A Chorus Line reviews- Page 3

[jewishboy]

Posted: 10/5/06 at 11:36pm

I am not the biggest fan of Brantley (who is) but, I thought this review was very well written and he got his point across very well. He really took care in explaining why this production does not take off, for him. I thought this was one of his best and he had very little indulgences in this review.
Updated On: 10/5/06 at 11:36 PM

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 10/5/06 at 11:42pm

I am glad he liked Ken Alan.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/5/06 at 11:47pm

Theatremania is Mostly Positive:

"The question remains: Does this line of thinking brand the classic show, again seen in Robin Wagner's economical set design and Theoni V. Aldredge's audition togs, as a museum piece? Not as long as the dancer-singer-actors playing the roles slap anxious, jubilant life into Bennett's electric dances, the script's idiosyncratic lines, and the appealing Marvin Hamlisch-Ed Kleban songs (which were ingeniously shaped from the dancers' own life stories).

Beginning with Charlotte d'Amboise, as a properly anguished Cassie, the ensemble of otherwise largely new faces generally passes muster. Deidre Goodwin gives 30-year-old Sheila's quips the arched eyebrow and hitched hip they require. Jason Tam dances with style and touchingly confides Paul's drag-queen past. Natalie Cortez delivers "Nothing" and "What I Did for Love" with dark conviction. Everyone dances with the proud precision that Bennett wanted.

Is anything wrong with A Chorus Line? Yes. The show is not perfect, and never was. What's questionable now is what was weak then. The book scene in which Cassie and Zach (the always commanding Michael Berresse) hash out their romantic past is awkward. The discussion about ending one's dancing years that leads up to "What I Did for Love" is maudlin, and the song itself, which Hamlisch rightly knew had radio-play potential, is so extraneous that you can almost see the sledgehammer used to force it into place.

Perhaps the most nagging flaw is the happy ending for Cassie. During previews of the original production at The Public Theater, one of the conclusions considered had her departing the audition early upon realizing that Zach is right when he proclaims chorus work isn't for her. But the show's creators decided the upbeat finish was preferable to the honest one; and from a commercial standpoint, they were undoubtedly correct.

Time has definitely changed one Chorus Line moment. When Mara Davi's Maggie hits that ringing high note in "At the Ballet," today's American Idol-trained patrons break into sustained applause -- something that didn't happen when Kay Cole did the exact same thing 31 years ago. Fortunately, A Chorus Line still hits its high note, and any sustained applause is eminently warranted."


http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/9137

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/5/06 at 11:55pm

amNY gives it 4 stars:

"Bob Avian has carefully restored Michael Bennett's staging. As a concept musical, Bennett's choreography is even more central to the show's success than Marvin Hamlisch's score -- easily the best work of his career -- or James Kirkwood and Nicholas Dante's book, which probes an inner mentality that few musicals have ever conquered.

We could spend days contrasting the revival's performers with the originals. But the 19 actors that make up the current ensemble are collectively divine and well cast.

There may come a time when Broadway is ready for a visually reconceived "Chorus Line." But for now, this revival is a singular sensation in every capacity. Theatergoing doesn't get much better than this."

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/stage/am-chorusreview,0,2270121.story?coll=am-homepage-mezz

[bjh2114]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 12:06am

"But you're proving my point. You can't complain that people compare the present to the past of something that is "simply being revived" and then say that people didn't do the same thing over a recent "artistic adaptation type revival.""

I think you're missing MY point. I am not complaining that people are comparing it to the other one. I am saying it's to be expected. But, this version of A Chorus Line as a stand alone performance is very strong. The ONLY weak aspects that Brantley comments on are ones that are clearly variations from the original show. From reading his review, it seems to me like he really enjoyed the performance overall, regardless of these few things lacking in comparison.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 12:24am

Variety is Mostly Positive:

"When news emerged that "A Chorus Line" was returning to Broadway in a revival virtually identical to its 1975 debut production, the surrounding debate ranged from skepticism to cautious approval. Was it misguided to resurrect the iconic musical as a museum piece, or wise to acknowledge that Michael Bennett's superlative original staging couldn't be bettered? Was it too soon? Too dated? Those concerns are valid, but also immaterial. The thrill of discovery can never be repeated, and the legendary synergy of that first cast, many of whom were part of the development process, is lost forever. But this lovingly mounted replica gives ample evidence of what makes the show such a landmark.

