Hopes and Thoughts for West Side Story Revival- Page 2

[??]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 12:11pm

Bethnor,

Point taken. I see it this way though. If you are to change the 1878 concierto, well what you have is a completely different song. If you were to update WSS's choreography, you still have the same show, but new and revitalized. When Doyle completely revamped Sweeney Todd, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that it was still Sweeney Todd. Just something new and excting.

For a not so great example, when they updated "A Little Less Conversation" we still had the King, but a new, modern, and exciting version. I can't believe I just compared A Little Less Conversation to West Side Story and Bach, but there you have it!

And to be honest, keeping choreography because it stylizes or defines the show, I have no problem with it. Lot's of things in lots of shows are kept traditional. I just think Robbins took it to far. Have you ever seen the choreography for Fiddler, I'm sure you have! He literally has it down to the finger snaps! Let's have some room to breath!

With all that being said, I agree with whomever pointed out that WSS wouldn't be WSS without those iconic arm and leg raises. I agree 100%, but why can't we incorporate them into something new?


Either way, I am excited for this revival.

[Milli]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 12:17pm

I guess you can't win. My daughter played Maria twice in regional theaters, and the critics said the cast looked "too young". She was 17 and 18 at the time. Of course, what was Natalie Wood, like 30?? They are SUPPOSED to be teenagers!!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/7/08 at 6:41am

Bethnor--that link is GREAT, thank you so much! My only argument would be that Arthur Laurents went on about this cast being "age appropriate" for a change. He probably regrets that--yeah the original cast wasn't all that much younger.

?? I get your point and it fascinates me. I'm such a huge fan of dance, and that's a big thing that appeals fo me in musicals. So a part of me, for an example, is disappointed that one of my fave shows, Company, originally told a lot of its story through movement (which Michael Bennett worked hard to suit actors who couldn't largely dance--the exception being the role of Kathy who Donna McKechnie danced Tick Tock for). I hate that with each subsequent major revival, dance seems to become a less integral part of it. The Doyle revival was great in many ways, but that does disappoint me (Tick Tock isn't even included when you rent the revised version for production I think).

I do think there are cases when it's silly--Jerome Robbins' choreography for Gypsy isn't too thorough cuz it's not a big dance show (All I Need is the Girl aside) so the fact the major revivals can be pretty different but still use that choreography is fine. Fiddler is different--it's stupid IMHO to not do Robbins' original, apparantly incredibly fluid directing yet have to do the choreography that accompanied it.

But I think West Side Story is a case, like Chorus Line, and Sweet Charity, where the choreography IS so much of the show, the directing, the music often written to it, etc, that it's more of a fine line. Suskin explained this when he criticized the choreography in the recent Sweet Charity revival, pointing out that with Charity Fosse's vision often came first of all--before the libretto (which he helped write)and much of the music. To rechoreograph it becomes an uphill battle.

But West Side Story's choreography has been very well preserved in various productions, the film, etc--so I'm all for a new vision of it. But I suspect it might not be able to live up to the original in anyone's mind anyway so might be an even harder battle.

[BroadwayBound115]

Posted: 11/7/08 at 7:59am

"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?"

Yes and no, the 50s are kind of important to the story. Because in the show the Puerto Ricans are really hated, and this was back in a time when their immigration was plentiful. Everyone had hatred or disgust towards them. Now, especially with a African American President, the racial barrier has been broken a little, whereas if you set it in the 21st century, the racial issue would not be as strong between the Jets and the Sharks. You could probably add a few modern touches. I mean you won't have Maria texting Tony to meet her in the bridal shop at closing time and you won't have the mass email saying Dance at the Gym. But if the weapons were more dangerous that could add quite a bit of fear in the audience. The dialogue could also be tweaked so that the Jets aren't talking about kicking someones ass and then say Great Daddy-O. Because I am pretty sure now if you said that, you would be the one getting the ass kicking.
Just a thought

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/7/08 at 8:03am

The prob is if you tweak the slang (which should be pointe dout Laurents and Sondheim largely came up with on their own. Ironic as they did that so it wouldn't sound dated with them trying to replicate real street slang, and now everyone assumes that it was real slang of the time, and much of it became so, that it sounds dated anyway), you have to tweak the slang in the lyrics too, and you just end up havign to rewrite half the show.

As for the weapons, what's more dangerous than knives? A gang fight with guns would make the great Rumble "ballet" about 10 seconds long--point and shoot I just think it's best to leave it alone :P