PalJoey Sees His Beloved West Side Story- Page 4

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/7/09 at 3:39pm

The tragedy of Arthur's life is that he knows that of the four collaborators on West Side Story, three of them are acknowledged geniuses: Bernstein, Robbins and Sondheim.

The fourth is talented but in no way a genius, and Arthur knows it.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 3/7/09 at 4:48pm

I posted this before, but it apparently got lost in cyberspace. Let's try again. Pal Joey, I enjoyed reading your very detailed analysis of the current production of WEST SIDE STORY at the Palace. You obviously know this work inside out and upside down. I feel for the disappointment that YOU feel in so many different ways in which Arthur Laurents has let the audience down. Perhaps the most important place that he has done this is his changing of the very moving ending of the original production.

Knowing a show backward and forward and loving it so much means that changes or lapses of good judgment in a revival can seem catastrophic. I have similar feelings about GYPSY which I know so well, having seen all Broadway versions multiple times. The original production was also under Jerome Robbins's direction and is the model that all other productions are measured by me. Arthur Laurents directed all but one of the subsequent productions of GYPSY and he tinkered with different aspects of the show. He directed Angela Lansbury to have a very heavy handed nervous breakdown take of "Rose's Turn" which in my opinion was overkill. The writing of the number speaks for itself. Laurents changed the Minsky's "Salute to Christmas", a tacky and hilarious sequence, to "The Garden of Eden", less funny. If he wanted Louise to talk during her strip number, as Gypsy Rose Lee did, he could have come up with a wittier monologue. In the most recent Patti LuPone production, he deleted both the faux rape scene in the crowded hotel, and the poignant reprise of "Small World" when Herbie walks out on Rose. Why? Director Arthur Laurents does not dispute author Arthur Laurents. And is not that the problem here with WEST SIDE STORY?

Still, theatregoers will flock to see the show at the Palace and will probably love it, not knowing what they are missing. I am so glad that I saw both GYPSY and WEST SIDE STORY in their original Jerome Robbins directed versions. No one can take those memories away from me.

Updated On: 3/7/09 at 04:48 PM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 3/7/09 at 4:59pm

"A friend met me outside the theater and I literally could not talk to him for about 10 minutes."

It's a wonderful thing when theatre has that effect on you. It's happened to me about five times in many years of theatregoing.

Infact I can only think of one other thing in life that also has that effect on me.

So how were A-rabs pants tonight?

[jejr]

Posted: 3/7/09 at 11:57pm

Not having seen Chita in the original, Carmen Alverez was great in all aspects of the role, singing, acting and particularly dancing. It was a real "star" operformance.

[WesternSky2]

Posted: 3/8/09 at 12:19pm

I grew up on the movies of West Side Story and Guys and Dolls - practically wore them out my entire childhood. I can't tell you how heartbreaking it is that I finally have the opportunity to see these on stage, and neither of them are seeming to live up to any expectations.

I'll still see WSS... not sure if I'll bother with G&D.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/8/09 at 1:21pm

Henry Luce. Founder and publisher of "Time" and "Life" magazines.

Except he wasn't. It was all a huge con job.

This revival is Henry Luce all over again.

You see, "Time" and "Life" magazines were actually created by a young college student named Briton Hadden. Never heard of him? That's because he died very young and his partner - the accountant - named Henry Luce took over as publisher and then spent five decades removing any sign that Briton Hadden ever existed.

It was like the Pharaohs, who had the names of all their predecessors chiseled off every wall and statue - there is only one living god after all - and Henry Luce was determined to be that man. He cultivated the the cult of Henry Luce, the Great Creator when he was actually Henry Luce, the beancounter.

Arthur Laurents walked with giants. But like many mere mortals, he may have played with the Gods but they were Gods and he was but a man. Sucks, huh Arthur?

Sondheim, Robbins, Bernstein - there were three of the true geniuses of the last century. The CREATED from nothing the words, music and dancing in WSS. Laurents wrote a great book, adapted from Shakespeare - oh whoops, another genius. Laurents is a very competent book writer. Not a genius.

Now he is trying to chisel the names of the other three men off the wall and replace it with his own "vision." What vision?

He would probably try tinkering with the lyrics as well, except that pesky Sondheim hasn't done him the favor of dying yet.

This is Henry Luce all over again. Remember, history is written by the survivor.

Britten Hadden never stood a chance.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/8/09 at 2:12pm

Actually by translating the world loved Sondheim lyrics into Spanish,
he is even tinkering with that.

I'm sure a lot of fans will want to hear
I FEEL PRETTY not
Siento Hermosa.
and
A BOY LIKE THAT not
Un Hombre Asi.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 3:14am

"Well I think a lot new has been brought to this revival. It was extremely fresh to experience the show without all the standard WSS posturing, cheap costumes and cheesy accents that come dangerously close to rendering it camp museum piece. There's a lot of reasons to breath some new life into WSS even though some folks just don't want it touched with. "

The problem is (well part of the LONG list of problems) is this is neither here nor there. Arhtur has taken what he liked of Robbins' original production and changed what he didn't. It's not a clean or fresh take on the material--it's him wanting to "correct" it and IMHO failing (based purely on opinions and speculation). I know the Robbins shows have some problems becuase the choreography is actually imposed on them (hence why we get Fiddlers where the staging is completely different but the old choreography is badly fitted into it) which is rare for Broaday (it doesn't seem that Fosse or Bennett, with the exception of Chorus Line so far anyway, have as strong a copyright on their choreography although we all know how awful Sweet Charity works without Fosse's staging).

