On June 3, 1975, "Chicago" Opened On Broadway

I have always loved Chicago, but I still prefer the original version slightly over the revival.  Probably that it was a little less minimalist.  I have seen 8 - 10 Roxie's and still consider Gwen Verdon the best.  I loved Chita, but thought that Bebe Neuwirth was even more special in the role, especially in I Simply Cannot Do It Alone.  

On the other hand, I saw A Chorus Line 3 times in the summer of 1975...twice from standing room.  Well, I liked it the first time, but was actually a little disappointed, given the incredible press.  I saw it a second time pretty quickly (but after I had the album, I assume), because I figured I must have been under the weather.  Same reaction.  The third time I went was only because out of town friends wanted to see it and stayed in our apartment; we figured what the hell and got standing room.  I am pretty sure you could get standing room in advance, but not positive when that trend stopped.  In any event, boredom.  Didn't see it for at least 20 years then...same reaction.

I saw Chicago only twice that summer -- once with Gwen, once with Liza.  I loved it both times, and could NEVER understand how Chicago got lost in the shuffle.  Donna McKechnie was wonderful as Cassie, but it was not a lead role.  That she beat Verdon and Rivera seemed criminal to me and confirmed that the Chorus Line juggernaut left nothing in its wake.  I suspect it would have won best sets for its line across the stage, had it been nominated.

I mention this because I started to finally feel vindicated in my strong preference for Chicago, never more so than when the first major revival of ACL, while a financial success with a decent run, was not critically revered, never generated much excitement, and received only two Tony nominations (including Charlotte D'Amboise for featured actress as Cassie).

I am hoping that, when the dust settles, even if it is doomed due to a severe drop in tourists, it makes it to 10,000 performance, and its one remaining creative is around to see that.

Ironically, while it is in my top 10 favorite musicals of all time, it is not in the top 2 or 3...I just like the idea 'the little engine that could' making it over the 10,000 finish line.

Speaking of magnificence, Donna Marie Asbury jjust received a major recognition of her 20 years with "Chicago".  She is being recognized by the Guiness Book of World Records for "Longest Career Playing the Same Character In A Broadway Show".  That is beyond awesome!  

GavestonPS said: "

But I worked the "International Company" for two months in Miami Beach and that "line across the stage" took a 40-man crew an entire week to take-in. The legs were hard constructions, not drapes, and the trapezoids in back (which turn from black to mirrored to gold for the finale) were very complicated for the time. (The early ACL tours were all basically sit-down productions and Bennett insisted their sets be exact duplicates of the set at the Shubert, not a traditional "tour" version.)

And that famous line on the floor is used very specifically. Except during "breaks", whatever happens in front of the line is in the show's "present"; everything behind the line takes place in the show's (and the characters' "past.""

Very interesting.  I have to admit that I don't really understand why there would be a need for something that complex, but I have always been a member of the audience, not someone with 'inside knowledge'.  

I do find it amazing that it would take a crew of 40 an entire week to move it in (I am actually not questioning your comment...more amazed.  How do touring companies today, some with pretty elaborate sets, close on Sunday night and open on Tuesday night in another city, not always even close by.  Is it enabled by technology that did not exist in those days or is is due to what I understand are self-contained tour sets that I read about?

Yes, I believe the same lighting plot was used and, yes, the take-in time included hanging the lights; IIRC the majority of the crew, however, were building those hard set pieces. Obviously the resulting set is minimalist and I was not at all quarreling with what I took to be Jarethan's implied remark that it didn't look like much.

By contrast, the revival of FIDDLER with Zero Mostel that opened the same season sent the set in on two 747s and we were unloading Act II at the airport even as the overture started on opening night. But though enormous, it was built to tour and load-in was just a matter of having enough manpower to carry in the various set pieces from the trucks in a relatively short amount of time. The Act II curtain rose on time that same night.

Jarethan, the answer to your question about how tours can take out and take in in just a few days is that they are built for that purpose. The Broadway set was built to last for years at the Shubert in NYC, and Michael Bennett insisted that all companies (as of that year, 1977, at least) use the same specifications, e.g., hard legs instead of drapes.

The run in Miami Beach was 8 weeks (a record by 7 weeks for that building), but that set would still be standing today if they hadn't taken it to wherever the International Company went next.

Obviously the later bus-and-truck companies of ACL sent out different sets, even if they appeared to be the same to the audience.

This is all just theater trivia that I happen to know from personal experience. It wasn't intended to refute the thesis of the thread. I will say, however, that I never got tired of ACL, not even after seeing 64 performances in a row! I didn't get to see CHICAGO so often, but I did go back again and again, thanks to TKTS. (Heresy: though nobody will ever touch Chita Rivera as Velma, in some ways I thought CHICAGO played better with the slightly less dour Lenora Nemetz; I didn't feel so much like committing suicide when she played Velma.)

I don't know what I would think of either show if I saw it today.

sng said: "After watching FX's Fosse/Verdon, I found it very interesting that Fosse really didn't have his whole heart put into Chicago and Verdon's long struggle to convince him."

Certainly the final product seemed "very Fosse". I suspect Fosse's mind was more on his move into films and a "Gwen Verdon musical" on Broadway may have seemed a backwards step until he really got into it.

joevitus said: "Frustrating to me that I never saw the original Chicago. I've always assumed the revival was essentially a different show, more an Encores-style concert performance than what was originally done. So glad I got to see A Chorus Line at the Shubert. My first Broadway show ever, and a perfect choice."

It is so many years ago, and I am not one of those people with the memory of some of the people on this board.  I am always in awe of people who describe the differences between performances they have seen in minute detail, particularly vis-a-vis dialogue scenes.

The biggest difference to me was that the original scenery, which was built around an elevated orchestra, was more colorful.  That is probably what I remember differently...color.  That said, I can't say that I remember Gwen Verdon's costume(s)...they could have very well been black also.  Anne Reinking may have won a Tony for the revival, but you could not tell by me that the choreography was different from the original, which I saw multiple times.  Nevertheless, both productions were GREAT!!