Chess - London vs Broadway

Each plot has its own advantages, but neither are truly the best. The problem is, the story is too high-brow. The idea of a story about people's relationships set against an international chess match, which would at the same time illustrate and illuminate the Cold War's East/West conflict, tries to cover too many bases at once, and aside from the love triangle, I'd argue it's pretty much only entertaining to intellectuals.

Tim Rice actually has some very high-brow ideas in all of his shows, but his work with Andrew Lloyd Webber made them far more accessible because ALW was the romantic to TR's cynic and paired TR's intellectual and complicated ideas (if not always Sondheim-level lyrics, and they often weren't) with a simplistic, familiar sounding style of score that made it palatable to the ears of audiences (director Jim Sharman has pointed this out, and TR himself has said their respective outlooks are because "I had too much love as a child and Andrew had too little"). Without ALW, and with the composers of ABBA on their first musical, there were bound to be issues like this. The hit singles like "One Night in Bangkok," "I Know Him So Well," and "Someone Else's Story" proved Benny, Bjorn, and Tim were still on the mark as pop songwriters, but that was about all Chess had going for it.

What also works against it is that the plot is trying to be more about the two opponents than the show's actual protagonist: Florence. No matter the version, everything in the actual plot happens to -- or because of -- her. But the show almost never makes her central to the proceedings in any version, trying to make you care about the American or Russian chess player. Unless and until someone tries a rewrite that puts Florence at the focus, it's not going to work.

---

Updated On: 6/10/13 at 03:24 PM

Easily the Broadway version. It's not perfect, but every time they try to stage the Brit version its an incoherent mess with a faulty structure and impossible book. At least Richard Nelson tried to do something with the characters, and used the inherent irony the story offered.

The Broadway book is pretty good for all the reasons you guys state, but at the same time, it's not the perfect direction for the show.

Here's what it did clear up: it got rid of the silly split-match format in the London book (the original plot-line, such as it was, involved not one, but two, matches -- one between the American and the Russian, and one between the Russian and a new Russian opponent). As a fundamental matter of dramatic principle, the split-match format is the key weakness of the London show. For their flaws (all of them have second-act problems), the later variations have a much greater coherency, which stems from the fact that the single chess match acts as a framing event for the dramatic action.

Broadway also got to the first chess match in considerably less time than London, shortening the overloaded introductory segment, particularly with the cuts made after opening night. It even managed to have a very coherent plot through-line in the second act. Compared to the European and Australian versions, which tend to simply throw a bunch of songs at the dramatic problems in Act II, this is in itself significant.

But it got a lot wrong, too. There is a self-serious ponderousness to much of Nelson's drab, dull, and sometimes tasteless dialogue, and the attempts at variation, such as the "fart joke" Freddie gives in the top of the first act, are rarely funny and tend to cheapen the characters. There is a genuine nasty streak to the principals in Nelson's version of Chess as well: Freddie is a caricature of himself, and one is barely able to struggle to make him a realistic human being; Walter is unthinkably despicable and almost manages to rehabilitate Molokov by comparison; even Florence and Anatoly come off as insufferable. Svetlana, in a microscopic part, is the only one who comes out well (particularly in her scene in Act Two with Anatoly and Molokov, which is one moment/element I really like); the Arbiter is ridiculous yet somehow also inconsequential. Nelson's characters are thoroughly drawn, but unfortunately are written in such a way that the audience doesn't end up liking any of them.

The most obvious flaw is that much of the second act material, and particularly the ending, are downright repellent. Of the last four scenes, only the one that consists almost entirely of "Endgame" is watchable. (In its context, "Pity the Child" in particular is physically uncomfortable to sit through.) Then there's the scene where Florence meets her father, the one with the Hungarian lullaby? Given that this old man is very clearly the actor who played her father in the prologue, the "twist" is notoriously difficult for audiences to forgive. The harsh ending, where Florence and Walter yell at each other and each give a short, yet trite, speech before the unfortunate "Anthem (Reprise)" finale, does not sell this well, and sends an audience home drained after a musical that is too long, too heavy, and too generally misanthropic.

Nelson's show is unrelenting in its negativity. Romance, ambition, childhood dreams, political idealism, and just plain human decency have to be systematically crushed by the overwhelming, invincible and uncaring machines of state. I am not one to be in the least bit idealistic about the state, but still, the Broadway Chess is a difficult, bitter pill to swallow. The whole piece can only be enjoyed despite itself.

And while a good cast can in fact overcome a number of these weaknesses, the fact is that the Broadway cast was downright excellent and still failed.

---

Updated On: 6/10/13 at 06:41 PM

I feel like none of the characters are particularly likable, though I've felt for Svetlana in some productions. The hope for me would be to find a version in which Florence was relatable and more central to the action.

It's too bad we never got to see what Bennett had planned.

One thing to keep in mind--something I didn't realize for a long time is that the concept album doesn't directly reflect the London stage show. For example The Story of Chess was cut down and moved to the front (I always wondered if on stage they got away with having such a long, non-plot based number at the very end of the show.)

I have to add that in Community Theater (London version) they kept in the ballet, which was awkward. It is very interesting to hear the comments about the broadway version, since I thoroughly enjoyed the production at CCM. I found all the characters sympathetic and their actions reasonable to the events. I always wonder what changes the director made to make that impression on me, or is it just me?

I saw a student production of "Parade" that had none of the problems I heard discribed about the broadway production and assumed it was a combination of the director/actors that adapted perfectly or maybe I see things differently than others.

Recommended viewing: the OBC of CHESS at the Lincoln Center Library. No, the show isn't good. Yes, the book is a mess, but David Carroll and especially Judy Kuhn were absolutely amazing. I think it does probably require an actress of Kuhn's extreme vulnerability to make Florence sympathetic, but Judy Kuhn's final moment - singing a reprise of "Anthem" completely broken was thrilling and heartbreaking.

I have nothing really to add to this, except this thread is one of the reason I come to this site. Great insights around .

---

I thought London version is pretty perfect. Bennett's choreography and staging was stunning. Korberg and Page were perfect as well.

Luckily, you don't have to go to Lincoln Center Archive to see the OBC of Chess. Wink...nod...

I still don't get that weird revolving set. It looked like that cave where Catwoman fell down the chasm in the old Batman TV series.

the concept album had huge holes in the plot which needed to be resolved dramatically for the show to play coherently in the theatre. This was not accomplished in either the London or Broadway productions for a variety of reasons, and the many revisions made over the years by various directors and writers has led to much confusion. Rice has made clear which version he now prefers, and surely that should be respected.

We also can't put all the blame on the book. Some of the songs, as glorious as most of them are, kinda screw themselves dramatically. And there is also a contradictory quality. Within a couple days Florence sings of Anatoly that she "knows him so well" and then claims "maybe its best to love a stranger, well that's what I've done...".