My thoughts on A CHORUS LINE in SF (8.23.06)

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 4:05am

Whew! Had a whirlwind trip today in and out of San Francisco to see the new revival of A CHORUS LINE at the Curran Theatre. After the months of debate and theory and discussion on this board, it was with some measure of excitement and dread that I actually approached this new production and my reaction was, in many ways, just what I anticipated: though often in some unexpected ways…

The good news is that this Broadway bound A CHORUS LINE has been given a terrific recreation. The bad news is that this Broadway bound A CHORUS LINE is little more than a terrific recreation.

It is the show’s blessing and its curse; often working in frustrating, intertwining tandem; a show that sparkles with the brilliance of its original production while somehow delving into self conscious awareness of that genius in the span of a single “5, 6, 7, 8!”

The great ode of gratitude and blame of course, and at once, belong at the firm feet of Baayork Lee and Bob Avian who treat the details of the original staging with fascinating, reverence; the way a curator might handle a pair of Marilyn Miller’s bronzed toe shoes in a mausoleum exhibition of Broadway history. The spinning mirrors, the shiny satin hats – all make their triumphant appearances and if squint your eyes, or perhaps are sitting far enough back enough in the theatre, its as if A CHORUS LINE never went away and that kick line has been stretching unaltered since 1990 when the original production closed.

And perhaps that brief suspension of belief is precisely what Lee and Avian are going for. But, what is lost in the triumph of memory, is the satisfaction of theatrical “experience,” which must always reflect the “now” to be germane.

To be blunt: in handling those gold plated toe shoes, they’ve forgotten the blood and sweat that soaked the sole underneath. And without that sense of communal shared blood (the great success of ACL has always been attributed to its ability to speak to the core being of all of us. The chorine is to the Broadway factory, after all, what the button pusher is to the assembly line) what we are left with, is remnants of a landmark, spectacular staging by Michael Bennett: another simultaneous blessing and curse: for Bennett’s own Broadway innovations have been so copied and emulated that they are almost standard practice in the shows we see today

The pictures have been recreated but without the inspiration, and Michael Bennett was anything, but uninspired. Moments of A CHORUS LINE, of course still thrill: the sweeping of mirrors revealing the cast as figurative children at a dance bar at the end of “At the Ballet,” The chorus line as greek chorus behind the fight of a dancer and his former lover and failed protégé, and the finale: one of the most brilliantly conceived in Broadway history.

But seeing them now, we are too often left, not with the breathless exhilaration of those first audiences at seeing a new invention, but a collective sigh of “Oh, so that’s where that came from.”

Without some new motivation, the brilliant setpieces become simply set pieces. Big and glistening and totally aware of their influence. A revival somehow designed to comment on the original.

The faithful preservation at hand, of course, extends to the players, but thankfully the damage is minimal. The cast is mostly terrific, and in the instances when they are allowed to deviate from original interpretations, more than terrific.

Chryssie Whitehead finds new and unexpected hilarity as tone deaf Kristine, There is real pain masked under the steely smile of Deidre Goodwin’s Shelia. Jason Tam is totally unsentimental (and all the more moving because of it) as Paul.

And then, there is Charlotte D’Amboise: well on her way to being a superb Cassie and completely unlike anyone we’ve seen in the role before. Could Cassie be right; could she be “only” a Broadway chorine? Could the idea that she is a “star” be Zach’s delusion and her emotional baggage? Ms. D’Amboise made me a believer. Riddled with insecurity, her Cassie need only feel the burning scrutiny of her former lover’s gaze to fall out of a pirouette during the opening combination or to reluctantly move to “center” stage during his questioning: a spot she “of course” should know to move to instinctively.

Throbbing with vulnerability, Ms. D’Amboise is really on to something, and if Mr. Avian and Ms. Lee, hopefully content with their loyal recreation work, would bring in a new pair of directorial eyes to actually make the casts’ scene work alive and fresh, she could be on to something big.

But saddled by that burden of recreation, it is Ms. D’Amboise who, despite her bravado acting and singing [She, for the record made a complete fool of me and other early naysayers who hypothesized she wouldn’t be able to handle the vocals, by turning in a totally self assured, thrillingly belted rendition of “Music and the Mirror”] is done the greatest disservice by Lee and Avain’s commitment to the original.

