Hopes and Thoughts for West Side Story Revival

[esparza 333]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 3:50pm

The buzz gets bigger. Arthur Laurents is planning a high scale bilingual West Side Story performed by a "dream cast" as some would say. Mr. Laurents has announced many twists and turns to this classic and I bet many would agree that the biggest change is the bilingual lyrics. Sondheim is working with Lin Manuel-Miranda and I have one big hope. That is that they can add a spanish flair with exotic spanish lyrics but also preserve some of Sondheim's brilliant, poignant and masterful lyrics which are so simple yet poetic. My second hope is that the cast really delivers which is almost a given. The most interesting casting I saw is Karen Olivio as Anita. There is no doubt in my mind she will bring power, energy and a powerhouse voice to the role which could bring her raves since Anita is a showy role. I have a feeling dancing will also not be a problem for her at all. Also I hope this show can be this year's South Pacific re-envisioning a masterpiece in a even more brilliant way. i hope the massive scale does justice for the tone of the show and provides the spectacle that both Sunday and South Pacific did last year.

Your Thoughts?

Updated On: 11/3/08 at 03:50 PM

[Liza + Jesus = Patti]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:09pm

Me thinks they already made a mistake by choosing such crappy artwork...

the next mistake would be choosing to work with the writer of IN THE HEIGHTS. yuck.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:27pm

Whose "Dream cast" is it?

Only two members are names that only broadway insiders ever heard of.

But I did have a "dream" about Eric Hatch after BROADWAY BARES 2007. Updated On: 11/3/08 at 04:27 PM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:30pm

Plus... the crappy artwork is simply the original artwork for the 1961 film-version.

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:55pm

I get the feeling that Laurents doesn't really care about the visuals for his shows. While the current Gypsy is full of stunning performances, nothing asthetically about the show is stunning (including the logo). I have a feeling WSS will have the same problem.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 5:04pm

That's not true. Laurents' 1989 revival of Gypsy did not skimp out on sets and costumes. Check it out. There are a few things I have problems with (the large in apple the "Garden of Eden" sequence looks like cardboard) but overall, it's quite lovely visually.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 5:04pm

Double post.

Updated On: 11/3/08 at 05:04 PM

[Weez]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 6:24pm

I hope I can see it. I'm like the opposite of all you guys; the more casting news I hear, the more psyched I get for 'West Side Story', and the less I care about 'Guys & Dolls'. I need to be back in England for 28 February, and I want to catch 'In the Heights' before any sort of cast exodus. It might just end up not being do-able. XP

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 6:39pm

Lets see - it's the same Jerome Robbins choreography. It's the same casting idea - putting way too old people doing teenagers (Matt Cavenaugh is and looks 30). I'm not excited, nor will I be purchasing tickets - I have too many new shows Broadway, off broadway and off off broadway to see without seeing what sounds to be a typical revival(with the exception of some Spanish words thrown in)

[D2]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 6:47pm

Will Chino be a puppet?

[popular_elphie]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 6:48pm

I think the artwork should've been different. Although I love the movie poster, with the show being different than ever before, the artwork should be reflective of it.

Also, I wish that since they didn't go in the original direction of teenagers, the cast had been more of a "dream cast" of tried and true Broadway kids. I love Karen, Matt, Curtis, Mike Cannon, and especially Matthew Hydzik (who I'm hoping is a Tony understudy), there are a lot of others that would've been a great addition to the cast.

Does anyone have any more information on the ensemble? Are these primarily dancers, or just newbies to the Broadway scene?
Updated On: 11/3/08 at 06:48 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 7:45pm

I hope and pray that the dated and juvenile Jets dialogue doesn't sound as silly and "un-dangerous" as it did in the 1980 revival.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 8:01pm

Yeah, right on, daddy-o!

