Who else fell asleep in A Chorus Line?- Page 2

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 9:59am

Dramarama, if you didn't fall asleep, as you write halfway down this thread, why did you title your post the way you did?

With your overuse of the word "hate" and other extremities, I might have recommended a different user name -- Melodramarama.

[gymdudeva]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:09am

I'm going to guess that dramarama2 is pretty young. I think ACL is one of those shows that you might appreciate more when you're older. I didn't like it much when I was younger, but now it's my favorite muscial. I've found this to be true with a lot of books, movies, etc. that put me to sleep 20 years ago...

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:14am

Not sure that Dramarama is all that "young." In another post on what songs would be included in the musical of his life, he posts some pretty vintage (and some obsure stuff):


Dramarama: The Musical

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:19am

gymdude-
I would like to counter that by saying my bit:

I was 15 when I discovered the cast album over Christmas. By my birthday in April I had the entire score memorized. This show means a LOT to me. It's when I realized it was ok to be gay. It got me into musical theatre. Granted, the current cast is indeed subpar, and the only real stand out for me is Natalie Cortez, but the revival has it's merits. It's almost a complete recreation of the original, and like the original, doesn't rely on falling chandileirs, flying helicopters, cherry pickers or people dressed like cutlery (sp?). It relies on heart. It relies on story. It relies on the true musical format, of when you can no longer use words, you sing, and when singing isn't enough you dance to get the emotions across.

Anyhow, that's my thought at least.

[TheHumanTorch]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:44am

i wish that i could have seen the original cast of this show... i felt the revival to be very lacking, and the performances were pretty mediocre... i know that the first dance number is supposed to be a WOW but it wasn't like that, so i understand what the first poster is getting at...

[BroadwaySinger2]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:47am

I personally was awestruck during "The Music and the Mirrors". To me, that was an absolutely stunning performance by Charlotte D'Amboise.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:47am

A Chorus Line isn't about having a "decent set." The show isn't huge and flashy like 42nd Street. It's about the story.

If you didn't like the cast, that's your business. But to criticize the show for not having a decent set is ridiculous (especially when you don't back up your opinions) because the show was intended to be that way.

[queenbee2]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:51am

I certainly didn't fall asleep, but just sat there wondering how such a hearfelt show (as written) could be coming across with so little heart and emotion.

-QB

[TheHumanTorch]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:53am

well at least when I saw the show, i though Charlotte D'Amboise was completely phoning Music and the Mirror in, we're supposed to see how talented she is, and again, it was just mediocre for me and the rest of the people i saw it with..

[bythesword84]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:01am

I love A Chorus Line, just not this revival. While I can't say I fell asleep it in, I can say I couldn't wait for it to be over. I felt like the acting (particularly the 'what would you if you could never dance again?" scene) was out of a bad After School Special and the singing for pretty much everyone sounded thin and strained.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:02am

To defend Charlotte (Who I dislike IMMENSELY in the role), she and Donna McKechnie have very different dancing styles. Consequently, several things needed to be changed to make "Music and the Mirror" work for D'Amboise. I've heard that the Ann Reinking choreography would fit D'Amboise's body better.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:17am

Those who find "A Chorus Line" boring must find life boring or have had very little life experiences. ACL is about life. Going for the dream. Putting it all out there. Getting rejected or, if you are lucky, enjoying acceptance. It is far from boring.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:19am

I enjoyed the original but like Chicago more

As far as falling asleep, I almost did @ Copenhagen & believe I did @ Metro

[jett ford]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:26am

I first saw the original "Chorus Line" when I was about 13, and it was what made me say to myself "THAT is what I wanna do, I'm gonna be on stage". According to "On the Line: The Making of A Chorus Line", many people had that same reaction.
Seeing that production (I saw the tail end of that run, around 1990) blew me away, it was so emotional I'll never forget it.
I remember someone getting tickets to "Phantom of the Opera" around that same time, and I was so excited to see that as well. That, for me, turned out to be my first lesson in the difference between art and spectacle. I was so bored and dis-heartened.
I'm surprised anyone would have such a hateful reaction to Chorus Line, especially on a board filled with so many artists and aspiring artists. This revival to me did sport some lackluster performances, I agree, but the punch of the show (though far less than the original) can't be denied.
As for the opening number, well...As cheesy as it sounds, I couldn't help being overcome. That theme is what my friends and I talk about over lunch, at readings, functions, parties...."I had an audition for..." or "I don't audition enough..." or
"I didn't get a call-back for...", "so and so got dropped by her agent..." All of that is based in "I Hope I Get It". I would think someone not being moved by that is either not in show business or a child of a celebrity who's Mom can easily get them signed to The Gersh Agency. In other words, a body completely ignorant of the massive desire to be granted a job in the theater and the struggle that goes along with it.
I'll save my hateful reactions for crankings out of re-cycled movie scripts getting multi-milliion dollar productions. Perhaps the forthcoming "Happy Days: The Musical" would be better suited for the palette of someone who is bored during Chorus Line.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:33am

