Chorus Line Revival- Page 2

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 11:04pm

I saw ACL again at the Papermill a few seasons back (the 8th or ninth time I've seen it since 1976) and let me tell you, Paul's monologue (where he talks about being fondled by dirty old men in movie houses on 42nd Street, becoming a "pony" in the Jewel Box Revue and his father telling the manager "Please take care of my son ...... and that was the first time he ever called me that .....") still has the power to completely devastate an audience. Everyone around me was weeping by the end of it.

Posted: 12/13/04 at 11:19pm

I only wish Robbins had put it in his contract that some of his earlier work would preserve his choreography (On the Town specifically), or Michael Bennett with his great great Tick Tock for Company, etc.


Actually this can cause problems--everyone I know who has seen the new Fiddler thinks his choreography doesn't work in the newly re-conceived production. And as brilliant as the original staging of West Side Story is I think it's getting a bit tired and needs something to revise it. Still I'm dreading the new Sweet Charity so who knows (but whoever said Fosse had it in his contract that his choreography had to be kept is wrong I think--Reinking's "inspired by" Chicago choreography is largely VERY different, as the recent TOny clip of the original All I Care About is Love will prve, and Pippin was staged in Australia and elsewhere with completley different choreography)

Avian choreographed the London production of FOllies--I always wondered, does anyone know how close it was in choreography to the Bennett original whcih Avian was assistant to, and I believe did a couple of the numbershimself (bolero D'Amour--simialr to how Robbins had his assistant do America for West Side Story, etc) or did Avian re-choreograph it?

E

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 11:23pm

When I said "Fosse's later work," I was referring to his choreography in Dancin and Big Deal (which probably won't be revived any time soon). Trust me, I know full well he didn't bother protecting his work in Chicago or Pippin.

Posted: 12/13/04 at 11:31pm

Too bad he didn't...

It does always raise the question--how important is the original staging to a work? Certainly with many shows (the Prince shows with Kander and Ebb and Sondheim) Prince, and with Company and especially Follies, Michael Bennett were there form the genesis and helped shape the original score and book--as did Boris Aronson with many of those shows.

It was apparantly Aronson who largely suggested the idea for the breakdown at the end of Follies, for example. So if these works were shaped by their original designs and direction--why isn't it vallid to keep those? (of course the same could be said of other classics--the Tennessee Williams/Elia Kazan/Jo Mielzener shows for instance, which Kazan really helped Williams rewrite)

E

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/13/04 at 11:41pm

But someone should protect the authors from themselves. In the mid-1990s the Donmar in London did Company. With that production of Company, they cut the Tick Tock Dance. This throws the balance of the show off. Of the three girls that sing "You Could Drive A Person Crazy", one does the butterfly monologue, one sings "Another Hundred People" and one does the Tick Tock Dance. Without that dance, the third girl has nothing to do solo.

Posted: 12/13/04 at 11:49pm

The Donmar Company is interesting but doesn't quite work for me (I have the video of the production that aired on BBC). However Mendes saw it as not a dance show so I guess Tick tock woulda been outa place. Apparantly Tick Tock *did* work in the 95 Broadway revival, which I don't really like on CD.

But I actually don't like all the book changes made to company to keep it modern. I thinkthe piece works best when set in 1970--the music has a dated sound to it even when re-orchestrated, as do the situations--and it loses a lot when taken out of the 1970s--plus I think msot of the book changes just aren't strong.

I'd kill to see that video fht eMichael Bennett original Tick tock in the NYPL archives.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 12:04am

I think the Donmar's acting of Company was excellent. I liked that the couples were different. I did not like the 95 production very much, but it was the Roundabout and I don't like anything they do. But Charlotte D'amboise was excellent in the Tick Tock Dance.

Eric, tell me something about the video. When I saw the Donmar production, the couple that have the kids, (where the toys were on the stage), I believe I remember a bit of business between the couple and I was wondering if it showed up on the video. The man jerks his hand toward the wife and she flinches. That slight bit of business led me to believe that there might be some domestic violence in their marriage. Did you ever catch that or have I confused that with another show?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 12:17am

Eric,

It's a great question (that I won't even attempt to full answer at this hour). In certain cases and with certain shows, I think that the original staging and/or choreography is at least as integral and vital to the overall show as the score and book (which, because of the Dramatist's Guild, cannot be altered one iota without permission). No one would ever suggest throwing out the score of a great classic musical and starting over, so why do people think nothing of tossing out the landmark choreography of works like Sweet Charity or Chicago?

The choreography in West Side Story illuminates character and advances the plot of the show as well as the book and the score and SHOULD BE protected -- Robbins work defines that show as much as the contributions of Bernstein, Laurents and Sondheim. The same is true of Bennett's work in A Chorus Line and Dreamgirls -- it's unfathomable that either work would be professionally staged without his contributions.