For musical theater fans, "A Chorus Line" remains a transcendent experience, exposing the sweat beneath the spectacle, the human cogs that bring the machinery to life. Applying '70s-style group therapy principles in a then-revolutionary context, the show spins a line of dancers auditioning for a Broadway chorus into a universal metaphor for anyone struggling for recognition in a competitive world. Its stinging irony is that even as their individual hopes, dreams and vulnerabilities are explored, the dancers are being groomed to join an assembly line.

After 15 years on Broadway and countless regional, touring and international productions over the past three decades, "A Chorus Line" has fostered lots of warm memories in lots of folks, and the show provides emotional jolts of recognition that go beyond mere nostalgia. At certain key points -- when the cast turns away from the upstage mirror to face the audience for the first time in the opening dance combination; the high notes in "At the Ballet"; the ensemble coming in on the chorus of "What I Did for Love" -- a visceral charge can be felt coursing through the audience.

What's missing here is ownership. Reproducing Bennett's staging to the letter, original co-choreographer Bob Avian has assembled an appealing cast of accomplished singer-dancer-actors. But while everybody works hard, no one quite dazzles. That seems dictated not by any lack of talent but by the fundamental limitations of the production's approach. Fitting into the established contours of existing performances rarely generates the same sparks as creating them from scratch. The actors onstage feel like topnotch replacements rather than originators. It's the sense of duplication -- albeit lovingly executed -- that keeps the revival from soaring.

That the show is satisfying despite those constraints testifies to the strength and honesty of the material. Much has changed in the 31 years since its premiere, notably the prevalence of this type of confession in popular entertainment.
______________________________________________________________

Seeing Bennett's exhilarating dance sequences again, his choreography exactingly restaged by original cast member Baayork Lee, it's inevitable to note by comparison how poorly dance is integrated into most Broadway shows now. Inevitably in a musical conceived by a former gypsy and culled from the experience of those unsung ensemble members, movement informs almost every scene -- and it's only in a couple of draggy spoken scenes that the show's wrinkles work against it.
_______________________________________________________________

Vocally, the production mostly matches the original. This is one area in which the cast is allowed to put its own imprint on the material rather than simply carbon-copying the cast recording. Among standouts, Chryssie Whitehead as tone-deaf Kristine gives a daffy, distinctive take on "Sing!," while Mara Davi, with her sweet, sure voice and unguarded stage persona, does a gorgeous job on "At the Ballet." Also registering strongly is Jason Tam as Paul, who gets the show's most emotional passage as he relives the pain of growing up gay. Casting of Deidre Goodwin as brittle Sheila makes the traditionally white character into a more familiar proud black mistress of the quick retort, but Goodwin looks terrific and does imperious sass with flair.

The closest the ensemble piece has to a starring role is Cassie, the humbled former featured dancer looking to slip back into the chorus and negotiating the baggage of her history with Zach (played with crisp authority by Berresse). In her extended dance solo during "The Music and the Mirror," Charlotte d'Amboise doesn't surpass the memory of Donna McKechnie, who created the role, but her Cassie has a lovely, understated melancholy quality -- possibly informed by d'Amboise's professional history as a perennial replacement.

_______________________________________________________________

Whatever the merits or shortcomings of reproduction vs. reinvention, it's unquestionably a plus that "A Chorus Line" is now accessible to new generations of theatergoers. Whether or not the show sticks around another 15 years, its unique place in musical theater history and heartfelt insights into the dedication and sacrifice of its below-the-title workers make it deserving of a permanent home on Broadway."


http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931781?categoryid=33&cs=1

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 12:48am

I thought the reviews would be better than this,
but the show and especially the original choreography
should carry it.
I have not seen the new production but I hope it doesn't tain't my memories of the original.
Reproducing the costumes and poses of the original
just might do that.
Tough call.