I gotta chime in here cause the obvious point is being missed. Yeah ok, you didn't like Chorus Line. And that's fine, thats the beauty of art it speaks to all of us in different ways, Chorus Line just didn't speak to you. But your point about the sets is just rediculous and ignorant. The musical takes place in an EMPTY theatre on a BARE stage. Most broadway shows don't have sets onstage until their load in which is months and months after the casting process. Why on earth would there need to be a set? Yeah if you went to see Sunset BLVD. and Norma's house consisted of a couch, two chairs and a table I could see your point. The show does not call for a set, period, it's not needed, nor would it make sense.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:39am

I saw The Fantastiks. I didn't mind so much the sets in that. I just felt that A Chorus Line's set could be better. I mean, honestly, the best they could do was have a mirror in the backround for, what was it? 2 scenes!

You do realize they were at an audition right? What would you have them do? Dance on cherry pickers or falling chandeliers? Use a turntable or barricade? I mean, seriously. You obviously missed the entire point. You be sure next time they revive this to tell the director you really missed having a set. That people could fall off of or trip over while dancing. Geez. I'm curious as to what you think would be practical for them to have as a set at an audition where they are standing on a line the whole time.

[broadwaybaby086]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:43am

Is there any way not to attack the taste of a person who didn't enjoy a show and expresses a differing opinion? Apparently not here.

I didn't care for the revival. I thought the source material was good, but I didn't feel anything coming from the performers. It didn't feel natural, it felt extremely acted. I don't know, maybe I caught an off-night, but I was underwhelmed. I didn't see the original, so had nothing to compare it to when that punch that jett ford references didn't come. No hatred, and I can completely see what it once was/could have been, but it wasn't on that stage that night.

That being said, it doesn't mean that I am going to camp outside of Mary Poppins or Wicked or that I don't still send people to see the show, because some people would really enjoy it. I just wasn't one of them.

[TheHumanTorch]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:46am

i really believe that i would have liked the original cast much much more... but this revival seemed so subpar in energy and in performance...

[KQuill]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:49am

This person is being attacked because of the immature manner in which he/she started this thread. No one would have minded if dramarama2 presented their opinion in a reasonable, and logical manner.

Also - I have to say that I first experienced ACL when I was 16, and I didn't really "get it". Now I am 19 and after 4 years of auditioning, reading about B-way, experiencing a performing arts school...I have a very deep appreciation for it and I have seen this revival twice.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:03pm

While I do have certain concerns about the revival, it continues to move me, and I've gone back to the show five times. I will say in terms of performance, there are several actors who, 5-6 months into the run, have really grown into their roles and their performances are much better than they were late last year. I did find myself laughing at lines last week that previously fell flat back in December. My biggest concern is the criminal lack of dance for Charlotte, I still feel this urge to yell out "Ignore the choreography and show us what you can really do!" She's capable of so much more, but I'm still moved my her solo number, she comes so alive there.

I had no real exposure to it previously, and I remember saying the first time I saw it last fall, I said "Now, I think I get it," as in, I can understand why it's so beloved. It is definitely a show that shows its age, so I can understand why some people may not take to it as easily; however, my personal opinion is that the heart of the show makes it timeless.

Now, my question to dramarama2 is...what were you expecting to find with the show that you didn't see? What do you want to see different in the production?

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:06pm

He's not being attacked for his opinion. He's being attacked because he clearly doesn't understand the point of musical theatre and, in particular, this show. Now I am not saying he is not allowed to enjoy it, but to whine that the set is sub par...that had me laughing for at least 2 minutes. Clearly missed the point. Also, I am a little confused how people are saying that the score isn't that great. It's one of the best scores out there: simple music, interesting lyrics, and most of the songs have a good beat. This score doesn't rely on power ballads and "defying gravity"s to keep people coming to the theatre.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:18pm

I guarantee some of those who are younger probably think Wicked is better than ACL

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:22pm

I guarantee some of those who are younger probably think Wicked is better than ACL

Roxy, I can't quite tell if you are agreeing with my point or what. My point wasn't that ACL is or isn't better than Wicked, and to what specific age groups that is true. My point was that ACL doesn't rely on a type of song that a bunch of fangirls would LOVE to belt out themselves, so they keep coming to see the show. For instance "Once Upon a Time" in Brooklyn.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:23pm

No

I was just making a statement re the 2 shows & many of todays younger theatergoers

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:26pm

Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification.