"A Chorus Line" SF Bay Newspaper Review Thread: SF Chronicle Rave- Page 4

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/5/06 at 3:24pm

Absolutely, Margo. I agree. It pretty much negates his entire review for me, because he lost all credibility trying to be pretentious about his familiarity with the show.

Personally, I WOULD like to know whether or not a critic has seen the Broadway or a touring production of ACL... only so I can understand their perspective going into it. Is it a potential nostalgia trip for them, or is this something completely new? I definitely don't want a bullsh*t answer though.

But whether or not they have seen it means nothing to me as far as the validity of the opinion.

I might even be more inclined to listen to the reaction of someone who hasn't seen a Bennett production of it before... just to see if it works TODAY on its own terms, with fresh eyes.

The biggest letdown for me would be for inexperienced audience members (the "new generation" if you will) coming out of the theatre wondering what the fuss was all about. I'm probably the most curious about that. It will be a good indication of what the future may hold for this show.

I'm far less concerned if it will be a fond trip down memory lane for everyone else (including myself).

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/5/06 at 4:08pm

Totally agree, Best12Bars. I always like knowing a critics' background when reading a review. Obviously, a Clive Barnes or a Michael Feingold who have been reviewing for decades are going to look at a revival differently than someone like Roma Torre or Jeremy McCarter (New York Magazine's new critic who's seems promising so far and he's maybe 30-ish). Critics have to start somewhere, and youth can be an advantage sometimes because they can bring a fresh perspective in evaluating a revival than an older critic perhaps can't.

Because I've been going to theatre for a while (relative to most members of this board) I know that it's difficult sometimes to completely erase the memory of an earlier production and resist making comparisons to it. There are masterful stagings I've seen from Robbins to Fosse to Bennett to Prince to Tune that I can still remember details of 30 years later, making it difficult at times to give a brand new staging of one of their works a completely fair evaluation.

It reminds me of the tremendous amount of discussion surrounding the revival of FOLLIES a few years back. Those who remembered the Prince/Bennett original were mostly very critical of the new production (some HATED it), while those of us who missed the original or were too young to have seen it were mostly satisfied with the revival. And I can understand. Many count the original as the greatest show they'd ever seen in a lifetime of theatregoing and it's hard to approach a slightly miscast, less opulent, less tightly staged, less dazzling version without being critical (even I who'd never seen it before was somewhat underwhelmed by a couple of numbers that I had heard blew the roof off the theatre in the original production, but had far less impact in the revival).

And you're right, I look forward to reading the impressions of this production from people who never saw ACL the first time around (on Broadway or a first rate major tour) and see if it has the impact on them in 2006 that it did on me and many others back in the 70s and 80s. So far, it seems like most of those experienced with the show are mostly satisfied with this production, while some newcomers are quibbling not just with this production, but with the material itself.

I'll also be very happy when the show gets here so I can form my own opinion.

Updated On: 8/5/06 at 04:08 PM

[Mike3]

Posted: 8/5/06 at 4:50pm

Point well taken, Best12bars.

In fact, upon further reflection, it would be enlightening to have a review from someone who can approach a show with fresh eyes and heart. In the case of this particular revival, and the show's history and importance, perhaps it would be helpful to have reviews from different perspectives.

I suppose I'm reacting to the first line of his review which tells us this production is a "sturdy revival which lacks nothing but the excitement of rediscovery."

You are correct that the validity of a critic's opinion does not rest on his or her experience of past productions. It's more a question of honesty. The opinion this critic chose to express lacks validity because he attempts to explore the way in which this show has (or has not) been rediscovered.

[Kent]

Posted: 8/5/06 at 4:57pm

Well, I think getting one's expectations too high can be a dangerous thing when it comes to theatre (or just about anything else for that matter...I'll never forget looking around the room at my high school senior prom and thinking..."hmmmm...I spent the last 4 months getting worked up over THIS.") In fact, there have been very few "hyped-to-death" plays, musical or movies that I felt actually lived up to the buzz. And I've found myself on more than one occasion wondering what all the fuss was about. Conversely, I've also found that negative buzz, bad reviews and lowered expectations can turn a so-so piece into quite an enjoyable evening. Sometimes I wonder wheather all of the pre-show buzz, message boards, etc., only add to the problem (and I'm CERTAINLY not one to point fingers given how much I've been voicing my very strong feelings about ACL lately).

