My Chorus Line tour review (kinda long, thoughts on Bennett's staging etc)

[Unknown User]

My Chorus Line tour review (kinda long, thoughts on Bennett's staging etc)#1

Posted: 11/19/09 at 5:51am

I can't find the thread about the tour, the same one I saw, from a few weeks back so I'll just start a new thread. Here's my typically rambling review which is probably more about the production itself and Bennett's staging than the actual performance--also I wrote it for a Sondheim forum, hence the more than usual comparisons to Sondheim shows... I also haven't seen a lot of Chorus Lines (well live anyway) so you won't find the endless actor comparisons most reviews on here have...

I saw the Chorus Line tour 2 weeks ago in Vancouver, and I have to say that while I'd never have ranked the show in my top 5 musicals before seeing this production, walking back from the theatre I was half convinced that their slogan "*the* greatest musical" was probably exactly right.

As a Sondheim fan too it was exciting to finally get a sense of where and how the show WAS in many ways an extension of what Sondheim and Prince (and Bennett) were doing with their first shows--something I hadn't really realized before.

OK I've calmed down a bit since then, but getting to see the recreation of Michael Bennett's original production, done by one of the best dancing casts I've ever seen (a few posters at another site commented they thought the current tour cast was stronger than the Broadway revival cast) really made me realize that with A Chorus Line, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. While I think the score gets a bum rap (it's much better and even subtler than people give it credit for) I will axknowledge that on its own you really don't get much of the power of the piece. And the actual book is fairly slight--you find out about each dancer, some in quite a bit of detail, some in hardly none (I was surprised at how little Richie, who has a big solo in the montage, is defined). But even there there was a sublety I never realized before--even though it's quite obvious. Bennett didn't structure each character's revelations haphazardly, instead you start off with memories of the dancers at their youngest and work up through chronological order.

What was most striking about the piece to me, aside from the spot on dancing, is how surreal much of Bennett's staging is. We spend at least half the show inside these characters' heads, and because of the amazingly clear lighting and the staging we're always clear exactly what's going on. I remember seeing one amateur Chorus Line where the cast literally stood on the line, STILL, everytime they weren't singing. Here, Bennett has the "line" constantly dividing up, fading away, and changing shape, always to magically float back into the line when a memory or thought is over. The 18 minute "montage" is the heart of the piece and it's quite simply one of the most thrilling 15 or 20 minutes I've spent in the theatre--the seamless integration of dialogue, music, movement, dance, real and surreal action--always crystal clear--is astounding.

The opening ten minutes are likewise famous (and performed excellently, in a slight edit, on the 1976 Tony Awards) but the brilliance of how in that opening number Bennett and his team make you instantly aware of the thrust of the plot, of what's "on the line" for these characters, and already a good sense of the basic characteristics and personality traits of the main characters--all through little moments and amazing choreography, is a staggering accomplishment. Of course the moment works probably best on sheer visceral thrills--even the famous moment a minute or so in when the music mounts and Zach shouts to do the combination away from the mirror and the whole cast turns around to face the audience. (Bennett also made the opening combination so difficult that it wouldn't be hard for the dancers to look like they were struggling--only the final repeat of the jazz combination by a small group of men is meant to look nearly "right") But really the show is *filled* with so many little perfect moments.

There are other bits that stick in the mind--like how Zach's goading and criticizing of Cassie's dancing starts off innocently with her part of the line rehearsing One but slowly she becomes isolated from them, and the group almost becomes a threatening, neverending machine behind her as she gets worn down. Or small touches I should have expected--the back wall can suddenly turn into a wall of mirrors at a moments notice and yet when it does this it always somehow causes to instantly heighten the emotion on stage. I've read many times that Bennett's final irony--of giving us the ultimate finale with "One" that leaves the audience standing in the aisles, but has the flipside of being somehow depressing now that we see that each individual dancer has become an unrecognizable chorus member--is lost in the glamour, but I definitely felt the ambiguity. At the end of the two hour show (which had no intermission, thankfully) the feeling I had was so visceral, I really was dumbstruck. And then I looked back on the show and tried to figure out why--everything was good, very good or great even but, like I said, it's the combination of everything in this amazing production that really makes the show powerful. (Of course some would argue this is true of all theatre, but I think it depends).

I also never really realized before how indebted Chorus Line and Bennett's staging were to his work on Company and Follies with Hal Prince and Sondheim. I know Prince resented ACL's success at first partly because it seems like Bennett did find the magic key of taking a concept musical filled with brave, bold stylistic traits and experiments but making it a truly crowd pleasing hit at the same time. I think this has made some fans feel the show is too sentimental, or plays it too safe. It's true from a modern perspective things like the fact that at least three of the dancers are gay no longer pack much of a punch at all (although I was impressed with how relatively matte rof factedly these revelations were handled, something rare for the time--and even now there aren't too many major musicals with that many lead gay roles). But it's essential that the show keep to its time of 1975 (I think maybe even more essential than Company likewise remaining set in 1970)--this thread has some interesting arguments about updating the show, but I'm glad they kept with the era. Of course Dance Ten Looks Three is no longer half as shocking now than it was in 1975, but in some ways it's an even more relevant number now.