[Eileen2]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 1:21am

I heard Jeffrey Lyons on the news tonight. He was very positive about the performance.

Eileen

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 1:23am

I don't think it has anything to do with the "Wicked" generation. This show could reach a whole new audience, but not when it's set in the 70s. I'm not saying they need to update it, but I just don't think recreating every single step is really going to win anyone over. I'm sure most of the teenyboppers couldn't care less who Michael Bennett is or was. I think the idea of recreating a musical down to the exact costums is kind of stupid. Look at the last couple of seasons with the revivals that did well: Sweeney and Pajama Game. Both were very successful and they both rethought a tired show. I for one am a fan of Sweeney now, more so when I saw the DVD. I'm sure there's a point somewhere in there...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 2:04am

Newark Star-Ledger is a Rave:

"Certain viewers (like middle-aged me) are likely to watch the new revival of "A Chorus Line" through a haze of sentiment about their own youthful experiences when this great American musical first hit Broadway so powerfully in 1975.

Others know the show from later in its 15-year run here, thousands of subsequent stagings elsewhere, or even the dismal film.

But plenty of younger people probably have never witnessed "A Chorus Line."

They're fortunate -- and so are the rest of us -- that the production that opened Thursday at the Schoenfeld Theatre is a faithful and altogether loving re-creation of the late Michael Bennett's masterpiece.

Welcome back, you beautiful thing.
________________________________________________________________

Anyway, "A Chorus Line" was truly state-of-the-art musical theater 30 years ago and remains pretty terrific today. (Musicals have evolved very little for the better over the years.) Lean and keen in its conciseness, the intermission-free show rolls along rapidly toward its high-kicking finale.
________________________________________________________________

In this era of mostly ironic, self-reverential musicals, perhaps the most breathtaking quality about "A Chorus Line" is its utter sincerity. That's really the most old-fashioned thing about the show and its characters. They did it for love. "



http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1160110846210210.xml&coll=1

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 2:11am

NY Sun is Positive:

"Can a sensation be just as singular as it was the last time?

The question arises, and is very nearly answered in the affirmative, in the crisp, energetic, mostly marvelous revival of "A Chorus Line," the lightning-in-a-bottle 1975 dance musical that pulled back the curtain on the struggles of Broadway gypsies and shot director-choreographer Michael Bennett, who died in 1987, into the highest echelons of Broadway royalty.

But a loyal coterie of "A Chorus Line" veterans have joined forces to create that rare breed of revival: a wholly faithful remounting that feels surprisingly new, one that pairs the superlative training of today's performers with the virtuosic, all-encompassing showmanship of a musical theater legend. Even when the material shows its age or when an occasional performance missteps, Bennett's sure-footed instincts shine through with crystalline precision.
________________________________________________________________

The cast includes a few vocal ringers: TonyYazbeck brings a plush tenor to the (considerably) more melodious half of the husband-wife duet "Sing!," and Mara Davi belts her way impressively through several passages, including the saddest of the three "At the Ballet" solo passages. Acting honors, meanwhile, go to Mr. Tam, who turns Paul's central monologue of shame and self-loathing into a gentle masterpiece, and Ms. Goodwin, whose Sheila masks any stabbing doubts with a tart, richly amusing defiance. Ms. Cortez's more timid approach to the fiery role of Morales, meanwhile, pays off, thanks to her intelligent acting and clear-as-a-bell vocals.

The only underwhelming portrayal, sadly, comes from Ms. d'Amboise. Cassie's anxiety is no less intense than that of the gypsies surrounding her, her terror of outliving her usefulness as a dancer no less palpable. And Ms. d'Amboise would probably make a superb Sheila. But Cassie needs to go further than that.

