New York Times Dance Critic Reviews WSS

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/arts/dance/west-side-story-dance.html

At times, it comes closer to parody, like a dream sequence on “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,”

---

"The fight scenes look like outtakes from the 1960's Batman show (without words like “Kapow!” and “Sock!)

I love how the New York Times is just dragggggging this show.

Updated On: 2/25/20 at 02:55 AM

Pretty cool to read a dance critic review of the dancing in a Broadway show.

I mean. I am all for revivals setting themselves apart from the original. I hate how some just carbon copy. The issue is... when you have classics like WSS or A Chorus Line. Where the choreography is so iconic, where the shows are iconic. Where the choreography is telling the story... the new version you create has to surpass or at least match, or be so wildly different like Oklahoma.

I don’t think this does that.

HogansHero said: "This is starting to seem like Side Show in reverse, for those who remember."

Please explain, as I am actually curious about Side Show.

"Finally someone understands that Jerome Robbins's staging and choreography is not just a collection of dances and steps but the primary manner of storytelling in West Side Story. The Jets are defined by the choreography of the Prologue, the Gym, and Cool; the Sharks are defined by the choreography of the Prologue and the Gym; Anita is defined by the choreography of the Gym and America."

Bingo, I agree totally !!

HogansHero said: "PalJoey said: "Robbins's works simply cannot be replaced."

And, as I have said many times on this board, the collaboration between Leonard Bernstein and Jerome Robbins represents one of the greatest achievements in American theater, perhaps in American culture."

I have good news for you: it is not being replaced. Something different (and unbelievably challenging) was tried to see if it tells the story as well or better for some. (The evidence suggest that it does.) You see, culture is not a static condition; what may speak perfectly to you may not be as successful in speaking to others at a different time. That is why theatre is obliged to continue exploring andcreating. It must always seek resonance."



If it was successful it wouldn't even be a debate. It's debated and mixed because it doesn't do the job near as well or better then the original. That is the issue.

They either needed to go a COMPLETELY different direction like Oklahoma did, or really make a better dance language then the classic we all know. They did neither, so we have this middle of the road revival that is trying to be trendy and new, but failing (artistically).



I assume it will have good attendance for a while, and start to fall off sooner then they'd like.

This reminds me of Lapine's "Annie" revival. He didn't like the musical and tried to re-write it and it did not work, so much so they scrapped the revival version and took the original on the road after the revival run.

It seems the same here. Nothing wrong with revivals as long as directors love the musical that they choose to revive - revive, not rewrite. Therefore, the simplest solution is to do your own new musical based on the same subject matter, with new book, new lyrics, new music - new everything rather than imposing your own wishes on material that has stood the test of time and does not need the "genius help" of people who might be actually of a lesser talent than those who worked very hard to make the original piece.

You can do your own new original musical based upon the same subject, but it doesn't seem quite that easy does it? No, it isn't and strangling the chicken in hand because you don't like the feathers just leaves you with a dead chicken and not a revived one.

Luminaire2 said: "If it was successful it wouldn't even be a debate. It's debated and mixed because it doesn't do the job near as well or better then the original. That is the issue."

First of all, success is a very dangerous requirement. If we only produce risk-free theatre, we have inferior theatre. Secondly, while I recognize that you and the Times and some others do not like this production, others do. That's how it works. We'll see how it plays out when it plays out.

I loved this review. It articulates the missteps I feel so well. I think the production knew they were struggling with the movement when they brought in advisors. Also, casting all those newbies who I imagine are still working on delivering the same movements 8 times a week. It takes a trained performer with experience to deliver 8 shows a week. It’s why so many of the same people show up in Broadway ensembles. They deliver. Folding in so many debuts really sets up a tough dynamic. It’s generous, but short-sighted.

Tony and Maria being pulled apart in a literal fashion made me laugh. It’s like choreography 101. But I recall one reviewer finding it powerful. To each their own. Some people will love this version and that’s cool.

The review also reminds me why I really don’t like modern movie musicals. The fast edit and quick cuts of all the choreo so you lose all the nuance. It really feels like it’s masking flaws. I think the projections serve the same purpose, to say “look over here” to make flaws and create spectacle.

I think there will be a lot of great stories to come from backstage after this show is closed and in the history books. I found that last revival very boring so I invited this update. I don’t think it accomplished what it was hoping.

---

BWW cycle:

Previews for a show start. Board members delight in saying how amazing it is, thus proving their avante garde hard-core theater cred.

Dissenters say the show isn't all that and a bag of chips. Supporters throw a hissy fit, and say when the reviews come out everyone will love this show.

Reviews come out, they're mixed.

Supporters: "Critics suck! They don't know what they're talking about!"

Detractors: "Hahaha yes!"

Much back and forth and arguing with deleted posts galore until the threads die out.

A month later: "Anyone check the stage door for this show? Who regularly stage doors"?