The choreography originally devised for Donna McKechnie simply does not work on Ms. D’Amboise’s form. (Please. If any revision is done for New York, let this dance be re-choreographed to suit Ms. D’Amboise’s talents. Get rid of the shuffles and diagonal whips and bring in the layouts, leaps and kicks.)

Miss D’Amboise’s performance might in fact be an analogy for this entire production: when its allowed to breath a new: it works brilliantly. When its saddled with thirty years of theatrical memory – it falters.

Avian and Lee have given us the spectacular groundwork of the original, now they just need to let it go and allow this production to find its own voice. The voice of THESE dancers. That should be motivation enough.

Updated On: 8/24/06 at 04:05 AM

[hortonhearsasam]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 4:33am

Wow, what a great review! I loved hearing your opinions and was very glad that you actually had some sense in the way you backed them up.

I was there tonight as well (for my third time!) and while I can see where you're coming from, I have had a completely different experience of this show.

I'm only 19. I was 3 when the original production closed on Broadway, and unforunately I had not had the privilege of seeing a production of this show until this month (of course, I was familiar with the show and loved the cast recording). So, for me coming into this show not completely knowing what to expect and without any knowledge of the original production, I absolutely loved it. None of it seemed tired to me. Nothing about the show made me think, "Oh, this looks like it's been copied or passed down." To me the show is fresh--it's inspiring! (No, I'm not a dancer.)

I'm not completely sure what point I'm trying to make here, but basically I just wanted to express that for some of us (the new/next generation?), this show is very much alive and it's hard to imagine anything getting much better.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 4:40am

Great Review. There is only one thing, remember that their is a whole generation of people who have never seen the show, and this is their first time.

What did you think of Jason Tam?

Did you have any understudies?

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 10:06am

VERY wonderful and thoughtful review, Michael Bennett I enjoyed reading it. I am anticipating my trip to NYC to see even more after hearing from you

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 10:18am

Great review, MB!

I understand what the other posters are saying, though. If you don't walk in with all the "history baggage," you're going to have an entirely different experience with this production.

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 10:28am

thank you for that wonderful review.

what were your feelings on James lane?

Updated On: 8/24/06 at 10:28 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 10:43am

MB - so my comment that the choreography for Cassie did not seem organic to Charlotte... it seemed forced did make sense.

Which leads me to believe it is identical to what was for Donna, and not been modified at all.

I was able to suspend belief for most of the production, but could not with Charlotte's dancing - that was the only part that seemed to go on and on...

I loved Paul's monologue, and Diana in this production, and Sheila . . . as well as Tony Yazbeck's voice - so strong and pure in parts.

Thanks for the review.

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 11:20am

Thank you for this amazing review, MB.

As an absolute 'newbie' to any performance of ACL, I'm completely anticipating this production.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 11:22am

Thanks for all the nice comments. Yes, of course having a history with the show will taint your opinion of any revival, and I am thrilled to hear that the piece was exciting for a newbie like Horton!

But some of the problems I think the piece suffers at the hand of the current recreation simply keep the show from being a fully satisfying theatrical experience; and I think I would have felt that way, even if I had never seen the show before. It all looks studied and rehearsed - when you can see actors moving to hit marks as opposed to noticing the beauty of the staging once you are immersed in it- its simply not skilled direction. Baayork Lee has shown her skill at replicating exact blocking and choreography - but skill doesn't necessarily translate to talent. And this show needs tremendous talent at the helm. All great productions do.

The revival simply lacks directorial focus, and I suspect it is because Avian and Lee aren't really directors.

I don't think being completely new to A CHORUS LINE would have changed my feeling on that.

Ironically, the lack of directorial focus is reflected in Michael Berresse as Zach, who I think is giving the evening's single totally disappointing performance. He seems like the dancers' contemporary - not the leader of the ship. The emotional weight of his confrontation scene with Cassie and his dare to question "What would you do if you couldn't dance anywhere" are missing.