While Ms. d'Amboise's singing and acting make her eminently appropriate as a dancer gutting out a career — she herself has done it for more than 20 years — she lacks that indefinable star quality that would make her, as Zach repeatedly points out, no longer comfortable in the chorus. The raw sequence that culminates with "The Music and the Mirror" ignites only when Cassie's monologue and vocals have ended, allowing Ms. d'Amboise to translate her frustration and passion into stage-traversing leaps. It's sensational when it arrives, but it's not enough.
________________________________________________________________

These multiple sensations achieve a singularity that both unifies and erases them. It's a sobering idea that condemns the magic factory of Broadway even as it celebrates its delirious highs. Bennett may well have had several such epiphanies up his sleeve. We'll never know. But the reappearance of this one, even with a missed opportunity here and there, warrants a tipped top hat from any lover of musical theater."


http://www.nysun.com/article/41059

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 2:22am

Newsday is Mixed-to-Positive:

"For the gazillions who loved "A Chorus Line" on Broadway from 1975 until 1990, who adored it on the road and around the world, who laughed and cried and felt they had come of age with every confession that Michael Bennett culled from the lives of Broadway chorus dancers, this is the chance to hug one another all over again.

But those of us who admired the show more for its brains than its manipulative soaper heart: Prepare to be accused again of kicking puppies.

Is 16 years too soon to justify a full-blown nostalgia-fest for the Pulitzer Prize-winning phenomenon? Ask someone else, please. Bob Avian, protege of Bennett and co-choreographer of the original, has put together a tracing-paper revival that plays as if the long-running show had never stopped running.

This is good and not so good. We're delighted that no one decided to update references to Troy Donahue and Ed Sullivan to improve comprehension by desirable young demographics. On the other hand, the treatment of every step-kick as holy scripture brings the faint whiff of mothballs to memory lane.

To Avian's credit, he did not try to replicate the look of every member of the original gang of two dozen gypsies auditioning for just eight jobs in the chorus of a new Broadway show. But to our surprise, neither did he always match them in quality.
_______________________________________________________________

But the banality of the plot's psychodramas, especially in the two big scenes, have always left us wanting to rub Bennett's fingerprints off our sleeves. The gay confessional and abrupt punishment of Paul (played with deep sweetness by Jason Tam) suggests that mawkish works if you can dance it. The confrontation between director Zach (the appealing Michael Berresse) and his ex-lover, Cassie, would be laughed off a stage if this were a play instead of a dancing musical. ("Why did you leave me?" "You already left me!") But we get to watch the marvelous Charlotte d'Amboise and those beautiful little bones in her back go from floppy rag doll to jazz queen, then pull herself through a hole in her gut in "The Music and the Mirror." Won't someone please create a new musical for her?

Deidre Goodwin brings a fresh and flirty black-diva attitude to Sheila, the sophisticate who doesn't want to be called a "girl" but opens up to share "Everything Was Beautiful at the Ballet." Natalie Cortez amuses with "Nothing," the anthem against arty drama teachers. Most others are fine; a few are bland, even miscast."

http://www.newsday.com/features/printedition/ny-etledew4918668oct06,0,3619619.story

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 2:38am

I saw the show in New York in 1978. I was so blown away. By the time I saw it, correct me if I am wrong, it was not the entire original cast. But there I was, an aspiring actor hanging on every word. Wanting to study with Lee Strasberg. Having been in all of my school plays and about to attend a special school for the arts.

I have been reading all of the posts here from people who have seen the original and this new revival and people who have only seen the revival AND people who have only seen the original. My thoughts are that this show should hit anyone who loves the theatre. But how do you please everyone? Do you update it? Do kids who go into this revival set in the 70's relate to it? I feel that no matter what year it is set in, anyone should be able to connect. My thoughts are that this revival should have been cast with no names. New faces. People with no experience on Broadway, or being in the chorus of a show on or off Broadway. No, they didn't have to do the whole tape session thing, but give new people a chance. Maybe then the heart that I read is missing would be there. Just my opinion. I can't wait to see this revival because the show stuck with me back in the 70's and sticks with me to this day. I always wanted to be a Broadway actor and everytime I pop the CD in, it takes me back. Comforts me. I didn't become a Broadway actor, but I have A Chorus Line to look back on. And I guess that I think that even though those characters made it into the line, they may not have become big broadway stars either. And that is the reality of some of the "stars" of the original cast.

