So if there was a new movie of A Chorus Line..

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:19pm

How do you think it should be done? Who should direct it? Which roles would you cast with unknown actors/stage talent and which ones would you cast with names who have singing and dancing abilities?

[gfaustswa]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:28pm

I don't think there should any known hollywood actors involved. I would pull from the talent that was in the Broadway revival and touring cast. That would be the best way to cast the movie.

[wicked1492]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:39pm

Rachelle Rak as Sheila. As it shoulda been in the revival.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:44pm

If there is a new movie version the talent will likely be pulled from the Glee cast so I vote no.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:45pm

That wasn't the case with Les Miserables, CATS.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:47pm

^That's because they were all busy filming Glee. They're not anymore.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 6:08pm

A Chorus Line works best as a surreal theatre piece. Too many moments that take place inside people's heads. Not that it can't be done without turning it into the crapfest of the existing film version but audiences these days are shallow muthas and a story about me, me, me is expected to yield the grandest of dramas complete with scandalous incest or other wanton *shock* perversions, wall-scratching sorrows, and big bold lesbo witches. Even that will be met with, "weak!!!"

The musical, a tale about the human condition as experienced by the Broadway performer and the 'performer' in all of us, is too humble and real a story for today's riff raff!

Film the stage version and broadcast it on PBS. I'd dig it.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 7:10pm

First, I'd go with Michael Bennett's original concept which the studio rejected: the dancers are auditioning for a movie of A Chorus Line, not for the anonymous Broadway musical of the original plot.

This, of course, will necessitate some updating of the plot. Keep the framework, keep the songs; the experiences are universal. Keep the choreography, because Bob Avian, Baayork Lee, and the legion of ACL acolytes will cut you open with a dull spoon if you don't respect Michael's memory. But new young talent, and new (partially) true stories of hoofers and gypsies, and candy-ass chorus boys/girls, and young unknowns and jaded queens.

All you need then is a ship and a star to sail her by.

Updated On: 8/10/12 at 07:10 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 7:17pm

If/when it's done I pray they set it in 1975.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 7:33pm

Whatever happens, they better keep Music and the Mirror and not Let Me Dance For You. The exclusion of Music and the Mirror was my biggest problem with the movie.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 7:34pm

We all know Adam Shankman would get a hold of it and make it crap. Why didn't they just film and release the last revival?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 7:37pm

I was really hoping they'd do a commercil release of the revival, as well (though we'd prob have ended up with the mess Mario Lopez was in).

Michael Bennett's notes for a movie on it--completely reworked (I believe his concept was to do a movie about a group of people trying to make a movie of Chorus Line or something) sounded fascinating. As he realized, to just try to do a film of the piece and open it up steals most of the power the piece has which is just so theatrical.

[westcoast_wannabe]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:38pm

Every Little Step is about as perfect a film version of A Chorus Line as we're ever likely to get.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:56pm

^ True. It is pretty awesome.

And I'd rather not see Chris Rock sing "Surprise!" or Britney Spears yodel through a hybrid "Music and the Mirror/Let Me Dance For You" thingo in the reinvented A Chorus Line film version.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:01pm

The "being gay is such a tragedy" attitude the creative team seemed to push in the revival irked me.

[nicthediva]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:55pm

I'd love to see it as a non-singing movie, with major emphasis on the dancing and acting.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 12:26am

The only way I see A Chorus Line working as a movie today would be as a filmed stage show set in the proper period, perhaps even stylized down to the finest detail to look like it was really shot in the '70s.

If you made it about dancers auditioning for a film, it would be too much like countless behind-the-scenes "documentaries" and reality TV shows that have been produced featuring "talent competitions."

By altering it to such a degree, it wouldn't be A Chorus Line anymore, and you would turn the extraordinary into the ordinary.

[Broadwayhunk]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 12:36am

The material is too dated now.

[whyohwhyoh]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 12:38am

I love ACL and saw the original cast about 20 times. I would love a movie version of it that was about dancing and not that mess that Sir Richard Attenborough made of it. how in the world did that ever come about? I can't think of anyone less likely to direct a film about dance. And I certainly would love to have it take place in the 1970's. No need to open it up. Since they went with Michael Douglas- a name- in the original film, was Liza ever a contender for Cassie? Or certainly Ann Reinking would have danced the hell out of it. It would be a dream come true to have a great ACL immortalized on film!

[ggersten]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 1:47pm

Start the film in the senior citizen home for actors - with as much of the original 1975 cast as you can. They are recalling how they all first met all those years ago when auditioning for a show. Then we fade back in time to 1975 with the younger selves. And the original cast could occasionally be "ghostlike" watching their younger selves.
And for the ending, the endless kick line morphs to the seniors doing the kick line on a stage at the home as we fade to black.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 1:57pm

A film remake would probably not happen under Kelly Bishop's watch.