I don't think this is true for EVERY SHOW ever written, but in certain cases the director/choreographer's work is so integral and definitive that it should be preserved and recreated in much the same way you preserve the book and score of that work.

For those who argue that future directors and choreographers should always be able to reinterpret any older work, I strongly disagree. A generation ago, the elite directors -- the Robbins, Bennetts, Fosses, Princes, DeMilles, Kidds and Champions -- NEVER ever under any circumstances did revivals. EVER. That was for hacks and the second-tier directors who staged revivals (the few that happened prior to say 1970) at City Center and elsewhere. The real artists worked exclusively at creating and developing NEW works for the theatre, not just putting a "new spin" on old tried and true classics (which, frankly isn't all that hard to do).

Let Sam Mendes and David Leveaux and Robert Longbottom and Jerry Mitchell take a new piece of material -- a new book, a new score -- and craft a masterpiece out of it like the masters of the past did all of the time. Let them go out of town and have to figure out how to guide the book writer and composer through rewrites and changes, how to work out an overall look and feel for the show with the design team, how to create fully fleshed out characters and memorable showstopping stage moments with their principals and ensemble. Can they do it?

How many damn revivals can they trot out anyway? We don't need anymore "reinterpretations" of classics from the past. We've pretty much run the through the catalogue of recognizable hits from the past, so somebody better start creating entertaining, groundbreaking shows for now that maybe can be revived two decades from now or else Broadway is doomed. Let's have these overpaid, not very talented directors of today go out and do the hard work of creating something innovative for a change, instead of reviving something that already works, say Sweet Charity, tossing out the original incredible choreography and throwing in their own inferior work that's "in the style of" Fosse and acting at the end like they just did something. I'm not impressed.

Updated On: 12/23/04 at 12:17 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 7:30am

Very well said Margo. I agree wholeheartedly! You should type that up and send it in to The New York Times Op Ed Section.

Posted: 12/15/04 at 10:14pm

Gothanpm--that business IS in the Donmar Company video.

Agreed on the Roundabout revival (even though I'm more mixed on them than you are). Does anyone know if MTI rents BOTH versions of COmpany or just the revised one?

The Donmar version is really great for what it is--an acting focused new, small production but I don't think it shouldbe emulated by most future versions (if that makes ANY sense)

E

Posted: 12/15/04 at 10:21pm

Margo--wonderful post.

one thing that you didn't mention though and can be a problem is often the choreography, directing and even the scenery when "reconstructed" loses a lotof its freshness--due to muddied brains (I dunno how much Broadway choreography is preserved in notation), different memories, lack of talent by those reviving it etc. And you have the amateur prob--how would an amateur production of, say, WSS have the resources to find all the original choreography and staging?

I admit though there are new versions I like better than others. I thought Susan Stroman was a poor replacement of Agnes DeMille for Oklahoma--but I do love Kenneth McMillan's new dances for Carousel--for example.

But it's a good point--I was reading a book on the Tennessee WIlliams/Elia Kazan plays (Streetcar, Camino Royale, Cat and Sweet Bird of Youth) and it's so apparant that not only did Kazan help shape these plays--offering sugestions as soon as Tenn started writing--but so did the designer (Williams so loved Mielzener's Cat set that he rewrote huge chunks to take advantage)

I'ma huge ballet fan--recently the St Pertersburg Maryinsky Ballet (formerly the Kirov) remounted a re-creation of the original Petipa Sleeping Beauty with the original designs. It was revelatory in the ballet world because, from the old 1890 posed black and white pictures, etc peopel had assumed the massive original designs (done by a team of artists) were too heavy to dance in, too massive, etc etc. Yet when recreated on stage they all work wonderfully.

E

Posted: 12/16/04 at 2:20am

Chorus Line is one of my all time favorite shows. I would Love to see a revival. However, I feel like the original choreography would not be "impressive" enough for todays broadway. Dance has evolved so much since Chorus Line opened, and as brilliant as it is, compared to todays standards, it would not be up to par.

As far as castng goes, I would love for it to be a cast of Broadway chorus actors. People that REALLY understand the meaning of being in a shows ensamble. HOWEVER the role of Cassie is NOT supposed to fit in with the line. I would love for this one role to be cast with a has been broadway star. Exactly the way it was written.

I think the show would have to be set in the 70's as opposed to today. As much as I would love to see this show set in the present, the book is just too dated. It really just wouldnt work.

As far as costumes/sets are concearned. The set should be as simple as a white line painted across the stage, with mirrors in the back...dont see the argument there. The costumes need to be typical dance cloths. The only thing that MUST be the same is the finale.