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 8:15pm

I'm thrilled, can't wait, and what is more exciting, I am taking my mom to see her. It'll be her first time in NY in almost a decade and her first time seeing a Broadway show. My grandfather got her into the film and the soundtrack when she was a young teenager, decades later she showed me the movie and got me into it, so now I get to take her to see the piece on Broadway directed by the guy who wrote the (dated) book. March can't get here soon enough.
And while I think the cast could have been a bit more exciting (who are these boys playing Riff and Bernardo? ), Karen Olivo is enough to make me pee my pants thinking about the show.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 8:18pm

I saw the 1980 Broadway revival 2 times and the 1961 film-version countless of times.

I'll pass on this revival.

Sorry, Arthur.

[bethnor]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 6:22pm

who are these boys playing Riff and Bernardo?

i'm sorta new at this, so i'll assume that's not a rhetorical question. cody has a profile as a gypsy of the month from a while back. probably his most noteable accomplishment was playing eddie in movin' out on tour, at the west end, and spelling for selya in the last few months of the show when the latter didn't go on. as a reminder, here's a clip of the OBC's performance at the tony's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfICBlPEMnE&feature=related

eddie (in red) of course here is selya. cody would have had to have been capable of all that, plus most everything else that's happening on stage, as he also covered for tony and james (with the understanding that tharp took liberties with the choreography depending on the individual abilities of her eddies). so at the worst he is a competent dancer (i think he is much much more than that, but YMMV). one suspects he got the idea to audition for riff from grover dale, who eyeballed him back when he was on TV and commented that he would make a good riff. so the main question is whether he can act and sing. apparently everyone in the cast was vetted by reps from Sondheim and family members of Bernstein's estate as wel as Laurents... so i can't imagine that his singing is *terrible*, but who knows?... there are clips of his work here and there but in the interests of not seeming like a shill i won't shove them down your throat.

i found some stuff on george akram on youtube, but nothing that showcases either his dancing or singing.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 06:22 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 6:39pm

I'm cautiously optimistic.

WSS is one of my fave musicals, and it's due for a revival. I'm glad I saw the London production 8 or so years ago which wasn't brilliant, but had great dancing and was a faithful recreation fo the original Jerome Robbins staging with original designs--just cuz I'm one of those traditionalists who loves being able to see the original stagings--and now that I have I'm ok with a new staging :P

Though I'm mixed on some ideas. It's using Robbins' original choreography which is probably wise, it's so iconic (more iconic than his Gypsy choreography which is always reused anyway). Laurents did a great job with Gypsy, but WSS is a *much* more stylized show and one who's whole momentum, scene changes, etc, is based around movement and choreography. It's a very very different animal and I'm sceptical Laurents can pull it off.

I'm also mixed--though intrigued--by his approach. Having the Spanish is interesting, but I go back on forth if it'll be an improvement. I guess I'll have to wait and see. WSS is such a stylized piece of musical theatre--I kinda wonder if making it more "realistic" will really work--including the language. Sondheim has said how he sees it as pretty poetic with the text being less important than the music beneath it and the staging (the true innovation he found in the piece).

Also Laurents gave SO much lip to casting people who were the exact right age, right nationalities, etc. I think maybe he will regret this--cuz so far he's not following his own guidelines. Which is his prerogative but--Cavanaugh is older than Larry Kert was in the original production. Laurents has also complained that Robbins cast, especially in the 80 revival, dancer who were too "faggy" as the Jets--I love Matt Cavanaugh (even if I never spell his name right), a friend of mine grew up friends with Cody and he's apparantly an awesome guy, and can dance, but I don't exactly see either as butch street guys... Again I think this is more Laurents sayign something he prob shouldn't have fully...

[bethnor]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 11:24pm

Laurents has also complained that Robbins cast, especially in the 80 revival, dancer who were too "faggy" as the Jets

i remember reading about that. there's nothing "waspish" about the way cody dances, and i haven't seen anyone give holbrook that label. i can't speak to the rest of the cast, but i honestly don't think that will be a problem. they all might be a little too "pretty" but there it is.

the age thing might rear its head, though. to me it seems like an attempt was made, and they just couldn't find the talent they needed within the age range who could do eight shows a week and just gave up. i mean, the casting announcement was ridiculously late with the current cast; if they were still hunting for younger i'd bet the farm they'd still be casting right now...