Don't get me wrong--I'm one of the museum goers you hate--I saw WSS in the replica of its original staging in London (I believe Grover Dale was largely responsible) and despite its faults found it a thrilling staging that didn't seem old fashioned. If I had my say a lot of other musicals would be staged with a basis in their original production--Company (1970 script none of the wrong headed updates, Aronson's set, Bennett's Tick Tock, etc) and on and on. But I aknowledge fresh takes can and have worked. But to me that's not what this revival is, despite all of Laurents' talk. And that's a big part of the problem.


"Laurents wrote a great book, adapted from Shakespeare - oh whoops, another genius. Laurents is a very competent book writer. Not a genius. "

And this is where I have to bring back up the fact that Laurents has repeatedly bragged about improving Shakespeare. I mean his point (that Romeo and Juliet/Tony and Maria miss their reconciliation because of further prejudice and not just a missed communication) could be valid or couldn't--I change my mind personally--but come on. The man proudly goes on record for improving on Shakespeare. Gawd.

[Brick]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 11:31am

Laurents may not be the genius Sondheim, Bernstein, or Robbins is or was, but he is still ridiculously talented.

Giant ego aside, he certainly is no hack, or Henry Luce, if you will.
Updated On: 3/11/09 at 11:31 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 11:35am

I didn't say he was a hack. After all, he wrote the screen play to The Snake Pit!

What I said was: The tragedy of Arthur's life is that he knows that of the four collaborators on West Side Story, the other three of them are acknowledged geniuses.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 11:44am

So I went to see the show last night, having read some of the vicious reviews, some of the discontent reviews, and the few praises. I avoided spoilers, barely skimmed through this thread earlier, and actually went ready to love the show, and thought I'd come back and tell everyone that this is THE revival of the season... and then I saw the show.

Laurents is currently misdirecting WEST SIDE STORY at the Palace. A production (and obviously a show) that has tons of potential and yet the show reads like a series of missed opportunities:
-The cast can hardly be blamed for Laurents' awful direction. However, I must single out Matt Cavenaugh terrible "acting" as Tony. How did this man get hired? Did he just take his shirt off and Laurents said "okay"? Now, I loved Cavenaugh in GREY GARDENS. I thought I'd like him in this too. His singing is enjoyable to me (though I know most people hate the vibrato), but what is with his accent? It's the same accent he had for GREY GARDENS. Tony is not Joe Kennedy! His death scene was almost laughable and just overall I never bought him as the former leader of a gang, not to mention he had absolutely no chemistry with his alleged best friend, Riff aka Cody Green. Which leads me to the casting of Green. He can dance, but his acting just leaves lots to be desired. George Akram fares better as the leader of the Sharks, yet overall I didn't feel that neither him nor Green made for great authority figures. They felt too pretty for me. Oh, and if Laurents wanted them to look gritty and real, then why do some of the Jets look so incredibly effeminate? (I'm looking at you blonde guy with the green tanktop). And the guy who plays Chino cannot speak Spanish, by the way, his post-Rumble scene was awful.
-The women fare a lot better. Josefina is a charming Maria, and I blame some of her underwhelming on Laurents' misdirection. She does a wonderful job with "Me Siento Hermosa" and she injects some life into a rather wooden Matt Cavenaugh. I agree with PalJoey about her "killer" moment, what was Laurents thinking? I wanted some chest-pounding, some real accusation. She just stands there! I couldn't tell if she was crying or laughing. Just awful. Karen Olivo has brilliant vocals, is a great actress, and yes, not a showstopping dancer (which I thought she was in IN THE HEIGHTS). However, I think if a strict, mean choreographer had worked with her, he'd have gotten her where she needs to be. She knows the steps, she needs to learn how not to be sloppy in her execution of them and how to trust her own moves. Overall though, she--along with Josefina--comes out the best. Her rape scene was overwhelming and tragic, she did a brilliant acting job with it. I disagree with PJ re the "A Boy Like That/I Have a Love" scene. Why is Anita so calm? Why is Maria the angry one? Don't get it. Graziella is fantastic! I loved her every time she was on stage. And I have a bone to pick with Laurents, in a production that is trying to be somewhat more about the Latinos, why is the one girl who wants to go back to Puerto Rico acting/talking like she has mental problems during "America"? Now that's Laurents' own stupidity coming through.
-Costumes...where do I even begin? Awful all throughout, though I enjoyed the women's costumes overall. I don't think Anita's purple dress even remotely matched the iconic pink/lilac dress that Rita Moreno wears in the film (not sure if Chita wore the same for the original production).
-The Spanish concept: I'm a native Spanish speaker. I was born and raised in Venezuela (where George Akram is from actually). It didn't work. It could have worked in the hands of a more innovative director. The way it is, it's extremely inconsistent. Laurents said he wanted to show how language divided up the gangs and the lovers. Well, Maria speaks perfect English when she meets Tony, she sings the perfect Sondheim lyrics in "Tonight" and "One Hand, One Heart." Guess what? No barrier! Same with the Sharks. As PJ pointed out, it works wonders in "Me Siento Hermosa" (sorry, don't think it worked at all for "A Boy Like That," but I blame it on the fact Laurents directed Karen to stay somewhat restrained during the scene). "Me Siento Hermosa" shows what a great potential the concept has, the girls do a great job with it, it's the "America" of this production.
-Direction: I blame Laurents for the overall underwhelming effect of the production. I could not stand what he did to the final scene. What's with that weird thing Maria is doing with Action? It almost feels sexual instead of angry. So ridiculous. Laurents just misses the mark. The scenes don't pop at all. The dancers go through the steps, but they don't feel the steps, and the music seems to get ahead of them. "Me Siento Hermosa" is fantastic, the rape scene is really uncomfortable to watch as it's meant to be (A-Rab's pants are still up, though he buttons them up when Doc comes in, he does thrust into Anita as if he's actually raping her which is not done in the movie at least). Why did Laurents cast Cavenaugh and Green? What's with the costumes? What's with the weird choices he makes for some scenes?
-The show: What a beautiful, tragic musical. Even Laurents' misdirection can't keep me from being in tears during "Somewhere," or having a smile plastered on my face through the Mambo and the "America" scene. The Bernstein/Sondheim score is sublime, perfection, beautiful. The choreography is brilliant. I'd see it again in a heartbeat, because it is WEST SIDE STORY, regardless of how much Laurents tries to make it something else.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 11:50am

