West Side Story Review- Friday December 26th 2:00 **Possible Spoilers** — Page 2

Yero, this is a bargain-basement revival, the type of thing they do in the West End when there's a theatre available for a summer run. The Spanish stuff has been done in one form or another many, many times in colleges, community theaters and high schools (nobody really polices these things. You have no idea what I have seen people get away with.) The costumes make no sense, the cast are, save for Maria, totally unremarkable, the sets looks utterly cheap, like something rented from a scenic house... I could go on but why bother? The awesome talent existing in The United States these days could surely have provided a cast that everyone would agree was outstanding. The original featured CHITA RIVERA forchristsake. This is no tribute to the original. And that zodiac set - thank god it's gone. What on earth were they thinking? Is THAT the re-imagining????

And besides, re-imaginings are usually done by someone other than the original director. I think Sam Mendes actually made some worthwhile contributions to "Cabaret" but this... this...meh!

---

Yeah, that Robbins was a hack.

Just joshin'.

They are two men who had and have amazing careers in the theatre, movies (Laurents) and ballet (Robbins).
It is almost incredible that they were part of two Landmark Musical Comedies (yes, they called them that).
And yet, they seem to have not gotten along on one thing.
It boggles the mind!

Updated On: 12/28/08 at 10:42 PM

And no one GETS along with Laurents.

---

"I wish more people in theater would reexamine their work, revise it, and make it better. It may not succeed, but I applaud Laurents for the effort to improve upon what he feels is imperfect."

But then there are those who rework their creations to death and take good works and make them bad (coughFRANKWILDHORNcough).

---

Any artist worth his or her salt looks upon their work with a critical eye. Rarely does anyone look at their finished work and say, "It's perfect."

I have problems with some of Laurents' choices in this revival, but overall, I think it's a refreshing re-imagining. As I have said before, it is lightyears ahead of the 1980 revival.

Not only do I give ANYONE credit for trying something new, I give Laurents a special shout-out because he's freaking 91 and still making the effort! (That doesn't mean I agree with his decisions, but that I respect his willingness to revise and experiment.)

Perhaps upon second viewing I will alter my initial positive response. I don't expect to, but I am going to be objective and open. Isn't that our role as members of the audience?

---

Sorry about the slip. Of course I know that Robbins was the director. I was just drunk when I posted, I guess (although I don't remember drinking....) Anyway, in some ways, the fact that this is the author of the book "re-imagining" a classic show is even sadder. I don't see Neil Simon "re-imagining" "Promises, Promises." And I'd love to have seen what happened if anyone tried to "re-imagine" a Rodgers and Hammerstein show. The current South Pacific may have new sets and a cute trick with the orchestra, but I don't see the Liat/Cable scenes being done in Tonkanese.

---

All,

There is a reason PROMISES, PROMISES has not been revived. (More than ONE, I'm sure.)

And if you don't call Bartlett Sher's SOUTH PACIFIC a "re-imagining," then we are definitely defining the term differently.

I understand that you don't care for this production, and you have every right. Did you see it the first night of previews? I mean, can you at least admit it may have improved since then?

---

"Does anyone know if Matt Cavenaugh is back in the show? My friend (not a theatre geek) saw it last night and "thinks" he was on, but is not sure. There was nothing in the playbill. "

I don't think he was, I know he wasn't back on Saturday but he might have been back on Sunday.

"Just curious, because she raved about his performance."

Odd, as both Matts have been getting blah reviews.

And yet, they seem to have not gotten along on one thing.
It boggles the mind!

You forget to add in Bernstein. During the 1980 revival, in which they were all involved (see the link below for my stories of working on it), Laurents wouldn't speak to Robbins, Robbins wouldn't speak to Bernstein, Bernstein treated Sondheim like a kid, and Sondheim (who to me, as a 24-year-old in 1980, seemed even greater in talent than the other three!)--Sondheim took a back seat to the Arthur, Lenny and Jerry.

You cannot imagine the gargantuan egos of these men. Bernstein may have had regrets about giving up composing for conducting, but in the classical music world, he was treated as royalty.

Robbins had carved out a world for himself with Balanchine at New York City Ballet in which he too could be king.

And Laurents, whose only major achievements apart from Gypsy and West Side, both of which he did with Robbins, were The Way We Were and The Turning Point, had a chip on his shoulder larger than any you have ever seen.

No wonder they couldn't be civil to each other! Part of my job was to deliver messages between Robbins and Bernstein--I was thrilled--I'm still thrilled just remembering!-- but I was also saddened that my idols were acting like such babies. (And also sad that the revival was not that good.)

You also have to factor in the House Un-American Activities Committee factor: They were all leftists when they were starting their careers in the 1940s, after World War II. Laurents still is and Bernstein remained fiercely so until the day he died.

Robbins, of course, infamously ratted on his friends and named names, destroying the careers of some mutual friends of theirs and preserving his own.

Laurents went on to write about the issue in The Way We Were. But, as far as I know, these great men never discussed it. They went on working together because they respected each other talents and renown, but Arthur and Lenny hated that Jerry had named names. To them, it was a major blight on his personal integrity and worth as a human being.

I was informed before I started my job that the McCarthy era was the one topic I was NEVER to bring up with Mr Robbins.

Oh--and ljay--Arthur directed both the Gypsy revival and this WSS revival after the death of his longtime companion Tom. It was Tom's dying wish that Arthur forgive Patti and direct her on Broadway in Gypsy, and I think his death softened Arthur in many ways.

A part of him could always turn off the bitch and be the kind old uncle and mentor--he was extremely supportive of me (until he turned on me). But when he turned on you, it was swift and vicious and devastating.

Here's the link to the thread with my stories. (I know it's pathetic of me to keep bumping it, like some aging, decrepit actor brandishing a scrapbook of yellowed clips. But I don't care!)



BLT III - clip from 1980 WEST SIDE STORY Revival

---

Updated On: 12/29/08 at 11:05 PM

Good input Joey.
And add to that the all four men were dealing with their Homosexuality at the same time.
Part of the pressure put on Robbins to testify was outing him and ruining his career at the time.
Damn those righties.

Thanks DrunkChitaRivera. This particular person does not see a lot of theatre, so I wasn't sure if it was Matt Cavenaugh or his understudy. She tends to like everything.

---

It's all there in the BLT III thread.

At 24, I hope you'd had enough experience not to take that personally...we all just put up with it because it's part of the package.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I should have. But I wasn't prepared and I did take it personally (which is where it aimed), and I was scarred, for years. (To clarify, the turning on me was not on the WSS. It occurred on a subsequent project.)

...a handy receptacle for the nastiness so that he didn't wound somebody important.

As much as I hate to admit it, you are right. I was the "somebody less important" he chose to wound.

But that was many years ago, as Sweeney sings. I doubt if anyone would know. I learned from my wounds and years later, in a second career, when people acted like that, I knew how to fight back. As a matter of fact, I am now known for my ability to persevere.

To which Arthur would undoubtedly respond, "See? You should thank me."

---