Just rambling. Sorry! But like many here, this show is close to the heart.

Also, it saddens me to think that shows are not reviewed on the actual opening night. (Something I forgot. Thanks Margo for the reminder!) I am sure that the atmosphere was electric in the theatre and could have affected the performances. I say, bring back actual opening night reviews. I don't think critics should have time to think about it for a week and be able to go back and compare shows to a show from the 50's or 60's. Tell me what you thought of what you saw on opening night. And if it is a revival and you saw the original, you should not need a week to think about comparisons!

Updated On: 10/6/06 at 02:38 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 3:59am

John Simon (of all people) is Mostly Positive:

"When ```A Chorus Line' premiered in 1975, it struck me as a great new musical with all the traditional virtues, plus some remarkable innovations. Thirty-one years later, in its first Broadway revival, the show is still terrific and utterly fresh.
________________________________________________________________

Michael Berresse acts and dances Zack compellingly, and Deidre Goodwin, as the oldest and most hardened of the girls, is close to a match for the original's stellar Kelly Bishop.

Jason Tam commendably resists oversentimentalizing Paul, the touching homosexual waif, and the other guys are good enough, without effacing memories of their prototypes. The trouble is with the women.

As Diana, the underprivileged Puerto Rican who comes into her own in the chorus, Natalie Gomez falls well short of the enchanting Priscilla Lopez. And Jessica Lee Goldyn cannot rival the adorable Pamela Blair as Val, who lacked certain frontal and rear endowments until she discovered plastic surgery.

Alisan Porter and Mara Davi, playing girls who escaped dreary existences as dedicated ballet-goers, are also less winning than their predecessors. Chryssie Whitehead, though soundly supported by Tony Yazbeck as her chorus-boy husband, shoots way over the top as the scared and overanxious Kristine.

But the greatest loss is in Charlotte d'Amboise's Cassie, Zack's former girlfriend who is back in New York desperate for work after flopping in Hollywood. Though an able actress and fine dancer, d'Amboise comes across too hard, where the original's Donna McKechnie was much more vulnerable and moving in her great solo, ``The Music and the Mirror.'

Yet ultimately none of this matters much.

With its ravishing score, engrossing book (you really care about who will make the final cut), superb scenic effects and riveting choreography, ``A Chorus Line' easily outclasses most recent and current hit musicals.

Tickets are hard to come by, but there are always hardy souls who, by determination and perseverance, manage to get them. The show is well worth whatever sacrifices are made for it."



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aHUUhxigv2PA&refer=muse

Updated On: 10/6/06 at 03:59 AM

[PersonofInterest]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 4:16am

I am STUNNED by Brantley's love of Goldyn. Absolutely stunned. I, for the most part, agreed with the rest of his review. I actually thought he was a little easy on the show.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 4:42am

Clive Barnes gives it Two-and-a-half stars:

"It certainly isn't the greatest musical of all time - but it held a particular place in the hearts of almost all who saw it, partly because of the originality of Bennett's idea and partly because of its theme of everyday effort, or as one of the chorus guys cries out: "I Can Do That!"

Though it closed 16 years ago after 6,137 performances, there are still plenty of people who didn't see it that first time around.

And it's probably these people, even more than those driven by nostalgia, to whom Bob Avian's resuscitation of "A Chorus Line," which opened last night at the Schoenfeld, will most appeal.

Avian was Bennett's co-choreographer, and assisted by original cast member Baayork Lee, he has produced what looks like a facsimile.

Bennett's concept - of chorus dancers, or "gypsies," auditioning for a job and, in the process, telling their life stories - is absolutely fantastic.

Brilliantly, he based the musical's book - eventually pulled together by James Kirkwood and Nicholas Dante - on the taped confessionals of a group of dancers, many of whom eventually appeared in the show. That in itself gave the original, to quote lyricist Edward Kleban, a very "singular" authenticity.

