Was this revival really as "white bread" as Laurents considers it? Nothing is ever as melodramatic as Arthur Laurents puts it.
Arthur, it was explained to me by the late Fritz Holt, lives his life by finding a a "villain" and a "victim" so that he never has to blame himself for anything. The villain is responsible for everything that is wrong, and the victim is the one who can be blamed.
Often, as Fritz explained, the villain isn't villainous and the victim doesn't deserve to be victimized, but Arthur must have one of each anyway.
The truth about Arthur's contribution to West Side Story is that the Jets, as written, are what is too "white bread." This was crashingly clear in the 1980 revival, because Jerome Robbins had the misguided notion that if he cast the Jets midwestern and all-American, there would be more tension between the two gangs.
That--and the fact that the Jets had to be good enough dancers to perform "Cool," the opening, the Rumble and the ballet for him--meant that they ended up looking weak, particularly next to the Sharks, who seemed tougher, because they were all dark-complected and they have less silly dialogue to say and they don't have to all dance "Cool."
But the Jet boys became Arthur's neat little villains--THEY were what was wrong with the 1980 revival, not something intrinsic in the writing of the book--HIS portion--that can probably never be fixed without changing the dialogue and using the structure of the screenplay.
Jump-cut to last year: Gypsy is a success. Arthur announces he has figured out the way to "fix" WSS...meaning, in his mind, how to fix it without changing the dialogue or the structure--he'll have the Sharks speak in SPANISH!
Only problem is...that was never the problem.
I'm sorry. Did I answer your question?
Updated On: 1/7/09 at 10:51 PM