Reports/Speculation on A CHORUS LINE from SF — Page 5

(on soapbox)
Anyone who is passionate about the theatre must make it a priority to see this production. Especially those who are young enough to have never witnessed an official Michael Bennett production (this is as close as you can get now). Even if it should turn out to have flaws (I'm optimistic that any flaws will be few and far between) it is still a rare opportunity to see a very important musical that remains a milestone in the history of musical theatre. To me, Michael Bennett's revolutionary staging is the true star of the show.
(off soapbox)

Updated On: 7/27/06 at 03:42 PM

I take it personally because I love ACL and I love Cassie and I love Charlotte. I want her and the show to succeed.

---

Shame on us???

Good god. Does this mean if we don't "think happy thoughts" then Charlotte will die??? You've seen Peter Pan one too many times.

What kind of grade school philosophy is THAT?

We are speculating based on the general consensus of reviews that have come in so far. They aren't RUMORS, they are valid opinions. And I've seen the scale tip towards disappointment more times than praise so far. And no one yet is "elated" with an unqualified rave. For a show like A Chorus Line, I was expecting RAVES. If this revival can’t get them from virtually everyone, then YES, I will continue to be disappointed. This show should be generating unqualified raves from the masses. The material is THAT good.

And for the record, I will continue to post my opinions, and hope you will do the same. But leave the "baby fairytale chastising" at the door, please, and grow up.

---

My only question, which I don't think has been discussed here, is: WHY a Chorus Line revival? Why now? What is there in the cultural moment that should make people want to see it again?

Is it the corporate-ization of Broadway? The dying art of Broadway dance? Or is it just that it's been a while and someone thought people would buy tickets?

Not every show needs to connect to the big picture the way ACL does...I worry that if it's not the right time, the show will just seem hopelessly dated.

But I hope I'm wrong!

elphaba.scares.me - I wondered the same thing when I first heard about the revival. Why now? Of course, being only 25 I am really excited to see a full, Broadway calibur production since I missed the original, but I was concerned when I first heard about it.
I think Michael Berresse put it really well in the teaser/press tour they did that, if nothing else, a successful Broadway production that can run for a few years, plus launch tours and a resurgance (sp?) of regional productions, can create more work for dancers in an era in musical theater where dancers are becoming more and more under used and underapreciated.
ALSO, they have cast an incredible onslaught of talent for this production that just isn't working in NY in any other capacity right now. It's been HOW many years since Ken Alan was in Fosse and he was INCREDIBLE and hasn't been able to get a job on Broadway since because jobs for really strong, featured male dancers just don't exist the way they did 5 years ago and esecially the way they did 20 years ago!
Bennet and Fosse just aren't around any more and the choreographers now, talented as they are at what they do, are more focused on the new wave of "musical staging" than actual dancing to the extent it used to exist.

"I think Michael Berresse put it really well in the teaser/press tour they did that, if nothing else, a successful Broadway production that can run for a few years, plus launch tours and a resurgance (sp?) of regional productions, can create more work for dancers in an era in musical theater where dancers are becoming more and more under used and underapreciated."

A CHORUS LINE really hasn't disappeared from the regional circuit, though. It has had mini-tours and continues to be a major staple with summer music theatres.

Most of these professional productions have been almost exact recreations of the original staging, which has always made the topic of the revival more cause for debate. What will be different for Broadway? Why should people pay 110 dollars to see this in New York when they could probably see pretty much the same thing at Casa Manana or The Muny for half the price?

The original creative team, I think, hold ACL very close to their hearts and largely feel that is just should never have closed the first time, and that it is enough to simply bring it back to Broadway as it was. Hopefully with a stellar cast.

That may or may not be enough to make the show feel exciting on Broadway now. We'll see.

I'm thrilled ACL employs so many dancers, but I would hardly say there are "less" dance musicals on Broadway today than there were in 1975. If anything its the reverse.

Broadway was moving towards a dark place in 1975 - the whole city was; and I think the comments in the show about how "Broadway is dying" felt very real and imminent for the original ACL cast.

People still say that now, of course, but it's pretty hard to believe with so many theatres full and so many new shows waiting in the wings to come in.

We actually have had more total dance shows like THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGING, MOVIN OUT, and HOT FEET and an equal number of dance focused musicals like CHICAGO, LION KING, and HAIRSPRAY in New York than we've had in a long time.

Its a pretty decent time to be a dancer on Broadway.

Updated On: 7/28/06 at 09:38 AM

"Why should people pay 110 dollars to see this in New York when they could probably see pretty much the same thing at Casa Manana or The Muny for half the price?"

Because every touring production and local community production of ACL I have ever seen has SUCKED (bad performances, bad casting, music that sounded as if it were canned, weak dancers)! This is a VERY hard show to pull off, and if it isn't done right, it can be painful. If it's done right, I'd much rather pay $110 to see it on Broadway then pay 10 cents to see another bad production. I just keep hoping and praying that the revival will get it right. I guess I'll know in November.