But I also think anticipating a show can be a lot of fun. Sometimes as much fun as the show itself. The key for me is to go ahead and allow myself to get excited, but NOT go into the experience with a bunch of expectations. Expectations almost always lead to dissapointment. In fact, no matter how much good or bad buzz I've heard about a show I've learned to "have a little talk with myself" before the curtain goes up where I tell myself something like this: "OK, you're here. Relax. You've already bought the ticket. The money is spent. Just enjoy this for whatever it is. Even if this show totally blows, you can still have a good time if you let yourself. And hey, maybe it'll be incredible. But either way is just fine."

And if the show really DOES suck, I've found I can still turn it into an amazing experience if replay a little dialogue in my head I borrowed from "Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe." I look at the stage, then the audience, stage, audience, while thinking to myself, "This is soup. This is art. Soup. Art."

Works for me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/5/06 at 9:21pm

Kent---I know what you mean about expectations being too high. But have you ever walked into a show with incredibly high expectations, based on overwhelming fuss (either by critics, or awards, or the public's reaction, or all three) and been completely blown away by it yourself, regardless?

I have, although I agree that the setup is in place for great disappointment... I discovered that it isn't guaranteed disappointment, however. And one of the first times this happened for me was with the original production of "A Chorus Line." Everyone talked about it like it was the Second Coming. I went to the theatre (practically with physically folded arms) thinking, how could it possibly mean this much to so many people? And... miracle of miracles... I was not disappointed. It WAS a Second Coming of sorts for me. It (get ready for the big cliche) changed my life, in a sense that I decided to seriously give theatre a shot professionally. I wanted to be in that world on some level, directly because of my experience sitting in the audience of A Chorus Line.

Margo--I wouldn't want you to erase your incredible experience as a theatre-goer EVER. I value your reviews BECAUSE they come from you---someone who has seen (and and recall with ease) so many productions over the years of your (young!) life. That's why you're special. As much as I am very curious about the "newbies" seeing ACL for the first time, I'm very much looking forward to your take on this particular production. "Michael Bennett's" too. I know just how much this show means to you both. But at least I do know that you wouldn't misrepresent yourself in a review. If you'd never seen an original production of a given play, you'd TELL us so. You wouldn't start comparing a revival to an original production as if you'd seen both... unless you HAD in fact seen both. That's what was so wrong about the Variety review. Why go to such lengths to make the readers believe he'd seen it and approach the review as an audience member very familiar with the original production? Who cares??? Just be honest with who you are, and what you know going into the theatre, and I will take your review seriously.

Updated On: 8/5/06 at 09:21 PM

[jimnysf]

Posted: 8/6/06 at 2:49am

[Kent]

Posted: 8/6/06 at 12:16pm

"Have you ever walked into a show with incredibly high expectations...and been completely blown away by it yourself, regardless?"

Yes, but only a handful of times. And when it does happen I find the experience to be so powerful that it sticks with me for days and days. In fact, I never quite forget it. I literally feel altered after the show. My senses are heightened and I remember exactly how things looked, sounded and smelled - even outside the theatre.

Here is a short, probably near complete list of the theatrical experiences I'd put in this "near perfect" or at least "lived up to massive hype" category:

A CHORUS LINE (1984) - My first Broadway show (I'd already seen a lame touring version). The Broadway production was well into its run and the cast was far from perfect. Still, I was so moved I could barely get out of my seat afterwards.

DREAMGIRLS (1984) - Slightly flawed book and Jennifer Holliday was no longer in the cast. I saw her 2nd or 3rd replacement and she just didn't measure up. Still, the production itself was brilliant, especially Robin Wagner’s glorious skeletal ever-moving set and Theoni Aldrege's incredible, sumptuous costumes (probably my favorite of all time).

AN INSPECTOR CALLS (1994) Brilliant show. And perhaps the most powerful scenic design I've ever seen for a straight play.

