondheim/Prince shows. It was a "concept," with a story that seemed to be nothing more than an intellectual premise with cardboard characters. The score didn't seem particularly beautiful either, although over the years I have come to admire it greatly. But in 1976, it paled in comparison to A Little Night Music.

Chicago was Fosse, yes, but in 1976 it seemed to have nowhere the sizzle and bite that the revival did years later at Encores. It seemed to be in love with its own "darkness"--in a way that was uninvolving. It was just the Chita and Gwen show--and then it had Liza. But did it feel like a Tony-winning show? No way.

But Chorus Line was stunning from the opening notes through the finale. It seemed to be the ultimate inside-show-biz-story-as-metaphor-for-life. The story was emotionally compelling, the score was gorgeous, the production was dazzling and dazzlingly staged within an inch of its life, and the characters were throbbingly vulnerable (or at least they were while Michael was alive to terrorize the performers into vulnerability).

It seemed to be the last Broadway show to truly become part of the popular culture--and at the precise moment when Broadway was becoming less a part of pop culture every year. It wasn't just theater people who knew about it--it was on the cover of Newsweek. It was everywhere. The show had such universality that the Chorus Line became Every Line: the assembly line, the office secretaries, waiters and waitresses and busboys and dishwashers--anyone whose job was day-to-day drudgery. For the first time a show-biz story actually felt like Everyone's story--middle-aged women wondering about redoing their tits and asses, straight men remembering being embarrassed about erections in classrooms, gay men dealing with shame and the rejection of their families, little girls whose mothers told them were not pretty, anyone who ever lived a dream, everyone who ever thought they weren't good enough. We ALL had a Mr. Karp. We ALL really needed that job. We all worked our asses off behind someone else who got the spotlight. We all wondered what we would do when we could no longer do whatever it was we did for love--including loving someone else.

There was no question that Chorus Line would win the Tony--and no surprise that it won the Pulitzer. The other two shows were just good shows. They didn't stand a chance.

Updated On: 7/21/09 at 03:54 PM

[fgreene1938]

Posted: 7/21/09 at 6:48pm

There was no question that ACL would win in 1976. It was all over the media. I remember watching a TV sitcom (in the days of 7 channels, tops) where Cloris Leachman said, "They say 'A Chorus Line' is the 'West Side Story' of this generation."

In terms of what the other composers and directors thought of ACL, I know it's been said frequently over the years that Michael Bennett was interested primarily in show business as subject matter and that this limited his range. In addition, his abrasiveness alienated many. I do recall at the time that many believed the score of ACL was its weakest link and it's not my impression that that's changed over the years. The thing is, it serves its purpose and clicks with the staging.

In terms of the Tony's, the winner for actor in a musical was George Rose in a revival of "My Fair Lady". In it, he played Eliza Dolittle's father, which is actually a supporting role. How he won over Jerry Orbach or Mako remains a mystery. In any case, 1976 was a banner year for the Tony's and the Chicago-Chorus Line-Overtures triumvirate have all lived on as classics.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/21/09 at 7:01pm

There's a lot of WTF moments involving the Tony, Rose winning the Tony for playing a featured role is one of them.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 11:47am

PalJoey, you're one of my favorite posters on the board, and I tend to remember a lot of what you post about. when you posted about having loved Minnie's Boys, I went to the wiki to seek it out. I always find your posts insightful and humorous.

I read ^ that post yesterday and have been ruminating on it since then. In fact, I decided to listen to A Chorus Line on my way to work, thinking the whole time about how it really is a story for everyone. so thanks again for sharing your insight with us.

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 12:13pm

I bought the cast recording of "Minnie's Boys" and loved it!

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 4:16pm

I fail to understand how any musical could get more Tony awards than A Chorus Line.

Even as much as I love Billy Elliot...

And as for The Producers, well, the more I think about that...

[fgreene1938]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 4:25pm

^^^ It's interesting that you refer to ACL, The Producers and Billy in you post. All three have been considered exceptional musicals with scores that were not great but which served the show well (though I saw Producers with the original cast and hated it). The thing about ACL is that the score itself is no great shakes as a listen, but when it is performed within the context of the show with the choregraphy, the libretto, the staging and the actors themselves it's unforgettable. BW history is littered with cast albums of marvelous scores in shows that never worked. ACL's score worked, but I believe Chicago and Pacific Overtures had merit that went unrecognized under the tital wave of ACL. Well, that's showbiz.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 4:39pm

I find ACL's score exhilarating and moving; brave and perceptive. I find the the posts in this thread that suggest its score is weak incomprehensible.

I agree there is much of merit in Chicago and Pacific Overtures as well but the individual strengths of those shows don't come together and resonate in the way all those of A Chorus Line do.

The Producers has some good dirty jokes. And that's it.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 4:43pm

I'm with Scripps, the score is fantastic. But once again, I am the unobjective one.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 4:44pm

No revival, especially one that uses such d-list celebs as Chicago, should outlast any thing, let alone A Chorus Line.