Ok I’ve been reading for quite some time here but now need to throw in my two cense. I LOVE theatre more then I can say, and find this show an endless fascination and part of that is being played out here.
You have the camp that says that this show was a huge moment in their lives and they felt it move them deeply so this show should be a time capsule to that time. As a 30 y/o gay male who has actually been in the show several times I have still never “got” that out of this piece. Please help me understand. I love the idea of it and still hope to get is some day. I just finished up a production where, yes everyone loved doing the show but we were given out sheets telling us what the characters were talking about in both the slang and pop culture. This is where the disconnect happened with a lot of us. I can’t relate to being “Locked in the bathroom with Payton Place” hell I never even heard of it till I did this show. Could I think of something similar in my life….kind of, but the 17 y/o sitting in the theatre is not going to want to ask someone “What is that….” Or “Who was that…” when a character is talking about an old movie star flame, or such and then think of something that goes long those same lines in their world. They aren’t going to get that unexpected twang of reflection of their lives. “Nothing” is so much a song that could never take place in the realm of teaching today that it almost come across as a desperate exaggeration. As was pointed out before “Dance 10, Looks 3” is so commonplace now that the shock of it is gone. I would love to hear from someone that is in their 20s that has been moved to tears and really connected with the piece, because I’m convinced that you had to come from that era when the show was still talking about relevant references to connect with it. I would love to see them retool the piece to fit a modern audience. A few things bigger then mommy and daddy walking in on you in drag have happened like AIDS, the internet, and 911 that have had a profound impact on the world that this piece does come off as whiny people with a chip on their shoulders about their childhoods. Make me want to like these people, and not just feel sorry for them. Make me see myself in them, but I can’t because they are now coming from a time that is almost naive to today. Hell have a cell phone go off or some one IM someone during the audition, just so that I could see something from my world in theirs.

Is it great to see ACL done as it originally was? Yes, I do feel that it was an important production, but don’t expect me to relate to it. Not the best example, but if you take Romeo and Juliet and look at how popular the modern movie version was it’s because kids could relate to it. In my personal world I would love to see ACL, Follies and HAIR reworked as they all could still have a relevancy to today but are hindered by the people clinging to what they remember as great about it as opposed to trying to get a new generation to connect with it.

Please be kind.........

Good points you brought up metropolis10111.

But aren't most of these regional theatre productions that "suck" being directed by Baayork Lee or other people closely associated with the original production?

How would a Broadway production differ, if it is being directed/cast/and interpreted by the same people who are giving us the "sucky" regional productions....

As to the musical direction/orchestration issue:

Jonathan Tunick (one of the original orchestrators) and composer Marvin Hamlisch have been in San Francisco doing some tinkering, but I doubt it'll be anything major.

---

metropolis10111---I agree with what you said.

The only chance a "pure period" production of ACL has of succeeding is if all the people on stage know and understand the mindset, the behaviors, the sociology, the trends, the concerns, etc. of dancers and generally the PEOPLE (I keep saying that!) of 1975… and can convince a modern audience that they (on stage) are truly in that specific moment in time.

And that’s the real challenge. When the show was originally running it was easier to find a replacement Bobby or Maggie because once you found a strong enough singer/dancer that matched the “type,” they could just BE Bobby or Maggie. No performer today can truly do that, because it’s been 31 years now, and dancer-singers don’t look, sound, act or behave the way they did in 1975. So, now you have to find ACTORS (above all) that can affect a period character from another era convincingly. That’s the real challenge today.

It's not going to be enough to put on the authentic costumes, play the Wa-Wa guitar riffs in the pit orchestra, cast a few perfect dancers and sit back and watch the "magic" unfold.

I still think it's possible to have the show “as written” work, much as I SORT of like the idea of "A Chorus Line Project" or a more appropriately, "A Chorus Line, The Sequel." That would be its own unique adventure, but it wouldn’t be “A Chorus Line.”

I think the (potential) failure of any modern production lies in the fact that the audience must be pulled into the human moments on stage by the characters that are going through this grueling and revealing audition process. If they're only asked to sit back and be impressed with a group of singer-dancers stepping forward and “shining” for a few minutes each, that isn’t going to be enough.

More thoughts...

I can attend a play written in the ‘30s set in the Depression and understand enough and be transported by the action and the drama, if the cast is “human” and interesting enough to pull me in. And I have never lived through that era personally or suffered through the struggles, emotions, or dreams of that time period.

“A Chorus Line” should never be expected to thrive on its “periodness,” it should thrive on its humanity.

I believe that’s the only way it stands a chance. I don’t believe that it is so mired in whether or not we remember who Troy Donhue was, or The Red Shoes, that without these references being fully appreciated the show is doomed to be buried in the earth inside a time capsule. This isn’t Fiorello or Of Thee I Sing.

Even more thoughts...

I’m still thinking about how important the “human factor” is with this show. The reason Music and the Mirror stops (or SHOULD stop) the show has only partially to do with the song and dance itself. The dialogue at the beginning of the scene between Cassie and Zach should put us on the very edge of our seats before Cassie ever starts into the song and dance section of the number. We have to know and understand what is at risk here for this woman, and we have to sense the pain in Zach, even if we don’t see it. The tension should be so thick you can cut it with a knife, before the mirrors revolve and she goes into the heavy dance part. Then… you must have a dancer who can ACT while they dance. That’s what I remember most about McKechnie. Every time her arm went out or she spun around there was a communicated emotion connected to it. She never just danced. That’s why she could stop a show (and did, several times even before ACL). She connected on such a human level with her audiences, with every single movement she made. And that’s what really impressed me, not how high she kicked or how well she turned. It was how well she could SPEAK to us using dance.

EDIT: The irony here is that "Cassie" (the character) can't act, or so she tells Zach. One could even argue the point about McKechnie's own skills as an actress. "She was just playing herself." But I do remember as soon as she started dancing, she didn't become a leaping Baryshnikov... she became Meryl Streep.

---

Updated On: 7/28/06 at 01:39 PM