[Leadingplayer]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 3:26am

Why do you think Kelly Bishop would have that kind of power?

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 11:19am

See, you guys don't get it. It has to change a little to have some mass appeal. Yes, we want a (relatively) faithful movie of A Chorus Line, but if we stuck to period and we stuck to the play, that's got an audience of PBS proportions. It wouldn't be worth the money spent to anyone but the most devoted. Some of you may argue, "So much the better. At least it won't be massacred on the altar of Hollywood." Well, that didn't stop Michael Bennett's entitled @$$ from holding back on helping the picture the first time Hollywood got its grubby mitts on it. If he'd stuck around, maybe it could've been something better. We'll never know, will we?

Don't get me wrong, Sir Richard Attenborough definitely muffed it up. It's not about kids trying to break into show business, which seems to be the film he made. On the surface, it's a glimpse into the personalities of the performers and the choreographer as they describe the events that have shaped their lives and their decisions to become dancers. At its core, it's about veteran dancers looking for one last job before it's too late for them to dance anymore.

What you guys miss is that it doesn't need to be 1975 for that to resonate with people. I'm sorry, but it's true. This show, as much as these people poured aspects of their lives into it, is not about that specific cast, or else why would they have been able to cast many replacements and new productions over the years? The show caught on because it resonated with people in the industry who'd been in the same position, who'd had the same formative experiences, and with people in the mainstream world who saw for the first time the inner world of the dancer. These characters and experiences are universal, not specific. If you want that on film, go watch Every Little Step one more time.

Framing it in a senior citizen home... what is this, Follies? Are you out of your mind? What the hell purpose does that serve? To remind people that hey, this was partially based on the real lives of dancers? They're not even going to be there the whole movie unless you're going to go Rob Marshall on the damn thing (and in the process, again, arrive at something more resembling Follies), which would be the only thing that would make casting the original talent worth it, in my humble opinion. If they're already earning a Social Security check, "God I Hope I Get It" could be about the results of a little blue pill.

The point of the show can be made without being slavishly faithful. Bennett saw that when he drew up his original proposal. You have to alter it to make it work. He knew the musical was a surreal, eminently theatrical piece, with too many moments that took place inside of people's heads. That's why his idea was dancers auditioning for the film version within the film; it made the theme hit home that much more. Some of these people have been trying to break into film all their lives, and the movie may be their last chance, just like the show within the show might have been their last chance. The choreographer would then be a metaphor for how Hollywood builds you up and breaks you down, just like the rest of this sordid business. Back then, it was extraordinary. Today, I agree that it would be too much like countless behind-the-scenes "documentaries" and reality TV shows that have been produced featuring "talent competitions." But what other way is there to do it?

All over America, young (and old) dancers are looking for their first (or last) break. They're going through adolescence and learning about themselves. They're coming to terms with being gay. They're taking horrible acting classes in high school. They're learning that some directors cast for looks rather than talent. They're realizing that at any instant, a broken bone, a knee problem, their career can be over in a flash.

This show will never be dated, because the story never ends. But each new generation must have their own image of it. It's not yours anymore. You lived that life, you had your day, and now the sun is setting. The endless ensemble must continue to dance, to say "I can do that," to say that whatever happens to them, they will have no regrets about "what [they] did for love." They follow in your footsteps without needing to wear the same clothes or tell the same stories. Let it resonate for a new audience in their own terms and language, as Jesus Christ Superstar did for endless teenagers fed up with the King James Version of events.

Let it go. And if it loves you, it will come back.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 11:50am

Why do I have the feeling you're responding to a lot of things I said, but totally didn't get what I said?

Simply put, I don't have faith in directors these days. Too many have proven thoughtless and disrespectful in their attempts at adapting something. There's a line that they cross that serves their egos and clearly isn't for the good of the material.

The things you listed and I summarized in a nutshell as the things that resonate in all of us may be universal but what has changed these days is what people consider relevant enough to make a big screen work out of. The 70s yielded some of my favorite, most thought provoking films. It was a time when looking within oneself could be the subject of a whole movie or musical. So I've lost faith in directors and audiences. Color me bitter.

But as far as adapting a musical to the screen, there's no question that some degree of change must take place. I don't see anyone here arguing against any change at all. Sure, some are laying out specific conditions they hope are met and others are suggesting whole concepts, still don't see why you have to school us on the necessary process of adapting a stage musical to film.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 12:21pm

I'm not schooling you or anyone, I'm making a point to other members of the thread who cling desperately to their memories. Stop being so defensive, and you might hear from me more, handsome.