A chorus line film...

[my2cents]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 12:17pm

Okay, I am sorry. I know beat a dead horse. ANd that there is a similar thread asking about best/worst films but With Rent being released this week, and some of the early reviews/articles mentioning the film version of A chorus line, and the fact that it is on logo as I type, I was wondering how do you think the movie should have been cast, shot, choreogrpahed etc to make it a better movie. I had never seen the show when the movie came out so had nothing at all to compare it to then. I am especially interested in the thought of some of our older posters opinions.

ps also what about when you looked forward to other shows like grease, annie, lil shop etc.. and what were your thoughts.

[pab]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 12:20pm

First problem was getting Richard Attenborough to direct.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 12:22pm

"A Chorus Line" should have been filmed "live" in an empty theatre with a 3-5 camera set-up.

It should have had ALL of the original Michael Bennett staging and choreography.

It should have had performers that could SING... and act, as well as dance.

They should have left the setting in 1975.

They should have kept us in the theatre, even if it began to feel claustrophobic (as many auditions do), and NOT try to open it up by cutting away to anything.

They should have hired a servicable director that "got the point" and not hand it to someone visionary. The vision is there already in the material and in the original staging.

Updated On: 11/20/05 at 12:22 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 1:47pm

In order to try and recreate the electricity and excitement of a real audition for the film medium, Michael Bennett's idea was to make the plot about the casting of "A Chorus Line -- The Movie" and have it open with the performers auditioning for the parts of Mike, Diana, Greg, Sheila, Connie, Maggie etc......... so it would have been a film within a film within a play. I think it's a brilliant concept. Not sure if it would have worked completely, but then one must never underestimate a genius like Michael Bennett. Unfortunately, Bennett dropped out of the project before filming began -- too much interference and need for the higher-ups' approval on too many things, so he walked -- so we'll never know what he might have come up with.

Updated On: 11/21/05 at 01:47 PM

[my2cents]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 1:53pm

Thanks. I am learning a lot. ANd thanks margo I was hoping you would post.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 2:04pm

Margo--I think that would have been a great idea if they could have pulled that off the right way.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 2:16pm

Margo---That's fascinating. Honestly, though, that isn't actually "A Chorus Line," it's "The Making of 'A Chorus Line.'" An entirely different movie there, not an actual adaptation of the stage show.

If that was his intent, to do it as a documentary (or faux-documentary), we would never have bought the words the auditioners say in the show as "real," if we knew all along they were just playing roles. Those stories would be lost and trivialized. Reduced to scripted lines on a page. Not to mention the cross-cutting would have pulled us out of the play's story every time. Just as it did in the Attenborough attempt.

However, Bennett was a visionary... He probably had more up his sleeve than that... and as you said, we'll never know what it might have been.

Updated On: 11/20/05 at 02:16 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 2:46pm

I think the issue he recognized was that it was impossible to fully recreate the experience of seeing A Chorus Line live at the Shubert Theatre for the film medium. The show was unique on stage because it broke the 4th wall and was (the first?) documentary style musical, showing actors AS actors speaking dialogue and singing songs which were created using the actual words of actors (many of whom were in the show) -- it was as close as a full-fledged musical could get to theatre "verite." To simply film that would rob the experience of its immediacy and impose an artificiality on it that Bennett wanted to avoid, which is why he came up with the idea of making it about an audition for A Chorus Line -- The Movie. I'm not sure how far he wanted to go with the concept -- would he film it on partially on tape and create a realistic-looking documentary of the process? And I'm not sure how he would have gotten into the actual musical with the songs and dances (would he switch back and forth between the show on stage and the documentary of the auditioners performing the show or what that have gotten too complicated?). I don't know, but, I think Bennett's concept is a thousand times better than what Attenborough came up with.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 2:58pm

Filming it in drag with an all Islandic cast would have been a better concept than the movie Attenborough cranked out.

I think the closest we could get to the immediacy and impact of the stage show would be the live 3-5 film camera set-up, filmed very documentary style. No "bells and whistles."

However, that said, Bennett himself directed the Lincoln Center archival video tape of the OBC. He had a 3-5 camera set up for that (he insisted upon it), and he supervised the final editing as well. So, perhaps even THAT wasn't good enough or close enough to capturing the original for him.

Posted: 11/20/05 at 3:48pm

I re-watched the Chorus Line movie recently after years, and I was very surprised that they had cut my favorite song "The Music & The Mirror" and inserted something else into that scene. What a bright idea (not) !

[CJR]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 3:49pm

You're right. This *has* been beaten to death.

Couldnt you have just searched and bumped an old thread?

[my2cents]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 4:11pm

NO CJR cause I searched and didn't like what I found. Why the hell did you post if you didn't like the topic. Get off the cross someone else needs the wood.