I would love to see a Sam Mendes/Rob Marshall team direct and choreograph this show.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 2:23am

Exactly. SAM MENDES!

Posted: 12/16/04 at 3:59am

Dance technically may be more sophisticated now but I don't think anyone could top Bennett's original dances--certainly not Marshall. Look at how wonderfully audiences responded to Fosse which was made up of numbers that were for the most part from 77 (or whenever Dancin was) and before

E

Posted: 12/16/04 at 4:34am

Fosse was a different case. It was a show featuring the dance of a choreographer who was in his prime in the 70's and before. As an actor, I have performed in a production of ACL in which we did the original choroegraphy. It was very VERY simple to do. And while I hear Cssie's number is extremely hard to dance, it just doesnt LOOK that impressive. I alos dont see a need to revive the show if its going to be done exactly the same. Witht he same dances. I just dont see the point to that.

Posted: 12/16/04 at 4:47am

Well when people can't easily see the original production--no DVDs with it etc--I can see why that would appeal to people.

You're right much of it is pretty simple but this was on purpose wasn't it? there're quotes about it in Mendelbaum's great Bennett book.

You said older choreography doesn't hold up--I pointed out Fosse, and I'd add to that how extremely well the original West Side Story choreography goesover as couterarguments--or Agnes DeMille's Oklahoma choreography (which is technically much harder than Stroman's)

E

[TonyInATL]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 4:48am

Updated On: 1/17/05 at 04:48 AM

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 11:55am

Updating this show would be VERY difficult for many reasons, but mostly for something that happened to the theatre community after this show premiered: the spread of AIDS.

How can a show about Broadway dancers, which was created by people, some of whom died of AIDS, not address this disease?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 12:11pm

I think it's better to keep it set in the 1970's.

[cturtle]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 12:18pm

TONYATL, i also saw CHORUS LINE at the FABULOUS FOX years ago. don't know if it was the same production you saw or not. but it was one of the few performances i've ever seen that COMPLETELY cast its SPELL over me. i agree that if/when it is revived, they should stick as closely to the original as possible.

[morosco]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 2:34pm

Is Theoni V. Aldridge really all that busy these days? I thought she considered the recent revival of FOLLIES her retirement?

[OtherDaryl]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 3:10pm

As a dancer myself who's performed the original choreography (twice on matinee days), I can attest that it is not easy in any way. Perhaps, as steps alone, they can be mastered with repetition to a point where they are easily performed, but the great thing about this choreography is that it goes beyond the steps alone into character. The opening is the prime example - while everybody is performing the same steps, nobody is performing them in exactly the same way because they are at different points in the learning curve of the audition process. Except for the surreal version of One behind Zach and Cassie's confrentation, and the Finale, there is very little unison dancing in the piece. It is the cumulative effect if of these individuals that drives the physical aspects of the show.

The Music and the Mirror choreography is only unimpressive if performed unimpressively. At its best, and as performed by many women, it is awe-inspiring.

While a revival featuring the original choreography would be exciting and I'd buy a ticket, I've often thought a complete rethinking of that choreography and staging would be astonishing, though I don't know if it is at all feasable in a Broadway revival. I've seen local productions that work, but if not using the original choreography, they are then emulating it.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 3:14pm

I just saw Aldredge's work last weekend in DC at Arena Stage for Arthur Laurents' newly revised "Hallelujah Baby!" I'm not sure exactly how busy she is these days, but she's certainly not retired.

And I agree about The Music and The Mirror choreography being unimpressive only if it's danced unimpressively. You'd NEVER make that statement if you had seen Donna McKechnie (whom it was created for) or Ann Reinking or Pamela Sousa or several others do it. I saw both McKechnie (several times) and Reinking stop the show cold with that number (Bennett, incidentally, altered it slightly for Reinking when she joined the show to take advantage of her looooong ballet line and incredible extension). I've also seen mediocre dancers who didn't have the sharpness and athleticism and finesse that choreography demands come off very lackluster with that piece.

Updated On: 12/16/04 at 03:14 PM

Posted: 12/16/04 at 3:42pm

Also perfromed the show, and it defiently isnt easy choreography. It took alot of energy to do that show once, and double show days were extremely exhausting. I just still dont think it LOOKS impressive enough to the current Broadway audiences who seem to want more of a specticle. I think had Bennett had created the show today, his choreography wouold be incrediably different. Im just saying, I think for this show to be sucessful, I think its going to need to appeal to not only the Broadway crowd, but to tourists who pay 100 to see spectilce.

Posted: 12/16/04 at 3:42pm

dont anybody get me wrong, I love the show, and the Original Chroegraphy. I would just like to see the show taken to the next levle, and that inclcudes making the dancing more thrilling. Updated On: 12/16/04 at 03:42 PM