Chicago vs A Chorus Line

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 8/25/03 at 6:30am

I always thought "Chicago" was a much better musical than " A Chorus Line" . It had a better score & I just enjoyed it more. A Chorus Line was a very good show but I thought Chicago was better. I know A Chorus Line has its supporters. I am a supporter of Chicago.

The floor is now open for discussion

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/25/03 at 6:47am

I'm kinda sick of CHICAGO.

A CHORUS LINE is taken for granted.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 8/25/03 at 7:30am

One of the problems with A Chorus Line is the much despised movie version that people who have not seen the original show just assume is what was on stage put on film. I am one of those people and I had no idea, until I looked further into it, just how much ground that show broke and how very very different the movie is.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/25/03 at 8:30am

A Chorus Line had a sense of reality to it, because those characters were taken (actually stolen) from the lives of real people. The theme of wanting to be chosen and belong is one that everyone feels. The opening where they are singing "I hope I Get it" is something that everyone feels. A Chorus Line was a reality musical.

Chicago was harder to identify with because it was set in an older era and the characters were more cartoons than reality. Who could identify with two murderesses put in jail?

[BillyLawlor]

Posted: 8/25/03 at 9:14am

I definitely don't take "A Chorus Line" for granted. It's one of my favorite musicals. I like it a lot more than Chicago. I like the music and story more for one, and everyone can relate to the characters. Don't get wrong, though. I do love Chicago. I just think "A Chorus Line" is Broadway's most universal musical.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 8/25/03 at 10:22am

Disagree with the word"stolen". I saw this when it was a work in progress @ Circle in the Square before the music was added. EVERY one knew what it was they were participating in and volunteered their story.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/25/03 at 11:12am

The dancers who gave their stories for "A Chorus Line" were tape recorded at a "jam" session. Many were unaware that the recording would be shaped into a show. They were hastily paid one dollar ($1) for sharing at the session. They did not have the money to hire a lawyer to get proper compensation for their material. Some were also led to believe that when the show took shape, that they would be playing themselves. Considering all the money that "A Chorus Line" has raked in over the years, I would consider that "stolen".

[sabrelady]

Posted: 8/25/03 at 12:55pm

While I cannot speak as to casting (tho why anyone would believe they would automatically play themselves in a show i find naive)dancers were invited to this recording session & were aware that it was with the plan of getting a show out of the stories. Many more peoples stories were recorded & not used. If you didn't want to have your story used ( $ or no$) why would u participate? This is not new, the original Tessie in Gypsy had her act used in the show & was never able to either get compensation or get he "bit" back. Entertainment is a shark infested field u dont wanna get bit- don't swim!

[CJR]

Posted: 8/25/03 at 11:13pm

I love both Chicago and A Chorus Line for different reasons. ACL was my first Broadway show... at the Shubert Theatre. While I don't remember a lot about it (I was 4 years old). The movie version though -- however horrible it is -- still remains one of my favorites. Then again, I am very partial because one of my best friends was in it.

Chicago, I love for many reasons. Though my love of it didn't REALLY begin till I saw the tour in 2000 (even though I had begged since the revival opened in 1996 to see it and loved the 1975 obc for as long as I can remember)... But seeing the passion and talent Rox and Trace (Roxane Carrasco and Tracy Shayne) posessed.... well I just instantly fell in love with the show. Then we became friends, and I keep seeing it to see various friends who come in and out of the company.... It's been an experience to say the least.

I don't remember a time in my house when both ACL and Chicago weren't played.

[alterego]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:21am

Chicago has aged a lot more gracefully than A Chorus Line.
ACL was of its time. At that time it was contemporary now it tends to look out of date, not quite old enough to be looked at as great work. If it was revived today in it's original shape I can't help but think it would look kind of "twee". Chicago by being set in another totally different era (ie the 20's), would seem to be a lot more accessible.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:24am

How can something of its time, which by definition is of a different era, look dated more than a show that is set in a different era? Seems like six of one, half a dozen ... or do you mean that ACL was created to look contemporary and Chicago was created to look back on an era? If so, the looking back is still the same, it's just that one was built in from the beginning.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:25am

'A Chorus Line' was absolutely lightning striking and, today, it can be hard to see the show and see what the big deal was. I'd HARDLY call it 'universal,' in fact it seems not necessarily dated, but completely closed off from the rest of the world. It's a show about theater for theater. Sure it captured the nation for a time but it can easily seem tired and pointless to people who weren't there. 'Chicago' is a much better written work and isn't so reliant on the intangibles of time to succeed. Should 'A Chorus Line' have won Best Musical then? At the time, absolutely. No question. But it's not surprising that 'Chicago' is seen more often as the better piece of theater.