I had one understudy: Mike Cannon was on for Mark. I thought Jason Tam was really lovely. He reads younger than any Paul I've seen, but he makes the monologue completely believable and conversational. I also liked Natalie Cortez a lot as Morales.

Like I said, most of the cast was terrific. My only other individual quibble was that I felt a slight disconnect from Jessica Lee Goldyn as Val with the material, but she certainly performs it decently.

The choreography that Charlotte is doing, Youwantit, is the original with only minor, minor variants. I'd actually say that Charlotte is doing closer to what Donna did than a lot of the subsequent Cassies in the original production (The choreography was altered slightly for each of the first replacements: Ann Reinking, Cheryl Clerk and frozen with Pam Sousa's interpretation).

Here is where the frustration at not having a strong director comes into play. When Ann Reinking directed and choreographed CHICAGO, she made it her own. "In the style of Bob Fosse" was the slogan she used, and Lee and Avian need to take "MUSIC AND THE MIRROR" appart and do something new with it for D'Amboise. These are the two people who assisted Michael Bennettt on virtually every show he ever choreographed. They knew his dance vocabulary practically better than he did. There is no reason why they couldn't take the frame work and do what Bennett himself would have done: make it pop for Charlotte.

As is, the number just doesn't land - and this, like I say is after surprisingly strong scene work and vocals leading into it.

This is so easily fixed; it would truly be a sin to rob D'Amboise of the potential she has to really make good on this part. But, right now the entire production seems hanging on by potential.


Updated On: 8/24/06 at 11:22 AM

[jimnysf]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 11:32am

Very well thought put MB. I'm an oldie to the production but I still loved it. I don't mind that it is a replica of the original. Updating, making changes, or putting a new spin on the original doesn't always turn out well. Look at the recent "La Cage" revival. It didn't last very long. There are other revivals, such as "How To Succeed...", "Damn Yankees", and "Man of La Mancha", which were updated or revised and they were not hits. I'm hoping "ACL" is a big success again on Broadway.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 11:42am

My issue with it, Jimmy wasn't in it being a replica - but in it being a replica without motivation. The show doesn't feel nearly as dated as I feared it might. They don't really need to change the script or update it. It just needs stronger directorial decisions to make the replica seem organic. That is the thing that is missing that bothers me.

Well - I'll side note that. There is one line that makes the show feel dated: the reference to Jill St. John. There are plenty of other names from the 70s they could reference that would still have some relevance to pop culture today: Farrah Fawcett, Suzanne Sommers etc.

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 11:56am

What are the possibilities both Avian and Lee can make the subsequent changes in the three week spanse of time before NY gets it's first preview?

Or the chance that they can bring in a director doctor to help focus?

[jimnysf]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 11:58am

You are right about poor Jill St John. I don't think she is well known these days. I thought I saw her in some commercial with Robert Wagner recently but I'm not sure what else she has done lately. She wasn't that big of a name to begin with. I remember her from the James Bond film, "Diamonds Are Forever" but that's about it.

Updated to change "what else she had done lately" to "what else she has done lately". I think I can tell what she "had done" from that TV commercial I mentioned.

Updated On: 8/24/06 at 11:58 AM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 12:02pm

Thanks, MB.

Though I wonder if things were changed so much how many people would complain that they bastardized Bennett's A CHORUS LINE. Sort of a double-edged sword.

[WesternSky2]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 12:04pm

Fantastic review, MB. I've been looking forward to you reviewing this show.

Like horton, I'm only 19, and when I see this production once it comes to New York, it'll be the first production I'll have seen of this show - after obsessing over the cast recording for god knows how long. I think whatever I see, I'll love, just because it'll be amazing to see something so important to me on stage.

What did you think of Mara Davi as Maggie? I remember hearing a clip of her last note in 'At the Ballet' and being blown away. Did she live up to that?

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 12:05pm

"It all looks studied and rehearsed - when you can see actors moving to hit marks as opposed to noticing the beauty of the staging once you are immersed in it- its simply not skilled direction."

I completely understand and I agree with that, but I'm wondering...

Is this because you personally knew they were moving precisely (say) downstage left next, and you saw it telegraphed in their faces or bodies?