Updated On: 11/21/05 at 04:11 PM

[justagirl2]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 4:14pm

Let's just say that I loved the music from A Chorus Line long before I saw the movie (I've never had a chance to see the show). I still love it, but it was a damn bad first impression of the show as a whole.

[CJR]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 4:58pm

You say that like it's supposed to hurt me or something....

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Just because you hate someone I happen to like doesnt mean Im going to be offended, hurt and dismayed.

Im sure there's some performer, somewhere, that you like and I cannot stand.

In any event, for the record, I liked the movie. It's campy and horrible but so is the 'sequel' to Rocky Horror and I liked that as well.

And yes, I did see ACL on Broadway as a comparison.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 5:29pm

This isn't a "like" or "dislike" the movie thread.

This is a "how would you make it better if you could" thread. Some people aren't reading the initial posting AT ALL before they start their predictable cracks.

A waste of time and energy.

[FosseBoi]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 5:49pm

May I thread jack for a second? THERES A "ROCKY HORROR" SEQUAL!? SOmeone tell me about this!

WHy has the archival video never been released? Is the quality not good enough?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 5:55pm

SHOCK TREATMENT is the ROCKY HORROR sequel (which is pretty mediocre if you ask me):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083067/

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 5:58pm

Hi, FosseBoi---

Question 1) Yes, it's called "Shock Treatment." It's pretty dreadful. (Link with info below.)

Question 2) There have been several recent threads about this, but the Lincoln Center Archives are not for public use or commercial consumption. They are a way of preserving live theatre for educational & informational purposes only. And Michael Bennett's estate won't even let the Tony Award clips be released for the Broadway's Lost Treasures DVD series. It basically has to do with preserving the integrity of the show and its memory as intended by only seeing it in the theatre, etc. They would never allow the Chorus Line archival tape to be released. And even if they did, A Chorus Line is a unique show, in that all of its original participants receive royalties and residuals because of their involvement in the creation of the story and characters. Bennett set that up himself. It would be a costly nightmare trying to get a green light from everyone involved.

EDIT: Margo beat me to the link.

Updated On: 11/20/05 at 05:58 PM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 6:04pm

How could anyone capture the excitement and thrill I had when I saw an unknown musical called A CHORUS LINE when it was playing at the Public Theater on Lafayette Street? I had no idea what the show was about and the program was done on dittoed paper. It broke down so many aspects of the traditional musical and created an electricity that could never have been captured on film.

[FosseBoi]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 6:05pm

Thank you! I understand why they cant realease it, but I REALLY wish they would! I just did this show and it is now one of my all time favs.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 6:10pm

Having seen the movie first, then seeing A Chorus Line on Broadway just before the end of it's run, I can honestly say that the movie was far superior (sp) to what i saw on stage.

Having heard so much about this landmark musical, the night i went the performers seemed like they did not want to be there, it was like crap we have to do this again.

For me the movie was everything i had hoped the stage version would be.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 6:12pm

Dollypop--- What an incredible experience!! To walk into this show "cold" knowing nothing about it. I can't even imagine what that must have been like.

It blew me completely away when I saw it, and I already knew every number in it.

You're so lucky!

[my2cents]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 6:55pm

Dolly that is such a cool thing. I actually walked into Rent much the same way, and looking back I am amazed how I was able to not know of all the hype and press etc..

Thanks again to all that posted. The rent movie jsut really got me curious about A chorus line and the similarities. Both movies came out some 10 years after original show, questionable director (for the peice), pulitzer, etc..

I have just always wondered what it was like to be a fan of grease and/or a chorus line and to hear about the movie and what was it like to then see the final product.
Updated On: 11/20/05 at 06:55 PM

[CJR]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:25pm

The actors and actresses in the movie weren't even happy about what very little justice (if any at all) it gave the show.

Alysson Reed was terribly miscast as Cassie and one of the biggest flaws in the movie was playing up Cassie and Zach's romance, thus making it a very integral part of the story. As you all know, a story of lost and found love was not the intenion Michael Bennett had.

The editing was also horrible.

Rosscoe, I'm sorry that you had a bad experience seeing it live.... It really was a magnificent show.

[overthemoon419]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 12:36am

I think the added details of the Zach/Cassie relationship were a big detriment to the movie. Not only was I not interested, I was frustrated when the greater plot was paused so Cassie could make a phone call or hail a cab. The only perk was the mini-highlight of Terrence Mann.

Also, the song changes-- "What I Did for Love" is and will always be Morales's song to me, and hearing Cassie sing it gave it a twist that didn't advance the plot or touch me the same way it does when Morales sings it. Taking away "Music and the Mirror", which is in every way Cassie's song, made it harder for me to understand her character-- sure, there are similarities between the two pieces, but they are very different and I believe that it's not only the song and the delivery but also the character that truly give a piece meaning.