Arthur Laurents Pity Thread- Page 4

[A Director]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 6:04pm

How sad Mr. Laurents didn't like the New York article. To borrow on of his quotes from the article, "What Laurents calls mean, other people call telling the truth unguardedly."

As for the comment, "bordering on the psychotic," that's a perfect way to describe Laurents. It took him 52 years to get back at Robbins for West Side Story. Laurents is still going on about how Oscar Hammerstein ruined the end of Gypsy. He claims he doesn't live in the past. Ha Ha Ha!

The other day I read a comment by Sondheim about the Spanish in the current WSS. He said that the Spanish and English speaking Sharks make the Jets look dumb.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 6:32pm

I guess I'm confused about why Laurents had it in for Robbins. Is there a reason?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 8:04pm

The Spanish and the English speak Sharks?
Updated On: 5/6/09 at 08:04 PM

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 8:32pm

Ok i just watched the clip from the movie.

The *only* difference I noticed was that in Arthur's current version, the curtain falls when Maria says "te adoro, Anton" and then is crying over his dead body.

In the movie, the jets try to lift Tony's body and they can't lift it and then when he starts to fall, one of the Sharks grabs the body and helps carry him out (i guess signifying that maybe someday the gangs will stop feuding).

It seems to me like it would work better on stage...but I don't think leaving it out is such a tragedy like some have complained about.

How does this tie in to the changes they made in the ballet?

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:05pm

That *only* difference makes all the difference in the world. It provides a feeling of hope and a poetic closure to the violence. It is not the only difference. ALL the Sharks and the Jets are present not just three. All get witness what their hatred has done.
I seriously thought when I saw the revival that they missed a beat and lowered the curtain too quickly to cover some mistake. Instead of sitting for a moment with a quiet moment of reflecting on the scene, I was sitting there going "WTF? That really sucked!"

[beltingbaritone]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:43pm

I've seen the film, and love it. In this production, I thought the ending was more about Tony and Maria and their tragic end. It was even darker, which applealed to the cynic in me. But those were just my personal feelings after seeing it.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:45pm

sorry, snafu, i just don't get why people are so upset about the "new" ending. it should not be that big of a deal.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:53pm

It lacks emotion, much like the entire production.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:55pm

It was one of themost souless productions I'd ever seen of WSS.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:56pm

Same here dramamama

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 9:56pm

Same here dramamama

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 10:05pm

Basically, WAT, anything that reflected Jerry Robbins's imagination was excised from this production.

Arthur always resented the fact that in addition to the famous "Jerome Robbins Box" that contained Robbins's billing and made it seem larger and more important than the writers' billing--Entire Production Directed and Choreographed by Jerome Robbins"--Robbins's attorney, Floria Lasky, negotiated an additional billing: "Based on a Conception of Jerome Robbins," along with which he would receive a portion of the writers' royalties.

To Arthur, this diminished the contribution of the bookwriter in a way that, obviously, it did not diminish the contributions of the composer or the lyricist.

The truth of the matter is that Robbins's contribution as director WAS that of a co-creator, more so on West Side than, perhaps, on any other American musical other than A Chorus Line. But Arthur always felt that Robbins received praise and credit for contributions that were Arthur's.

There were also political and sexual rivalries and unresolvable anger between the two men. Read any of the biographies and you'll see that as great as these men (including Bernstein) were, they could also be petty and nasty and meaner than you can imagine. Add in the issues of 1950s and '60s closeted homosexuality and naming names and the McCarthy era, and you've got the stuff of high drama.

So, basically, when given the chance to direct this production, Arthur decided to remove all traces of Jerry Robbins. And anything he could NOT remove, he would nullify and weaken: hence, the things you've been hearing people object to: the truncated ballet, the un-poetic finale and casting an Anita who is (insultingly to previous Anitas) an "actress" and not "just a dancer."

Arthur's goal was realized. No one walks away from this production whistling Jerome Robbins. And if they do, they've only seen a fraction of his genius.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 10:05 PM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:04pm

I printed this once before, but I think it deserves a repeat in this thread:

From the Charles Strouse memoir;
PUT ON A HAPPY FACE:

"There were further disquieting signs, one of which happened when I arrived at Arthur's house on St. Luke's Place one afternoon. As Arthur opened the door, he was giggling-barely able to suppress his laughter, as though he'd just heard the funniest joke in the world.
'What's so funny?' I asked.
Once he was able to stop chuckling. he said,
'Tony Perkins has AIDS'"

I would guess this has something to do with Grover Dale.
Updated On: 5/6/09 at 11:04 PM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:06pm

I remember there being a thread about that, CurtainPullDowner, but I forget what the story was.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:09pm

PJ, can I ask how you knew Arthur and what you worked with him on? I find your stories about him hilarious and really fascinating to be quite honest.

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:16pm

He was Arthur Laurent's gofer for the 1980 revival of WSS.
Updated On: 5/6/09 at 11:16 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:25pm

Why do you keep repeating that I was his "gofer"? That's just not true.

[roseaddams]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:27pm

Then why not tell us what you did do for the 1980 revival? Don't bitch about misinformation running around if you don't want to bother to correct it.

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 11:27 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:42pm

It's all in these two old threads and others:

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=862675&boardid=1

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardid=1&boardname=bway&thread=988010#3752194

BLT III - clip from 1980 WEST SIDE STORY Revival

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 11:42 PM

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 5/6/09 at 11:46pm

Tell people, who do not know, what a "book director" is.

Then, maybe, they will stop posting as though they are ignorant.