You can also see many places where Bennett took ideas from his Sondheim shows and adapted them here. Like in Company, sometimes dance is used in a semi abstract way to express an emotion (and the choreography for Tick Tock and Music and the Mirror isn't even all that removed from each other). Other times the dancers work as the ghost/memory figures from Follies (there's a sublime part in At the Ballet where suddenly you see some of the dancers in the back forming into a ballet class barre as the lights raise and then dim with the song). The show's structure--getting to know a variety of characters through fairly quick scenes with no plot is directly influenced by Company, as well. Likewise the show has an incredible amount of underscore, which effectively helps to both make the segue into songs nearly seamless, and to heighten the rising tension of the piece--something that Bennett first worked heavily on with Follies. The orchestra actually plays for nearly the whole piece except for the main bit of Paul's famous monologue.

Out of the cast, Michael Gruber was a great Zack, and Robyn Hurder a near ideal Cassie. The other standouts were the Emily Fletcher's Sheila (who had a brilliant delivery--icy cool but with vulnerability), Brandon Tyler's Larry (who, since he plays Zach's dance captain has to be the best male dancer, and was) and Alex Ringler's Greg, but I really couldn't find fault with anyone in this demanding show (I also didn't realize that, except for 2 short moments, the cast is on stage the entire 130 minutes). I may be biased though as by chance I got to talk a bit with the guys who played Larry and Greg after the show--who were exceptionally nice and seemed pretty excited by my enthusiasm. We had the understudy, Julie Kotarides for Diana Montez, a fairly big role, but actually she was also in my top three females.

I know there is some controversy about the small changes made. The costumes have been slightly changed (Greg no longer wears a garish bright yellow shirt over his black dance clothes, but a black one with white rings, Bobby no longer wears an ascot apparently because the producers thought, probably rightly, that now in a time when no one wears ascots it would too quickly telegraph him as gay), and the orchestrations were cleaned up and slightly changed by Tunick to suit a modern orchestra. Still, I was fine with all that and the orchestra sounded better and richer than most tour orchestras I've experience (it was made up of 5 members for the tour and the other 13 members were local Vancouver musicians--which is how it's commonly done with tours I guess).

I get why there's some cynicism about the show among some theatre fans-- I think one big reason is that it became such a phenomenon, and then kinda ran an eternity. Another reason is if you just listen to the score and read the book, I get that it could be seen as a slight show. Even the characters with the most to say (or sing) are really only defined in the broadest of strokes--but again it's the cumulative power of the whole show--the whole being greater than the sum of its parts--that, for me, created such a powerfully emotional reaction to the end. I read that Bennett said that even more than leaving the theatre thinking about the show and the characters, he wanted people to leave the theatre and think about their OWN lives and talk about that with the people they saw it with. Honestly, that's what happened to me--although certain images and senses from the show remained strong.

The tour is currently taking a break but restarting again, with a slightly different cast, in Jan. I'm always a bit apprehensive about tours, they can be quite hit or miss in terms of cast and even the production as a whole, but I really urge anyone who hasn't seen A Chorus Line ever, or even in a long time, to consider going if this tour comes near them. Just an amazing night.



Updated On: 11/19/09 at 05:51 AM

[violet72]

re: My A Chours Line tour review (kinda long, thoughts on Bennett's staging etc)#2

Posted: 11/19/09 at 8:20am

My friend has been cast to play Ritchie in January

"Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life. Define yourself"

[ggersten]

re: My A Chours Line tour review (kinda long, thoughts on Bennett's staging etc)#2

Posted: 11/19/09 at 3:13pm

The moment when the music builds and the cast turns and EXPLODES to the audience in the opening is one of the most thrilling moments of theatre I've ever experienced. (LA Cast 1977).

Thanks for your review and thoughts.

[Unknown User]

re: My Chorus Line tour review (kinda long, thoughts on Bennett's staging)#3

Posted: 11/19/09 at 10:27pm

UGh my typos are notorious but I didn't realize I had one in the subject line... How awful. Tried to fix it.

[PalJoey]

re: My Chorus Line tour review (kinda long, thoughts on Bennett's staging)#4

Posted: 11/19/09 at 10:38pm

Robyn Hurder gave a great performance, beautifully acted, impeccably danced

She posted a video of her Music and the Mirror on her Facebook.

I love Alex Ringler.

[Unknown User]

re: My Chorus Line tour review (kinda long, thoughts on Bennett's staging)#5

Posted: 11/19/09 at 10:42pm

Yeah he was an utterly lovely guy.
Thanks for the heads up to Hunter's video! Nice to see her do the number again.

[FindingNamo]

re: My Chorus Line tour review (kinda long, thoughts on Bennett's staging)#6

Posted: 11/20/09 at 12:13am

I liked reading your review. Thoughts well-considered, expressed and organized.

I think one important thing that's missing from the look of the show: PAUL NEEDS THE MUSTACHE.

Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

[Unknown User]

re: My Chorus Line tour review (kinda long, thoughts on Bennett's staging)#7

Posted: 11/20/09 at 5:41am

Thanks so much! I was nervous to post it, lol so that means a lot.

I actually thought about Paul with or without a mustache--in the revival and tour it does feel to me like they're trying to make him seem younger. Then again far less guys wear mustaches now (witness the DVD of Fosse's troup for Pippin) so... Don had a mustache, and for the record I thought it was hot :P