Like original productions, not all revivals are created equal. I saw the Chicago revival in previews and that cast was golden. Everything about the production was perfection. Stunt casting aside, the revival's run was well-deserved and honestly, if people didn't want to see it or its stars, they simply wouldn't. It's not as if shows stay open on stunt casting alone. If they did, most of the shows that run on Broadway would not have closed and those long-running shows that haven't relied on stunt casting, such as Phantom of the Opera, would have closed shortly after the original cast left. The revival of Chicago earned its honor and is hardly the first show to surpass the run of A Chorus Line. And that is ok.

I remember watching a TV sitcom (in the days of 7 channels, tops) where Cloris Leachman said, "They say 'A Chorus Line' is the 'West Side Story' of this generation."

How about Eight is Enough when Betty Buckley and Dick Van Patten gave each other tickets to A Chorus Line for Christmas but were unable to see the show and everyone ends up singing One in the living room. Does that ring any bells with anyone else?

[ACL2006]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 4:52pm

Also, ACL had no chance in winning awards in costumes or set design. NONE. As for The Producers & Billy Elliot, neither show should have won that many Tonys.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 5:31pm

^Um...it did when it opened in 75...it was just the revival that couldn't.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 5:47pm

I'm seeing Chicago tonight, for the first time since Bebe and Ann were in it, so I'll let you know how it stands up.

[fgreene1938]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 6:21pm

The stunt casting on Broadway isn't inherent to Chicago, it's part of BW business now. Chicago has just run so long it's got more "stunts" per capita. I saw the tour of this revival in Boston in 1999. No stars and it was terrific and the audience went crazy. The revival is great. Sentiment is on the side of ACL 1 because it's such a seminal piece in theater history. But hey, long runs keep performers employed and business thriving. It IS show business.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 9:07pm

And I'm sure it's been said before, but the whole concept of stunt casting fits in with the one of the many messages in Chicago about the American obsession with fame and celebrity.

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 7/22/09 at 9:12pm

What's funny is that while all is true about "A Chorus Line" and "Chicago" is that due to the some of language and subject matter in "A Chorus Line", "Chicago" is actually the more 'family friendly' musical!

IMO anyways.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 2:47am

I thought "Chicago" was far superior to "A Chorus Line" in 1976, and the passage of time has only reinforced that feeling. The score to "Chicago" is sharp and bracing; "A Chorus Line's" is pallid. I also preferred Fosse's work to Bennett's. It's too bad "Chicago" was given the shaft at Tony time; I certainly hope that its revival runs longer than the original "A Chorus Line." It would be a kind of poetic justice.

As for "Pacific Overtures," it was beautiful to look at but a crashing bore.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 3:07am

"!As for Pacific Overtures, it was beautiful to look at but a crashing bore."

Anti-intellectualism!

[allofmylife]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 3:47am

1. "Chicago" is ABOUT stunt casting. Remember, at the end, the girls go.... on stage. In the 1920s, stuntcasting was all the rage. Women killer DID get lead roles, wives of criminals toured the country in shows and then made speeches at the footlights, imploring people to keep their children from following their rocky roads. It's the perfect combination.

2. I saw both "Chicago" and "A Chorus Line" back then and, frankly, I remember thinking :Chicago" was two aging women doing roles I didn't want to see two aging women playing and "Chorus Line" was a youthful explosion of muscle, sweat, desire and defeat. And Donna McKechnie was out of this world (even though by 1976 she herself was, what, 35? She still really had it in that number.) For me, there was no comparison.

3. Jerry Orbach was great in "Promises, Promises" but in "Chicago" he was just okay. I just wasn't bowled over (and BTW I love his work) as I was by "Chorus Line."

4. I saw "Chicago" with Liza. Different show. They should have nominated that version.

5. Don't knock George Rose if you never saw him live.

Updated On: 7/26/09 at 03:47 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 8:06am

Chicago was surprisingly taut and exciting last night. Amra-Faye Wright is excellent and Samantha Harris was adorable. Only in Hot Honey Rag did I notice that she wasn't totally a Fosse dancer, but she definitely moves well and her energy and enthusiasm drive the show.

Roz Ryan knows exactly what she's doing and Brent Barret is oily and sexy and and charming--all teeth and slicked-back hair, he's a perfect Billy Flynn.

The first act charges through with one great number after another, and the ensemble is remarkably sexy and fun.

They seem to all relish every Fosse-ism with the result that the dancing has a precision that seems as thrilling as it did at City Center with Ann and Bebe.

If only the dancers at the Palace could bring the same integrity to the movements of Jerome Robbins and Peter Gennaro!

If you haven't seen Chicago in a while, like I hadn't, you're in for a treat. Go see it with Brent...before he leaves and Jerry Springer goes in.

Oy.

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 2:40pm

When Jerry Springer does the show...he's Billy Flynn right. I would assume so, but he might actually make a serviceble Amos Hart so I'm curious!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 2:41pm

I believe he's going on as Roxie.