Chicago and A Chorus Line

[backwoodsbarbie]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 7:20pm

I wrote a post on my blog today about Chicago and A Chorus Line where I compared the success of each original production and revival in terms of TONY awards and length of its run.

http://backstagebarbie.blogspot.com/2010/08/fun-fact-of-day-chorus-line-and-chicago.html

I much prefer A Chorus Line to Chicago, but I'm wondering what the original production of Chicago's problems were? Also, this current Chicago revival has been wildly successful while the recent ACL revival had a relatively short run in comparison. I'd love to get a discussion going about these two original productions and their revivals!

[ACL2006]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 7:25pm

The only problem the original Chicago had was that it open two weeks after A Chorus Line did. ACL got all the buzz and Chicago got pushed aside. With the revivals, I have several reason why the ACL revival closed when it did that I'll keep to myself. The Chicago revival was restaged and reworked and got amazing reviews. Both are cheap to run, but Chicago is one of those long-running shows that tourist want to see. I guess ACL didn't have that factor.

[backwoodsbarbie]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 7:29pm

I never saw the original production of ACL but I saw the revival and loved it because I had nothing to compare it to. I would love to hear thoughts on the problems with the revival. Was it the casting? Is it too much of a period piece?

[once a month]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 7:36pm

I loved all four productions. A Chorus Line and Chicago were the reasons I became hopelessly addicted to Broadway Shows. Between the original productions and the recent revivals, I spent 10 unforgetable nights in the dark. I was terribly moved by the revival of ACL, probably for coming full circle in my life. The revival of Chicago was dazzlingly entertaining with both leading ladies captivating.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 7:38pm

I won't be the first (or the last) to note that Chicago's original run was ahead of its time. It was too dark, too sleazy and maybe echoed what was happening in NY at the time a little too much. I loved it then, but I can see why it didn't fly. Glad to see it had legs when it returned. A Chorus Line was a very different type of theater which hadn't really been seen before. I enjoyed the revival, but I'm not terribly surprised it didn't last. The things that were shocking then (plastic surgery, coming out stories, etc) seem almost quaint so many decades later.

Murder, greed and corruption a la Chicago will always be in fashion though. Nice blog. Good luck with it. You can, btw, add Michael Berresse to your roster of actors who have done both shows, along with d'Amboise, Reinking and Neuwirth. A little more so maybe, since he was the original Fred Casely (in the Chicago revival) and the original Zach (in the ACL revival). The others were replacements in one or the other.

Thanks for the blog link.
Updated On: 8/3/10 at 07:38 PM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 9:00pm

It's funny to hear people discuss the "problems" with the original production of Chicago. I don't know whether it closed at a loss or not, but it ran for just over two years, which in those days was really a very good run. Heck, there are plenty of shows now that don't even make it to their two year anniversary.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 9:00pm

I think there are many reasons why ACL got more attention in the original run.

Everyone could personally identify with the show. You didn't have to be a dancer. If you had ever been on a job interview, you knew the feeling of "God I Hope I Get It!" Chicago was a story that you sat back and watched, ACL was something that you experienced personally.

One was the context of the times. The US had just been through Watergate and all the media coverage of that and the trials. Some of the public's attitude was that they were weary of the media and trials and along comes Chicago, a musical about media and trials. Too much art imitating life.

Another was that ACL was such a different show. A musical where there was no star. That's a novel idea. As opposed to Chicago which had two stars. And then Gwen Verdon got sick and they upped the star wattage by bringing in Liza.