Please.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 12:46am

Good! I'm glad he didn't get a nomination! What did he do to this production that was good exactly? He made crappy casting decisions and crappy directing choices? I was bored out of my mind throughout the entire show and felt so disconnected from everything. And god, that set was awful. So what's there to cry about?

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 7:45am

'The other, possibly even more personal snub is to 91-year-old director Arthur Laurents, who failed to secure a nomination for Best Direction of a Musical (again, it was Rock of Ages that caused the upset, with its director Kristin Hanggi, being the surprise nominee). According to Riedel, ?Broadway insiders speculate that he was done in by Jesse Green?s New York magazine profile. Green harped on Laurents? reputation as a nasty showbiz crocodile that chews up its friends.? (It is indeed compelling reading: while Sam Mendes, who has been savaged by the crocodile for his own production of Gypsy, discreetly declines to answer back in the feature - ?I do not wish to comment on Arthur Laurents, despite the many opportunities recently afforded me? - another former friend, Mary Rodgers, is considerably more waspish, simply replying: ?Call me back when he?s dead.?)'

The Stage
7th May 2009

[philcrosby]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 10:18am

PalJoey, your analysis of Laurents' approach to this current revival is spot-on, confirmed by others involved with the original production as well.

The reason that others defend this current production is that the material is just so damned good, even this production outshines so much of what is currently on Broadway. I mean, even a mediocre high school production would cause people to shed a tear or two.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 11:16am

WAT, I thought I explained why one little change makes such a difference with the whole tragedies-have-to-something-good-come-out-of-it paragraph. That's why it makes such a difference to me.

"How does this tie in to the changes they made in the ballet?"

Bear with me, I'll try to explain how I think it does. PJ knows the exact movements/directions better than I do, so please feel free to add or correct.

Okay, let's first focus on the ballet/finale in the original production. "I will take you away..." starts, and it goes on like it does in this production...they keep running to try to find their special place, their "Somewhere," then they finally find it and the offstage opera singer sings "Somewhere." Now, this is effective as it reflects feelings more than actual words, and adds to the fantasy aspect of everyone getting along. Then the song ends, and all the Sharks & Jets minus Riff & Graziella and Bernardo & Anita hold hands (I think) and sing in perfect unison: "There's a place for us, there's a place for us." It's beautiful.

Then Riff & Bernardo walk on stage and something changes. The note that everyone's been singing in unison (E) starts the nightmare off, but it's played sharper with more of an edge. The music keeps going back to this E as it transfers more to the nightmare, just making everything feel so united. Forgive me, I'll try not to dwell too much on the score -- very hard for me. Okay, so they begin to walk on, and the notes get slower, uglier, louder, more staccato, accented...until they bring out the knives and suddenly we're completely in the sixteenth notes of the Nightmare.

At this point, the Rumble plays itself out just as it did with in the first act. Tony & Maria try to stop it, try to remain together, but they get carried away. The Nightmare music turns into the Rumble in the Nightmare key. Tony & Maria reach out for each other, but they are too far away, and carried off.

They wake up back in Maria's bedroom. "Hold my hand and we're halfway there..." They desperately cling onto each other, and they, to an extent, and the audience, realize there's no way they can be together in this world. The hate is too big and powerful for their love. They cling to each other because they are clinging to a weakened hope.

Now, to the finale. The nightmare foreshadows the finale in that the hate was too powerful for their love, and Tony dies. Resinging "Somewhere" represents the small hope, even though Tony is dying. Then comes Maria's speech, etc. But when the Sharks help to carry Tony off, the hope is able to live on. Even though Tony died, the love lives on, and through sacrifice, their love has overcome the hate.

And I can't resist adding -- the music (which is, thank goodness exactly the same) just contributes so much -- it's mainly Somewhere, the theme of hope, combined with "I Have A Love," the theme of love equaling life, and then the "Somewhere" melody mainly ends the show, except the bass sneaks in with a slightly ugly note, which is a tritone, that kind of illustrates the ambiguity of it all. There's still plenty of hate, and it's a tragedy, and the last note comes on as the adults look hopeless on stage.


Okay, now let's get to this production. Back to the ballet. So the Take You Away and the Schirzo is, I think, fairly similar. But then the kid comes on to sing Somewhere...the best explanation I've heard is that the kid represents innocence...but our major themes here are love & hate, where does innocence fit in? The kid representing hope? Kind of negates itself when the kid watches them fight. And it like makes the whole sequence...seem like it's too real? Like if it's supposed to this whole fantasy, why are they thinking about a little kid? And we see the person singing...it's just weird.

And it just ends with "Somewhere." There's a place for us Somewhere. Yay, we've figured that out. Now let's go to bed...umm, what? The whole point of the hatred overpowering love is gone. Their lingering hope & desperation are gone. It just makes it kind of pointless.

And now we get to the finale. And yes, it is once again shown that hate has overpowered love. The end. The "Somewhere" theme becomes one of...something that can never be...there's no small hope because the gangs don't unite to carry Tony's body off.

It just creates a bit of pointlessness to WSS that was never in any production.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/7/09 at 11:43am

You're spot-on right, Wicked.

And within those sections that Arthur and Joey cut out, there were moments of breathtaking physical poetry, Robbins movements perfectly coordinated with the Bernstein music that told the story without words.

Like the moment in the Nightmare when Tony and Maria are pulled apart, or the moment I described before, when Tony's arm drops.

But there was a storytelling rhythm, going from nightmare to dream to nightmare, which Robbins created with Bernstein not Laurents, that made the show so moving.

That's the crime here: Arthur resented that the nonverbal storytelling was more emotional than the words of his book, so he used this revival to destroy that beauty.

Simply because it wasn't his.