THE PRODUCERS (2001) Not a brilliant or perfect show. But it did live up to the MASSIVE hype, at least for me. I was lucky enough to get tickets while the original cast was still in place. Laughed my ass off. In fact, I've never heard so much laughter from a single audience. (side note: I've also never experienced this show again in the same way. Saw a touring production and the movie - thought they were both flat to kinda sucky. I think the success of this show had a LOT to do with the chemistry of the original cast and tightness of the original production).

DOUBT (2005) Totally blew me away and restored my faith in the ability of Broadway theatre to be a relevant voice of our times. I'm not sure what other people got out of this show, especially those that didn't delve into the subtext. But just like Arthur Miller's CRUCIBLE ostensibly deals with the Salem witch trials, but is really about McCarthy era politics, I felt DOUBT was much more than a play about "is he or isn't he a pedophile." Underneath DOUBT is a vivid, infuriating and ultimately healing reflection of our current political landscape with its scare tactics, black and white thinking, bullying and inflexible sense of direction, as well as the healing that can emerge as individuals lose faith and began to "doubt" their social, political and spiritual institutions.







Updated On: 8/6/06 at 12:16 PM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 8/6/06 at 3:20pm

Interesting piece in the NY Times Arts Briefly about the Variety critic's review, and his mention about the spotlight for a missing "star" that he thought had been eradicated from the current revival. That paragraph apparently only ran in the online version of his review, and was quickly edited out, since it seems the critic was remembering an effect from a different production of Chorus Line he had seen in the '80s.

Here's the Arts Briefly item:

A ‘Chorus Line’ Erratum

When Variety’s review of the Broadway-bound revival of “A Chorus Line,” which opened this week at the Curran Theater in San Francisco, went online on Thursday, fanatical “Chorus Line”-ologists experienced a memory check. The critic, Dennis Harvey, called the show’s finale the “only notable departure” from the original 1975 Broadway production, which, he wrote, ended “with a spotlight tracing the invisible marquee star’s soft-shoe path, while the dancers, who’d knocked themselves out to get this far, smiled and sweated in the background.” The change, the review said, “feels like a heinous error.” Which was, in a sense, true. Because the shiny gold phalanx of dancers that ended this production was very much in the original. The mistake was quickly corrected online, and the offending sentences did not appear in the print edition of Daily Variety. But what happened? In an interview yesterday, Mr. Harvey, a freelance reviewer, said he recalled seeing a production in the early 1980’s, though he could not remember exactly where, which had the ending he described. “It made a very strong impression on me,” he said. “I assumed it was part of the original directorial intent, since it was so striking.” CAMPBELL ROBERTSON

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 8/6/06 at 8:11pm

We’re a couple of days behind on this, however, the reviews from the Broadway Bound production of A Chorus Line playing out of town previews in San Francisco are in. It sounds like it could be a great show.

Previously, we have written that we are looking forward to this particular revival even if the production is untimely. We are wishing this revival nothing but success, but if the show fails, the chattering klatches in the media will spin out a variety of worn-out theatrical philosophies that they are already trying out in their commentaries and in chat rooms. The ensuing debate, surrounding a failed production, will do nothing to commercially, intellectually, or artistically advance the discussion of Broadway in the 21st Century. A successful production with a glorious run could benefit another generation of theater goers, and like Gypsy before it, set a pattern of successful revivals to come, each of them fifteen to twenty years apart.


Read more.........
Reviews from SF: A Chorus Line

[PersonofInterest]