What comes off best now are a few individual performances and the Marvin Hamlisch score, which strides and swirls through the show as if it were memory's music box.

As Zach - the director doing the auditioning - Michael Berresse lacks authority, but Charlotte d'Amboise is a pure delight as Cassie, Zach's sometime lover and a one-time star seeking to reinvent her career by starting afresh in the chorus.

Avian, helped by the original design team of Robin Wagner (scenery), Theoni Aldredge (costumes) and Tharon Musser (lighting, here adapted by Natasha Katz), has done a pious job of all but embalming Bennett's creation.

What remains is a good reproduction of a great original. But if you've seen it before, you needn't run to see it again."


http://www.nypost.com/seven/10062006/entertainment/theater/embalming_fluidity_theater_clive_barnes.htm

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 4:45am

NY Daily News is Positive:

"Director Bob Avian, co-choreographer of that charter version, isn't out to radically remake the show - and that feels right. He virtually clones the original, looking to designers Robin Wagner (sets) and Theoni V. Aldredge (costumes) to redo their work on the first edition, and to Natasha Katz to adapt Tharon Musser's 1975 lighting scheme.

The musical doesn't pack the one-two wallop of innovation and discovery it once did. How could it? But for its 2 hours and 10 minutes, it is still addictively entertaining.

The choreography, restaged by Baayork Lee, the original Connie, thrills from the opening number, "I Hope I Get It," to the lyrical "At the Ballet" to the glittery gold finale, "One." The dancing shimmers with passion, precision and breathtaking beauty. There's nothing better. The score sounds fantastic, too.
_______________________________________________________________

The large ensemble cast is uneven, but there are standouts. As Cassie, the aging "star" who returns to the chorus, Charlotte d'Amboise, a seasoned stage pro, comes through in "The Music and the Mirror." Jason Tam, as Paul, mines a long-winded monologue about a troubled upbringing for deep emotions.

In their Broadway debuts, Jessica Lee Goldyn, as the cosmetically enhanced Val, puts a fresh, sassy spin on "Dance: Ten; Looks: Three," while Mara Davi, as Maggie, has the loveliest pipes in the house.

As long as "A Chorus Line" is kicking on Broadway, audiences have somewhere exciting to go."




http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/theater/story/458837p-386035c.html

[DG]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 5:33am

I couldn't care less what any of them have to say. Wild horses couldn't keep me from this production.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 5:39am

Wow. The later it got, the better the reviews were

[DG]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 5:43am

"The later it got, the better the reviews were"

I'm like that at bars and parties.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 8:36am

Rentboy, Did you really just call the orignal production of "Sweeney Todd" a tired show?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 8:42am

I was glad to see someone nail the soap operatic feeling of the Cassie/Zach romantic confrontation. It's not suprising to learn it doesn't update well. I always found their screeching at one another in this professional context embarrassingly awkward and out of sync with the more reality-based behavior in the rest of the show. Brantley's plea to give Zach a modicum of warmth (reality) strikes me as justifiable. He can come across as arch and Svengali-like in the wrong, ludicrous way. I feel sorry for Berresse, having to bark at a desperate woman on stage about moving out on him, etc. And Zach suddenly opening a vein, "I was directing my first play! If I could prove I could do a non-musical..."

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 8:53am

Not one review uses the word "lumpy." (Besides Margo's, that it.)

[folkyboy]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 9:22am

folkyboy gives it a RAVE

[Feathah]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 10:49am

I think comparisons to the original are, of course, inevitable. But it's unfair, too. The show ran for 16 years. Did the casts following the original during that long run capture the same feel? I'm sure they didn't. There are those times when the original cast of a show so embodies their roles because of their personal attachment to it and the effect cannot be matched by the casts that follow. I think most of the time that's the case when the role is being created by the actor from scratch. So how would it be possible for something as special and unique as ACL's original cast to be duplicated? It can't.

That said, the reviews overall seem very positive and mostly balanced. And they certainly won't deter me from going or anyone else eager to see it.