And ACL really made use of a new idea at the time: the television commercial. I still remember seeing Pam Blair during the commercial break at the 11:00 news singing "Orchestra and balcony, what they want is what you see" and thinking it had something to do with theater but I had no idea what.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 9:09pm

ACL2006 said this:

"Chicago is one of those long-running shows that tourists want to see. I guess ACL didn't have that factor."

which reminded me: Chicago is a show that you really don't have to understand the language for. You can follow the story without understanding English. I know that sounds silly, but when you're talking about long-running shows, that is absolutely a factor - and it's one ACL didn't have.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 10:47pm

^^^
But the original ran for 15 years.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 10:58pm

Sure, but I think (maybe I'm wrong) that there are far more non-English speaking tourists in NY from '97 to present than there were from '75-'90. Back then, the dollar was very strong but New York was in a bit of a downward spiral due to the recession and drugs. Pre-Disney and all that. It wasn't as easy or compelling a place for foreigners to visit.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 11:08pm

and before ALW can along with Cats, Phantom, Joseph.. & Evita; and even before Miss Saigon & Les Miz entered Broadway; A Chorus Line was still one of the best shows on Broadway in the 1980s. There really wasn't a large selection of good shows in the 1980s. And if Bennett & Joe Papp were still around; the show might of moved to a smaller house and could have ran longer(as stated in The Longest Line).

Really; outside of Phantom, Cats, Miss Saigon, Les Miz, 42nd Street & Dreamgirls; A Chorus Line was still a top 10 show to see for most of the 1980s.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 11:32pm

"And if Bennett & Joe Papp were still around; the show might of moved to a smaller house and could have ran longer(as stated in The Longest Line)."

Not the original. When the original was getting ready to close, Papp was asked why he didn't move the show to a smaller house and he said that would be like going backwards and he wouldn't do it.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 11:39pm

Sorry, probably should of looked at the book again before stating something. yes, for the original Joe Papp wanted to move the show to a smaller house to keep it running, but opted not too. Again, sorry about the wrong information.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 12:50am

I forget where i read it, but originally Bennett wanted it to move to 890 Broadway, but died before he could get that in place. (This was a while back, so it is entirely possible that I am mis-membering)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 8:30am

Michael Bennett had a lot of grand plans for 890, some of which would have been wonderful. But he was very grandiose and erratic toward the end. Besides, I don't think Joe Papp really wanted 890 to be competition for the Public.

In response to the OP, there are other threads about this on BWW if you search. The original Chicago was more difficult for audiences than the current revival. And A Chorus Line really was a miracle in the theater at that moment in time. It was one of those Zeitgeist things: It just captured the spirit of the nation. The original Chicago didn't.

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 8:42am

The revival of Chicago caught on because its timing was fortuitous. It came in the wake of the OJ trial, and getting away with murder was a relevant theme. It has since benefitted from the success of the movie, as well as stunt casting. As others have mentioned, the primary problem with the original was that it competed with ACL.

Regarding ACL, it is a show of the 70s. It's very specific to its time, and I think the revival failed to capture that. In some respects, the revival cast was 'too good'. In the 70s, auditioners for the chorus were primarily dancers, sometimes specialized dancers, and had to 'fake' singing & acting. That came across clearly in the original, but for the most part, the revival cast wasn't able to capture that desperation.

[CockeyedOptimist2]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 8:59am

I did not see either production originally, but have seen both of the revivals. From the sense I get of the original productions, it seems like Chicago actually reimagined the idea of the show and gave audiences more to see. Plus, with a run of 2 years vs. 15, not nearly as many people saw it. For A Chorus Line, I have heard that the revival was pretty much a carbon copy of the original, which so many people had seen its original run. I experienced ACL for the first time through the revival and it was simply wonderful, but my parents, who took me, had seen it in its original run and couldn't find anything new to enjoy.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 9:29am

Actually, Chicago's revival gave less, at least in terms of sets and costumes. Many on this board and elsewhere complained about the Encores-style bare-bones look of the revival (some still do).

You're right about ACL's revival being a slavish reproduction of the original. There were only the slightest of changes: Gregory Gardiner's costume was changed drastically, and Judy's and a few others were slightly modified - Bebe didn't wear the leg warmers, and Bobby didn't wear the ascot except for the night after Thommie Walsh died, when Ken Alan wore the ascot that Thommie had given him as a tribute to Thommie, for that night only. The lighting changed only a little, and a few more mirrors were added to MatM. There were a handful of cut lines, though none were added (I don't think).

Other than that, until Mario came in, no changes whatsoever were permitted. After Mario...well, the less said about that the better.