Posted: 9/4/06 at 9:29pm

So, it’s time for me to weigh in on the new Broadway production of A Chorus Line. I saw one of the final out-of-town performances in San Francisco on Friday, September 1st. First, let’s cover some logistics of the performance I saw. At this performance the role of Lois was played by Lyndy Franklin. And, the role of Mark, usually played by Paul McGill, was played by Mike Cannon and the role of Tom was played by Joey Dudding. I sat in the very front row, so my view of the formations wasn’t as good I would have liked.
Opening sequence. Fantastic. Thrilling, exciting and moving. Jason Tam was an immediate stand-out, right out of the gate. During I Hope I Get It he just, simply, caught my eye no matter what. Even managing to pull focus from the incredibly gifted Ken Alan. When it came time for his “Who am I anyway, am I my resume…” I was in total hysterics. Ugly cry. His dancing had such a pop and pizzazz and I was thrilled to see that he was able to balance that with a pure, human, vulnerability that is so necessary for the role of Paul. If you don’t believe that he not only NEEDS this job, he deserves this job, then the emotional climax of the show, What I Did For Love, has no purpose. Tam sets the audience up for their emotional journey through the line from the very second he steps on the boards. Michael Berresse does an outstanding job establishing himself as a stern, slave driver of a director from the beginning, but manages to infuse more heart in to the role of Zach than I ever imagined possible. This probably comes from the fact that Berresse is, essentially, the crown Prince of Broadway dancers and has a warm, passionate desire to cultivate dance culture for years to come. I Hope I Get It sets the tone needed for the show to kick-off the emotional rollercoaster of events that unfold in the following two hours, without an intermission. At the end of the number, true to form, the cast members take their places on the line, holding their headshots in front of their faces. One of the most goose-pimpling moments ever created in the musical theater, it holds up in this production and still has the same giddy, weepy, teary-mess effect on me it always has.
Before I go down the line, which I’m going to do, I will take a moment to address the costumes. First of all, I was so close I probably didn’t get a good feel of how they read further back in the theater, but they were definitely a little much for me. I could be completely wrong, but even in the Seventies I don’t think guys wore wool, long sleeved sweaters to auditions. I also noticed everyone had leather dance bags. That was very strange to me. Especially Sheila’s turquoise one.
Okay, so here we go. Down the line, stage right to stage left. I’m gonna break between Cassie and Sheila to talk about Zach.

Brad Anderson – Don
I loved him. I’ve always been a big fan of Brad. He’s such a masculine dancer and this role fit him like a glove. This role is really tough to play because he’s sort of the discarded character. No one ever really talks about Don because he’s so normal. His portion of Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love has never been on the recording, along with some others, and has never been a really resonate character because he’s just a guy’s guy, who happens to be a dancer, but he’s a family man above all else. Brad brought all of those things to life in his portrayal and was a definite, surprise, stand-out to me.

Mara Davi – Maggie
What a treat. She is in my top two performances in this production. At first I noticed some strange head placement, her eyes seemed to always be scowering the last row of the rear mezzanine, but then I deduced that was probably a Bennett thing. Mara’s dancing was beautiful and her acting was really simple, loving and heart-felt, but what won me over more than anything was the fact that this girl could really sing! Vocally she was outstanding. In addition to At The Ballet, Maggie has the most beautiful melodies in the show, all throughout, and Mara had a sweet, strong voice to deliver them. What an exciting Broadway debut for her. She’s gonna be around for a long time.

Jeffrey Schecter – Mike
At first I thought I wasn’t gonna like him. I’ve always though Mike should be a little more baby faced, naïve, even a little dim. Jeffrey has a strong New York face and was a little scrappy, but once he got in to his monologue I really liked him. I Can Do That is a tough number because it’s got a totally different tone than the rest of the show. It tells a narrative story, full of characters, and also is a tour-de-force of tap to have to do almost immediately out of I Hope I Get It. Jeffrey accomplished all of it. Endearing, believable and funny.

Yuka Takara – Connie
Yuka was delightful. So funny. I loved that she is also a little round. She’s not fat by any means, but she is definitely a little round in the gut. So cute. I got the distinct impression that Yuka tackled this role in a way that was unusual. Most Connie’s seem to fall back on the Asian-Americanness of her. Yuka definitely didn’t do that. Being Asian doesn’t make it hard to be a dancer, but being short does. Yuka made it very clear that her ethnicity wasn’t a problem, but her height sure was. I really loved that.

Michael Paternostro- Greg
At first, I really didn’t like him. He had very strange posturing. His head was held so far back it looked like his chest was in front of his chin. But as Greg relaxed on the line, so did Michael’s head. I have never noticed this in any productions before, but I have a sneaking suspicion it is one of Bennett’s little tricks. If anyone knows that to be fact, please let me know. Side note, Greg’s stage name is Greg Gardens. My roommate and I have deduced that it since the show was conceived in 1975, the same year the film Grey Gardens was released, and it must have been a period joke that definitely thrilled us!