Would a newbie be able to sense that same thing if he had no idea where they were going next?

A lot of "strings" get hidden if you don't know the magic tricks in advance, in other words.

Unfortunately, I would be like you, in that I've seen the show and done the show myself. I would know everything that was going to happen before it did.

Just wondering if the ACL "virgins" in the audience would pick up on telepathic cues like that.

Updated On: 8/24/06 at 12:05 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 12:08pm

I think bringing in a show doctor who has no previous experience with the musical specifically to work on the scene work would be invaluable. I don't think it will happen though. Maybe if there is a little more pressure to kick it up a notch once they are in New York. I think preview reports in the city will be much harder on this revival than in SF.

Best12 -- Like I said earlier - it feels like the actors have been told to move or be in certain formation but perhaps without any explanation why. The spot that was most glaring for me was in "What I did for Love." Here is a number that is the heart of the show, and all I could focus on was the perfect symmetry of Maggie and Judy sitting on the floor - their arms perfectly crossed as they sang. It didn't look natural. It looked like they were told to sit like that.
Updated On: 8/24/06 at 12:08 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 12:09pm

You know, I guess it doesn't ultimately matter about "new eyes vs. old eyes."

This is a revival for 2007, not a revival "for the ages." It has to work with today's crowds specifically, which will be made up of newbies AND plenty of people who know this show like the back of their hands.

And your concerns are definitely valid ones for the "latter crowd."

Updated On: 8/24/06 at 12:09 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 12:17pm

Mara Davi's voice is splendid. I also thought James Lane was a dynamite Richie.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 1:07pm

I agree with just about everything - Mara was Maggie correct? If so, the audience basically stopped her in the middle of "At the Ballet" with applause when I saw it after she hit her last high note. The song was not over, but people were just going "wow".

James Lane was fun and did a great job.

I clearly don't know the show as well as you do MB (and I am sure very few do!) but now that you mention it, I do agree with what you have said about "What I did for Love." Though I did live Natalie Cortez' singing.

The Robert Goulet and Steve McQueen lines also made me laugh a bit.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 1:26pm

I'd never say never. Ghost directors pop in to tighten things up all the time. The real question is how the producers and money behind the show feel about the show as it is onstage as well as the reviews. Do they feel something IS necessary in order to bring this show the raves they would no doubt love from the Times in order to make this show run past its advance.

Re: D'Amboise. How simultaneously sad and exciting. To think she could literally be just a tweak away from getting some real "Broadway star" recognition after being such a winning workhorse in musical after musical. I've seen Chicago so many times and she remains my favorite performer in any role, any interpretation in that show. She deserves a chance to make that scene work. After all, it won Donna a Tony but doesn't even Donna admit she co-choreographed that number? Working with Bennett, she played completely to her strengths.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 1:37pm

One small correction, Michael Bennett. Ann Reinking only choreographed the revival of CHICAGO, Walter Bobbie directed it.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 1:51pm

Yes, very true Brody. My point was that she didn't feel the need to do a total recreation of his original work.

I think there are a lot of people who worked closely with Bennett, but were not involved in the original CHORUS LINE, who could bring some fresh directorial suggestions to the piece: namely Tommy Tune, who Bennett made a star in SEASAW.

I also wonder if Lee and Avian will soliciate opinions from McKechnie and any of the other original cast members.

Bwaysinger has a good observation. A lot will just depend on how much the production team of the revival want critical acclaim and not just solid group ticket sales.

Like I said earlier - I expect there to be more criticism of this show in New York than in SF.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 2:18pm

I agree with the directing, I don't mind the recreation idea, but I'd like to see the show with a brand new director who had noe ties to the original. He could still recreate the key moments, but at the same time bring some new ideas to the table and see what works.

[flaemmchen]

Posted: 8/24/06 at 2:18pm

Very insightful review as usual, Michael Bennett. Unfortunately, I can't see them re-working it before they get to New York; I think they're completely focused on re-creating the original, which, of course, you never can! It's sad, because those teeny changes would probably help the revival's success in the long run.

Still can't wait to see it!