BREAKING NEWS: A CHORUS LINE RETURNS TO BROADWAY 2006 — Page 3

*jumping up and down in excitement*

---

I really don't understand this business about "A Chorus Line" being "dated". EVERY revival is "dated". A show takes place at a particular time and it's usually stated, either in the program or during the play, what that time is.

Are we not to see shows that were written before the 80s or 90s or that take place during a time before that? If that is the case then 90% of what's playing on Broadway right now should close.

As for the movie version of "A Chorus Line" it was not just a bad transfer of a stage musical to a movie it was just a bad movie all around. I look forward to seeing this revival. If it's only 50% as good as the original it would still be better then some the crap that on Broadway right now.

---

All I'm saying is that I hope those who remember the original production fondly, and those too young to have ever seen it, but have heard countless stories over the years about it's greatness, aren't disappointed in the revival. I'm in a relationship with someone 20 years my junior. I've tried countless times to introduce him to shows and movies that I fell in love with way back when. It hasn't worked yet. The reason a show resonates with someone has so much to do with the time, the place, the setting, who you were with, what's going on in the world and in your life at the time, etc., etc. And then you spend years romanticizing it, and waxing sentimental over it. I've yet to see a revival of a show that I LOVED, I mean really LOVED, that I wasn't disappointed in. On the other hand, I've seen revivials of shows that I was luke warm about the first time around, that seemed to improve. And a few that even blew me away.

---

Updated On: 1/12/05 at 01:43 PM

I have to admit I'm still a little fuzzy on the 'dated' aspect of this show. Dancers still do cattle-call auditions, which can also be recognized by anyone universally who has had to 'put themselves on the line'. As Margo said, young people do still have to come out of the closet when it's not necessarily easy (and Ga, if your empathy is based on how someone's experience stacks up against yours like some kind of competition, then you don't have any.) People still have to deal with rejection and the loss of dreams. People still get plastic surgery to try to make it in the biz - even more so now. And the Rockettes still exist.

I fondly remember the original production. However, i'm hardly pleased. Why not find a NEW story that tells of a dancers pain? And even if it's a similar story, aren't there a million different ways to tell it? How disappointing. Fiddler, Sweet Charity, 12 Angry Men, A Normal Heart, Reckless, HurlyBurly, La Cage, A Chorus Line, blah, blah, blah.
My theater-going feels a lot like deja vu lately.

Signed,
Cranky Middie

---

Updated On: 1/12/05 at 02:24 PM

CurtainUp2, I fully understand your point but Paul and coming out but it is only one segment of the show. The majority of the show deals with the struggle of artists (singers, actors and dancers) and their quest to overcome whatever obstacles they face in life that keep them from their dream which is something that many people can relate to today. A bad singing voice or a not so great body or numerous other things that the dancers in the show have to deal with. I know that the world has been exposed to so much and Paul's monologue might not have the same impact on some as it did in the 70s but I would think that some kids will be just as moved about his personal story as some kids were when the original show played.

midtowngym, I'm at a loss as to what we do with great playwrights like Miller, Williams etc. Do we not produce and more Athol Fugard plays because apartheid is now over? Is there no room for theatre that some audiences have not seen before? Yes, it would be great to have new plays all of the time but you and I both know that is not going to happen and that there are people out there that never saw "Fiddler, Sweet Charity, 12 Angry Men, A Normal Heart, Reckless, HurlyBurly, La Cage, A Chorus Line, blah, blah, blah."

---

So what do we think? Melanie Grifith as Cassie? Wayne Brady as a dancer? Brooke Sheilds as a dancer? What about David Hasselhoff as the guy who sings, "I Can Do That?"

The Paul story is hardly the only story in ACL. And in fact, it's not really very historically accurate. The people who got gigs in The Jewel Box Revue were treated like kings, or queens, if you will. It was the sort of thing that gay dancers LOVED to get cast in, like the way Les Ballets des Trockadero is today. But Paul's monologue calls it "a real freakshow" and was taken directly from the life of Nicholas Dante, infused with his own internalized homophobia.

The details of the story are much less important than the emotions it calls up using the feelings of a person who has always made an effort to blend in ("who am I anyway?"), and what it's like to be put on the spot("what should I try to be?"), asked to reveal himself to another person("what am I gonna say when he calls on me?"), and feeling as if he will be personally shattered if he does so ("I don't wanna talk about this. Why do I have to talk about this?").

It's about the immediate pain, informed by past trauma. It's Zach's heretofore unseen humane raction to what Paul says that makes the moment so powerful.

And Curtain, in my professional life I often get to hear from young gay people (calm down GG3, I hear from them, I don't touch them), and one thing I hear consistently is how much they resent hearing from older people, even slightly older people, that they have it so much easier today.

---

Updated On: 1/12/05 at 03:23 PM

well, i think it's worth reviving just for the mere fact that its revival spawned this thread which is one of the most passionate and literate threads i'ver seen on the main board in quite some time. see folks, if they do good theatre or meaningful theatre on braodway, it will follow that we have interesting debates and thoughtful discussions here in broadwayworld.

i'm excited about this as my only recollection of the show was sitting in a college bar watching the closing festivities being covered on the news.

---

Can someone give me more info on what makes the movie such a travesty? Casting? Direction?

---

"Can someone give me more info on what makes the movie such a travesty? Casting? Direction?"

Yes... casting, direction, concept. Sir Dick decided to forgo any and all of Michael's original staging, which in itself is VERY cinematographic (he successfully used a lot of cinematographic techniques on stage). Some parts were awefully miscast. "What I Did For Love" is a love song from Cassie to Zach (blech!) whereas in the play is basically a love song from Morales to the theater/dance/performance (I can be not very eloquent at times... so I hope the points come across ok).

One of my biggest problems with the movie is the fact that in the play, you have these people on stage, and by the end, they're tired, sweaty, cranky, etc., where in the play it's all glossy and beautiful and they don't even have sweat stains. The feeling on having been at an audition for hours on end (we only see the last 2 hours of the audition in the play) is totally lost.

That's my opinion, in a nutshell.

They remake lots of old good movies, I don't know why someone doesn't remake a bad movie that should've and could've been amazing.

---

ohhh i always wanted to see this! i can't wait i full dance show!

i hope they have audition coverage on this site. unles the auditions already happened.

---