Charlotte D’Amboise – Cassie
Okay, here we are. The woman I had been waiting months to see. Let me start by saying I’ve always been a fan of Charlotte’s. I loved her Roxie in Chicago and was thrilled when I heard about her casting as Cassie. Here is a woman who has been dancing on Broadway for eons. (Dance eons are much longer than normal human eons.) For as long as I can remember, the name Charlotte D’Amboise has been coupled with an “Oh God, I love her! When is she ever gonna get her big break!” or “When is some producer gonna be smart enough to let her open a show!” It almost happened last year with the Weislers and the whole Sweet Charity debacle, but again, it didn’t work out in her favor. So, that brings us to the line. The star of the line, is, always has been and always should be Cassie. And, if anyone working the boards today has had a life with any parallel to Cassie, it is Charlotte. Just like Cassie, Charlotte broke out too soon. Her name was bigger than her resume. Even today, I look at her bio and think” I shouldn’t know so much about someone with so few credits!” That is Cassie. That’s Cassie’s story and that is Charlotte’s story. But, I guess, Charlotte just didn’t get the memo. Okay, her dancing is amazing. Beautiful. But completely hollow. Cassie is dancing for her life up there during Music And The Mirror. Charlotte gave me the impression she had something better to do. If you believe for one second that Cassie thinks she is better than any one person in that line with her, she’s not Cassie. That’s what Charlotte did. She completely isolated herself. Elevated herself from the group and then, didn’t even earn the status in her big number. Her monologue had about as much pathos as a sack of potatoes. It was like Charlotte didn’t think she had anything in common with Cassie. There was no truth, there was no honesty. And, I hate to go from bad to worse, but vocally, she was frightening. She had so little support vocally that she actually shock, violently, when she was singing. It was so disastrously awkward and she made the strangest vowel sounds I question Patrick Vaccariello’s music direction. What are people telling this woman? Is Bob Avian telling her she has it? Is Marvin saying anything at all about who this character should be? It was so off that Charlotte, the world’s favorite understudy, should be worried about who is waiting in the wings for HER to break her foot. I wanted so badly to see that the rumors I was hearing about her were not true, but when she finished Music And The Mirror I applauded lightly and shed a tear because I knew, try as she might, she knew she just wasn’t gonna get it.

Michael Berresse – Zach
I have to start by saying something completely inappropriate. Michael Berresse has the best ass I have ever seen in my life. It’s completely perfect. Okay, that’s done. I love him. I am in love with him. His Zach was so fascinating to me. He managed to embody everything I have ever heard about Michael Bennett. He was able to accomplish the near impossible. A perfect combination of stern, steady, ferocious leader and warm, gentle, caring sympathetic camp counselor. The only place he fell flat was where anyone would. The scene between him and Cassie. Try as he might, there was no ping-pong between these two humans because Charlotte, once again, couldn’t deliver. He was trying to have a human interaction with a woman who chose to play a melodramatic cartoon. Put another Cassie across that stage and Berresse will knock it out of the park.

Deidre Goodwin- Sheila
Deidre is a force to be reckoned with. She puts a fresh spin on Sheila, but still delivers the attitude that makes the character legendary. Her body is quite possibly the eight wonder of the world. Her dancing is impeccable. Vocally, At the Ballet is difficult for Deidre. Anyone who saw her Velma Kelly knows the girl can sing, but this song sits funny in her voice. She manages to work her way through it by staying truthful. Even her sassiness is layered and the fact that she has built a protective shell around herself is clear from point A. Deidre built such a strong character that her last look up to Zach after she gets cut is so powerful I wanted to leap out of my seat and give her a standing ovation. For the first time, it was devastatingly clear to me that this was Sheila’s last stop. She was never gonna dance on Broadway again. Whether or not she will actually open that dance studio, I’m not sure, but Deidre made it very clear she was going home and not coming back. Absolutely, beautifully heart wrenching. Thank you Deidre.

Ken Alan – Bobby
I love Ken Alan. I saw him in Fosse an easy ten times. He is simply magnetic. He has such a maturity to him that really brought Bobby to life. I never knew Ken was so funny. His monologues where hysterical. And his dancing is phenomenal. He lived up to every expectation I have and that’s a lot considering he is in my top five favorite dancers of all time.