[??]

Posted: 11/5/08 at 4:30am

I really like how they are trying to update the show, make it current and new, while still keeping it's roots. A few things I think -

I think translating lyrics/lines into Spanish is a great idea. I think it will make the show a little more "earthy".

I agree some of the dialogue needs to be updated. Is the time period, 50's, really that important to the show? Could they give it a more modern touch?

Lastly, and I may be alone here, but I think Jerome Robbins making sure his choreography remained in every production was a stupid and self indulgent move. I would LOVE to see completely new, exciting, choreography, instead of the same tired old dance moves I've seen in every high school, community theatre, regional, and professional production ever put on earth. I mean seriously, why even bother buying a ticket to WSS or Fiddler? It's essentially the same show. Robbins insured that nothing new or exciting would ever be done. To bad, the possibilities would be amazing.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/5/08 at 5:51am

Bethnor--I definetly agree with your comments--I was playing Devil's Advocate, and I still think Laurents' words will haunt him to an extent--but I mean what Broadway cast isn't, relatively speaking, "pretty"

?? I'm of two minds about the choreography. I had read and heard that it was forced by his estate to remain in productions--but have been told this isn't true. but I do think--more often than not--when people have tried new takes on it, they still attempt the vocabulary of Robbins and you get a Sweet Charity revival situation--why make a bad Rich man's Frug when most fans know how brilliant the original Fosse was? Similarly can you imagine how daunting it is to make a brand new "Cool" and not use those classic arm and leg raises?

And like Charity you have a prob. Ken Mendalbaum said in his review of the revival how Charity was a musical spearheaded by Fosse. He wrote much of the original libretto before Simon got a stab, he came up with EVERY visual--it's not a musical being handed to a director/choreographer, the music was often shaped to his choreography and...

Frankly the same's true of West Side Story. So it's really a huge uphill battle to rechoreograph it--the same you'd have with Chorus Line and ahandful of other shows.

And of course it has to stay to the 50s--the music is modern and great but it's not modern 2008 music. Arthur Laurents oddly handicapped himself for future revivals--he created muchopf the slang of the original--with Sondheim--to sound timeless. To modern audiences it sounds like a dated attempt to recreate 50s slang but in reality little of it was actually base don any REAL slang, ironically.

[NY_Broadway2]

Posted: 11/5/08 at 8:31am

So are they translating all of the songs that the Puerto Ricans sing into Spanish or only certain ones? I like the idea of authenticity behind it but I would like to hear the original words written as well.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 11/5/08 at 9:24am

"especially Matthew Hydzik (who I'm hoping is a Tony understudy)"

If I'm not mistaken that's all he is. The Tony cover and not in the ensemble.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/5/08 at 11:33pm

only some of the songs

[bethnor]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 11:05am

Lastly, and I may be alone here, but I think Jerome Robbins making sure his choreography remained in every production was a stupid and self indulgent move.

that's sort of a slippery slope, isn't it? if you can change the choreography, why not a few songs, too? for that matter, why not contemporize the play for the 20th century? brahms composed his violin concerto in 1878--it's still the same piece it was over a century ago. but the power in it for artists is to take it and make it their own.

here's something folks might enjoy. grover dale put up a scrapbook of some of his stuff/pics from the original 1957 production:

http://www.joblog4dancers.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=102

frankly the current cast doesn't look too old by comparison at all.

[Jon]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 11:19am

You can't change the time period - unless you want to replace the switchblades with semi-automatic weapons.

And when was the last time you saw teenagers doing the mambo at a dance at the gym?

And when was the last time you saw gangs hanging out at the "drugstore", drinking cokes at the soda fountain?