Ugh. I cannot believe A-Rab's pants are still up.

I still think this production will get positive reviews; though not the reviews GYPSY received. Updated On: 3/11/09 at 11:50 AM

[bk]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 12:00pm

I have liked a lot of Arthur Laurents' writing - the book of Gypsy is wonderful, the book of West Side Story works well (although, maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought Ernest Lehman's screenplay improved on it), and I'm fond of The Way We Were. But I have never thought much of him as a director. And, for me, therein lies the problem.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 12:04pm

rayandallthatjazz, thanks for the wonderful write up of your experience. So far I agree with everything you and PalJoey have said.

Speaking of Arthur, the only work of his that I really enjoyed was his direction of the 1989 revival of Gypsy. The recently closed production left me a little cold.

Updated On: 3/11/09 at 12:04 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 12:05pm

maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought Ernest Lehman's screenplay improved on it

I think everyone agrees with you on that except Arthur.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 12:17pm

Olivo's dancing in IN THE HEIGHTS was a whole diffrent animal than WEST SIDE STORY. It was in the style of the piece but there is no choreographer in Heaven or Hell that could turn her into Anita, she has no exrention, no line and no technique.
I know she has said that she does not consider herself a dancer, probably because she has worked with real trained dancers.
But none of that is her fault, it comes down to who cast her.
And we all know who that is.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 12:34pm

I haven't seen WSS yet -- going on the 28th -- but it seems to me that Laurents is simply out-classed by his original collaborators -- and that includes Jule Styne. WSS and Gypsy were probably the best things that ever happened to him, but his was NOT the defining contribution in making these shows the classics that they are. As for his other work, it's fair-to-middling at best -- not down-and-out bad, just so-so. Based on his autobiography, he strikes me as a nasty and bitter old man with a huge chip on his shoulder.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 1:18pm

There was a WSS question on "Who Wants to be a Millionarie" at noon. It was worth $500,000 and asked what 2 gangs did the Jets defeat before the Sharks.

[Marquise]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 1:43pm

It's really disappointing to read these reviews. I was hoping that this long awaited revival of WEST SIDE STORY would "WOW" audiences.

Laurents missed the mark on this one. For all his intentions of bringing us a "grittier" WEST SIDE STORY he failed.

I also hate how he goes on and on about his hatred for the 1961 film version, which not only improved upon the original stage show's book but brought the musical to a much broader audience and went on to win a staggering 10 Oscars including one for BEST PICTURE.

I'd be surprised if this production even gets handed ONE Tony Award.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 1:44pm

ohhh ohh ohhh I know I know! The Emeralds and the Hawks.... where's my$500,000 dammit?

[singtopher]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 1:49pm

Edit: SNAFU Answered my question.

Updated On: 3/11/09 at 01:49 PM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 2:06pm

The Emeralds must have been a gay Irish gang.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 2:18pm

"ohhh ohh ohhh I know I know! The Emeralds and the Hawks.... where's my$500,000 dammit?"

Still at the studio because the guy walked away

"The Emeralds must have been a gay Irish gang."

That's am good thought seeing as how the Irish were the most hated group in NYC only a few decades before this.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 2:48pm

The Emeralds are mentioned in the stage script, but I think the Hawks may just be mentioned in the movie.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/11/09 at 2:56pm

I'd be surprised if this production even gets handed ONE Tony Award.

- Despite her dancing, Karen Olivo will be a very strong contender for Best Featured Actress.