Alisan Porter – Bebe
I really didn’t think I was gonna like Alisan. But, she surprised me. She wasn’t an absolute stand-out to me, but she was very cute, just like Bebe should be. She had similar problems as Deidre vocally on At the Ballet but luckily they both had Mara Davi there to make-up for it all. I love the story about Alisan. I love that she was Curly Sue and I love that her Mom played Bebe in the original LA company of A Chorus Line. Knowing that about her adds an element of theater magic that is right up my alley!

Heather Parcells – Judy
My God this girl is annoying!! Now, I know that Judy is annoying and always has been but heaven help us! Heather was like nails on a chalk board. Not a single human moment. She was cartoony and fake the whole time. I have never understood why Judy gets the job anyway at the end, but especially with Heather in the role, it makes zero sense!

James T. Lane – Richie
For the most part, I really liked James interpretation of Richie. It’s was pretty classic Richie. Hyperactive, lovable, eager-to-please. All the things Richie should be. He sometimes came across a little feminine and had a tendency to overact. He was, however, engaging and entertaining.

Tony Yazbeck – Al
Thoroughly enjoyable. Masculine, sexy, funny, charming. I believed his relationship with Kristine. I believed that they were newlyweds. I believed that they would probably stay together for a long time, something I haven’t thought in previous productions. I believed he loved her. That’s the most important thing. If you don’t believe that then his interrupting in Sing! is just plain obnoxious.

Chryssie Whitehead – Kristine
This was one of the most simultaneously exciting and disappointing things about the show. Exciting because Chryssie Whitehead, out of left field, stepped out of line for her monologue and managed to make every millisecond completely her own. Then, proceeded to go into Sing!, which in my opinion has always been kind of forgettable, and make every second a surprise, while still honoring the original. It was nuanced, thought out, well-crafted and hilarious. An absolute show stealer. This was also disappointing because she was the only person who did it, for the most part. This is the kind of thing that should have been happening throughout the whole show, but more on that later. That gets into the crux of the show for me and I have some broader points to make on that subject.

Jessica Lee Goldyn – Val
Second only to Charlotte, the biggest disappointment of the show. Jessica’s interpretation of Val was no such thing. Not an interpretation at all, but an impression of the original. Outside of One, Dance: Ten; Looks: 3, is probably the most memorable song from A Chorus Line. Even at the performance I saw, general theater goers can’t help but laugh to themselves when the intro starts because EVERYBODY knows it. Jessica, and I hold Bob Avian responsible, chose to re-create a stale number. Sorry, but once you’ve seen the show, the gag is dead. Perfect opportunity to re-invent something. Instead, they made the decision to go with the same old jokes and gags and make the number the same old thing. Couldn’t even get a courtesy laugh out of me. Also, and I know this sounds awful, but she was a little chubby for Val. She had great boobs, sure, but her body itself was a little flabby. I like when Val has a perfectly toned, skinny physique with massive breasts and an ass like J. Lo. Just an aesthetic preference, I guess.

Mike Cannon – Mark
Obviously Mike was the understudy, but I quite liked him. I don’t know how much he’s gone on, but he seemed a little nervous. Mark is also a character that has always surprised me he got hired in the end. Zach and Larry are always correcting him, etc and then he gets the job. Always seemed weird to me. I don’t know anything about Paul McGill, who is actually playing the role, so jury is out on how Broadway will treat him.

Jason Tam – Paul
The star. Absolutely, unequivocally the star of the show. Jason’s honest, endearing portrayal of Paul is breathtaking. He is adorable, charismatic, heartbreaking, funny, moving, entrancing and charming. If this revival is a hit, it will certainly be in large part due to Tam’s presence. Paul is quite possibly the most difficult role for a man in musical theater. He has to be the best dancer on that stage, outside of Cassie. Vocally, he has to have a strong, sweet voice to carry the emotional journey and his monologue alone, center stage to Zach, is an incredibly difficult, personal hurtle to overcome. Jason Tam delivers the goods. Every second he is dancing on stage you can’t take your eyes off of him. He hits every emotional note throughout the show setting the audience and his fellow cast members up perfectly for the devastation of his injury. Without a solid Paul, What I Did for Love has no emotional resonance. With Paul’s injury, surgery and then a re-injury it is clear that Paul will never dance again. This was it. Tam’s presence is so powerful that even though he isn’t even on stage anymore, your heart is broken for him during What I Did for Love.