[backwoodsbarbie]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 9:38am

Does anybody know why Charlotte D'Amboise was nominated in the featured actress category for the revival when Donna McKechnie won in the leading actress category?

[bryan2]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 11:55am

I saw ACL in Boston a LLLLLLLLLllong time ago
Bebe Newirth and Gay Marshall were in it...I was so bored by it and it didnt grab me the way I was hoping it was a show I waited so long to see and was so pumped to see and when I did I did not get the hoopla...it seemed so melodramatic and I was tired of the "sad" stories by nights end
Chicago I had no interest in the revival it was a glorified concert and I did not want to waste my money...well I saw it in London and have seen it 6 times since...It was sexy and wonderful and inspired...so who knows why something grabs you and who knows why it works or doesnt for you it just does
ACL i think is brilliant ..even if i didnt enjoy it I think it is really dated though and is not current enough to keep people of this day entertained...

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 1:11pm

What changes WERE made for Mario Lopez?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 1:22pm

Oy, Mario. Give me a minute: I'll cut and paste from an earlier thread.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 1:29pm

Here it is, and yes, I'm quoting myself. Seemed silly to re-type it all:

"I completely agree that there's a big difference b/w stunt casting Chicago and ACL, which was one of many reasons why the casting of Lopez bothered me so much. The first big change was one of Alyce Gilbert's iconic costumes [I was wrong, btw. It was of course Theoni Aldredge - Alyce Gilbert was Wardrobe Mistress], specifically Zach's mustard tiger-striped, long sleeved sweater, changed to a short-sleeved, brown v-necked shirt, the better to show off Lopez's biceps and chest - but that wasn't enough. He also had them change Nick Adam's (Larry's) costume from the blue tank top to a long-sleeved hoodie almost any time when the two of them were side by side, so Nick's build wouldn't compete with his. He also had Nick re-staged to dance further upstage so the focus would be on him. Though, FWIW, that furor practically made Nick's career, shooting him right into the spotlight.

But that wasn't enough either. He wanted more stage time, so then you had Zach onstage just before Music and the Mirror, which for me, completely ruins the tension of the scene - Cassie, standing alone and vulnerable on Zach's line, while he fires questions at her from the darkness. It just didn't play the same way with him on stage. The most egregious of the changes, though, was at the end, during the finale. It was re-staged so that Mario/Zach took the point of the wedge instead of Paul, which took away the joy of Paul rejoining the line and the idea that no one was to stand out. It was changed for the sole purpose of highlighting Mario (your stunt cast), which to me, absolutely destroyed Bennett's concept of a chorus line where nobody's special (unless they all are), and nobody pulls your focus. Like blaxx said: "unacceptable".

And that's not to mention the time he left Paul sobbing onstage after his monologue because he was off someplace else. "

Bear in mind that up until Lopez came in, no changes of any kind were permitted. Actors got notes for the tiniest of infractions, like throwing a hat offstage as opposed to handing it off, or having their weight on the wrong leg.

the entire thread Updated On: 8/4/10 at 01:29 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 3:06pm

"Does anybody know why Charlotte D'Amboise was nominated in the featured actress category for the revival when Donna McKechnie won in the leading actress category?"

Donna was originally put in the lead category with the intent to get more ACL actresses nominated. Priscilla Lopez and Kelly Bishop were nominated in the Supporting Category. It was a gutsy thing to do because Donna was going up against Gwen Verdon and Chita Rivera. Priscilla and Kelly were going up against Patti LuPone (and we know what she's like when she doesn't get her Tony).

In the revival, the Best Actress category was already saturated with Christine Ebersole, Laura Bell Bundy, Audra McDonald, Debra Monk and Donna Murphy (with the exception of LBB, the rest are Broadway royalty). So Charlotte was placed in Supporting with the hope that it was an easier chance at winning.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 4:06pm

What Goth said. Personally, I think every role in ACL is a supporting one.

Just realized another crossover. Diedre Goodwin, originating Sheila in the ACL revival, was a replacement Velma in Chicago.