[alterego]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:34am

JohnPoppa you said what I meant to say, thank you. ACL was red hot at the time it happened, today you look at it and wonder just what all the fuss was about. If you were to revive it you would have to do a bit of a rethink choreographically (is there such a word?) speaking. Some of the steps are just too 70's funky. I don't think you could do it as a period piece, do you?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:42am

BUT. Don't you think the fact that it was SO red hot is actually a reason people react against it more now? Sort of a retroactive backlash? I'm not sure I see evidence that more people do think Chicago is a better written work "nowadays."

[alterego]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:46am

Hmmm maybe. I loved it at the time. I just think that Chicago has aged better. Something I probably wouldn't have thought twenty five years ago.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:46am

I don't think it's backlash against ACL as much as people just not seeing (or understanding) what the big deal was. I don't think it's disliking something that's too popular, as much as I don't think the actual material holds up to the legend of the show.

I don't think there's any question that the actual written work in 'Chicago' is seen as more creatively substantial than 'A Chorus Line.' Really, there's no comparison. 'A Chorus Line' succeeds completely despite its writing, you can read 'Chicago' and understand why it's a popular show.

[alterego]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:57am

I've never heard of a backlash against ACL. I just think that Chicago today holds up better. ACL's original staging by today's standards is a little dated, whereas in 1976(?) it was revolutionary. I'd like to see a new production with a total rethink in regard to how to present it. OK maybe keep the original One choreography.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 10:50am

A Chorus Line is still a huge draw at theaters around the country.
...and yet I absolutely love CHICAGO.

Why cannot I just love both and call it adoration for two very different musicals that show why Broadway is the BEST?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 11:17am

There is absolutely no reason you cannot. I think the person who started this thread picked up on something I said in another thread about how when I was an immature theater-goer (and typical American with a "we're number 1!" team mentality that I EVENTUALLY outgrew) I felt that one had to pick one over the other. Not grasping the moral of the story, the person who started this thread began a "pick one" thread.

[etoile]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 11:31am

If anyone thinks A Chorus Line is just a show about theater for theater then they missed something.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 11:33am

"If anyone thinks A Chorus Line is just a show about theater for theater then they missed something. "

I completely agree and I'm the one that said it. But I never found any universal truths or resonances in the show.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 11:45am

I think one of the universal truths of the show is the need to belong to something. I think everyone at some point has felt "God, I hope I get it". Whether it be with a job or an apartment or whatever it is in life.

I think people can also identify with "What I Did For Love" (the way the stage show presents it, not the mess in the movie). When a person stops and thinks, "What do I have to give up to obtain the thing I love?"

[TEACHEROFTHEATER]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 3:07pm

I loved A Chorus Line and thought Chicago was great. But, not as wonderful as A Chorus LIne.

It was an exciting time in my youth when both shows were running. Chicago was referred to sometimes as A Chorus Line's evil twin. While A Chorus Line had heart and soul and warmth and tender cares for woes of the world--Chicago said "that's show biz kid."

I have a vivid memory that after seeing both of them for the SECOND time, it was indisputable that Chicago still seemed to be giving an opening night performance, while A Chorus Line seemed to be getting a bit weary.

Ultimately, I always found Chicago somewhat unfulfilling. It is a great display of showmanship with dazzling choreography and a magnificent score. However, the basic "story" of Chicago is about charachters that you don't tend to fall in love with or I don't think, really care a great deal about. The only kinda likable charachter in Chicago is Amos Hart..and you kinda feel sorry for him.

A Chorus Line is full of charachters we care about and indeed grow to love during the show. Cassie, Sheila, Diana, Paul etc...part of why we love the charachters in A Chorus Line is because they share their failures and dreams with us. That is one of the reasons A Chorus Line resonates for so many people....it is essentially about "people's dreams."

It was exciting when cast members went back and forth between the shows. Ann Reinking, haunting as Cassie, then adding a young spin to the part of Roxie Hart was particularly memorable. Years later, it was fun when 42nd Street's Peggy Sawyer, Wanda Richert, became Cassie in A Chorus Line.

When Chicago opened there was certainly more emphasis in the press on the two dancing legends starring in the show than the source material. I must say, if memory serves me correctly, during the original run, when it was still Gwen Verdon and Chita Rivera doing the finale, I am quite sure I was "more watching" the amazing Gwen and Chita deliver the brilliance of Bob Fosse, than I was watching a performance by Velma and Roxie. The lines seemed to be blurred. Perhaps it was intentional, perhaps it was just me.

Ultimately, I loved both shows, but if one is on top for me, it is A Chorus Line. After seeing A Chorus Line (you would not believe how many times I saw the original production) I often felt like I had been through a physical and emotional experience. It could feel draining.

Updated On: 8/26/03 at 03:07 PM

[BrdwyThtr]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:40pm

I'll have to say that I enjoy Chicago more. I have seen A Chorus Line and it just didn't strike me as exciting. I was always kinda bored from the show.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 4:43pm

Show or movie? If you saw the show, when and where?