Natalie Cortez- Diana
This was a tough one and I flip-flop on it. I liked her. She was a great dancer and vocally I liked her a lot. Her acting left something to be desired, which is an interesting thing to say about someone who sings Nothing. But, kind of like D’Amboise, I felt she needed more life, more vitality. The girl has two incredibly emotionally charged numbers in the show and she kind of faked her way through them. The point of the song Nothing is not that Carp never taught her anything it is that he taught her everything. If Diana isn’t full enough to make you believe that she didn’t think she would ever be an actress then you have no character. Priscilla Lopez, the real Diana, is an incredibly dynamic, fascinating actress. Natalie just slightly misses the boat, but not enough for me to dislike her completely. She just didn’t have the heart.

That seems to be the overriding problem with the show. Lack of heart. Lack of honesty. There are exceptions, like Tam, Davi, Whitehead and Goodwin, but the classics, the former star characters like Cassie, Val and Diana, are left hollow and unimpressive. How I feel about the revival is this. I’m glad it’s happening and I think it will be fairly well-received by audiences and get a decent run. The concept itself is a little lacking. I would have made one very subtle but drastic change. Michael Bennett choreographed specific gestures for all of the characters throughout the show, most of which are pretty basic and natural. But, for some reason, Richie and Bebe have very specific, very elaborate Bennett gestures that are awkward to try and fit in to a natural, honest performance. Bebe spends a lot of time with her fingers on her chin like she’s in deep thought. Nobody actually does that in real life. Richie has a lot of jerky gestures that are hard to work in to a subtle performance. The biggest on of these Bennettisms doesn’t belong to either of these characters, but to Bobby. In Bobby’s monologue, when he says “As I got older I kept getting stranger and stranger, I used to go down to this busy intersection near my house rush hour and direct traffic.” He outstretches his hands, palms out, one at a time and then twists his body side to side. It’s very bizarre to me and I’ve never understood why Bennett felt he needed things like this in the show. I guess in 1975 theater was so dramatically different that it was hard to trust that audiences where capable of being happy with simply human beings on stage behaving like human beings. In 2006, Broadway audiences are smarter. They can handle a production of Sweeney Todd where there is no linear design and the characters play instruments for no apparent reason. They don’t need things spelled out for them with elaborate gestures. If I where mounting a revival of A Chorus Line I would do the following things. I would not touch one stitch of Bennett’s dance choreography. I would, however, eliminate all theatrical gestures and poses, except for the classic base poses in the line, those are infamous and have to stay. I would then encourage each and every actor, ala Chryssie Whitehead, to re-invent their characters from within themselves. The only thing that is off-limits is impressions and mockery. Simple as that. Subtle nuances that make the revival fresh and interesting. October 5th, opening night, is approaching quickly and I wish them luck and I encourage everyone to see the show. Try to catch D’Amboise’s understudy, if you can. I know I’m going to. One more thing and then I’m done.

What I Did For Love, the emotional center of the show, was the most interesting thing for me to see. Natalie Cortez stood in the center as she sang about the question Michael Berresse just asked them. “What if you could never dance again?” Jason Tam has just left the stage, devastatingly but his spirit is still out there. The music swells and the cast sings in unison, one of the most beautiful songs ever written, and I scower the stage searching the faces of these people for honesty and truth. I didn’t find it in D’Amboise or Goldyn. I saw hints of it on the faces of Alan and Davi. Porter had tears running down her face but they didn’t seem organic to me. And then it happened. I caught a glimpse of Deidre Goodwin, just left of center stage, trying to hold it together with one single tear running down her right cheek and in that moment I saw A Chorus Line.

[Mirth]

Posted: 9/5/06 at 12:02am

Beautiful review, PersonofInterest. I'm gonna read it again!