Put West Side Story at the top of your must-see list!
Mar 21st, 2009, 07:06 AM
#22
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, take a look at yesterday's review in the WSJ. The reviewer did not like it, plain and simple. I couldn't find a link to the review online, but he didn't like changes to the choreography, the addition of Spanish, thought the cast (except Karen Olivo as Anita) was 'competent but uncharismatic' and he disliked the alteration of the gangs from starry-eyed basically nice kids to vicious thugs. It made me wonder if I would not have liked Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (which I love) if it was redone and the young men were portrayed as vicious thugs?
Mar 21st, 2009, 10:57 AM
#23
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cpj, assuming you have accurately passed along his criticisms, I have serious disagreements with at least two of his comments.
First, I don't understand what he means by not liking the changes in the choreography. Based on everything I've read about the show, it's basically the same choreography as Robbins' original, with a few changes to heighten the dramatic effect. All in all, it's still the same great choreography that it was 52 years ago.
Second, the whole point of Laurents (the writer of the book and the current director) now having the members of the gangs portrayed as NOT being totally "basically nice kids" is that they're tough kids, MAYBE even thugs, who do things like have rumbles using knives. That's why in rethinking the show, he gave it this harder--and, in my opinion, a more realistic--edge. The Jets and Sharks are gangs, plain and simple. And, certainly, there are enough crime stories in the media regularly to demonstrate that gangs very often are not a bunch of "basically nice kids."
Still, don't be misled about the tone of the show. It's not an experience filled with violence. It's a beautiful show.
First, I don't understand what he means by not liking the changes in the choreography. Based on everything I've read about the show, it's basically the same choreography as Robbins' original, with a few changes to heighten the dramatic effect. All in all, it's still the same great choreography that it was 52 years ago.
Second, the whole point of Laurents (the writer of the book and the current director) now having the members of the gangs portrayed as NOT being totally "basically nice kids" is that they're tough kids, MAYBE even thugs, who do things like have rumbles using knives. That's why in rethinking the show, he gave it this harder--and, in my opinion, a more realistic--edge. The Jets and Sharks are gangs, plain and simple. And, certainly, there are enough crime stories in the media regularly to demonstrate that gangs very often are not a bunch of "basically nice kids."
Still, don't be misled about the tone of the show. It's not an experience filled with violence. It's a beautiful show.
Mar 21st, 2009, 01:37 PM
#24
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howard - I found the link. What you will read is the reviewer's view point. As I have said on other threads, theater, like any other art form, is highly subjective. I rarely agree with friends and dh about any given performance. So, I was merely repeating some of his thoughts. Mine you will hear after I've seen WSS!!!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1237...cle-outset-box
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1237...cle-outset-box
Mar 21st, 2009, 01:53 PM
#25
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think someone has misinterpreted the WSJ review's comments about the dancing. He says nothing about actually "changing" any of the choreography. What he does say is this:
"The steps remain familiar, but the feel is entirely different -- the men dance as though they were on steroids -- and almost entirely untrue to the spirit of the original show."
In other words he continues his thought that the original was "prettier" and more "idealized". He liked boys who looked and moved like ballet dancers rather than street thugs. And in that same vein, he seems to be saying the reason he liked the original was just that -- that the kids came off more as nice kids, caught up in getting into trouble. He doesn't like the new "grittiness" and violence and inherent "badness" of the gangs. I guess that's his privilege as a critic.
Meanwhile I'm sitting here drooling. How I want to get to New York!!!
"The steps remain familiar, but the feel is entirely different -- the men dance as though they were on steroids -- and almost entirely untrue to the spirit of the original show."
In other words he continues his thought that the original was "prettier" and more "idealized". He liked boys who looked and moved like ballet dancers rather than street thugs. And in that same vein, he seems to be saying the reason he liked the original was just that -- that the kids came off more as nice kids, caught up in getting into trouble. He doesn't like the new "grittiness" and violence and inherent "badness" of the gangs. I guess that's his privilege as a critic.
Meanwhile I'm sitting here drooling. How I want to get to New York!!!
Mar 21st, 2009, 02:13 PM
#26
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> NP, Now who could that someone be? Hmmmm?
PLEASE, This isn't my review, but that of Terry Teachout. I think the quote below is fairly simple to understand and Teachout claims that the choreography has been changed in some ways.
>
And stop drooling and plan a trip! There are enough new things on and off B'way for you to be busy every day!
PLEASE, This isn't my review, but that of Terry Teachout. I think the quote below is fairly simple to understand and Teachout claims that the choreography has been changed in some ways.
>
And stop drooling and plan a trip! There are enough new things on and off B'way for you to be busy every day!
Mar 21st, 2009, 02:45 PM
#27
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, CPG, I didn't mean specifically that you had misinterpreted and certainly not intentionally. It went from the "style" of the dance and "restaging" of the dances, to the "changes in the choreography". Then I think Howard construed "changes in choreography" to mean literal changes, not merely interpretational variances. For example, if an original choreography called for two dancers doing a certain pattern, but a new production had 5 doing it -- it would be a change in both style and staging, but it does not really mean the choreography itself was altered.
If I hadn't booked a week's theatre trip to London this past week for early May, added to three other trips already on the books between now and the fall -- I'd be doing one to NYC. But there is only so much I can afford, and I'm already surpassing that!
If I hadn't booked a week's theatre trip to London this past week for early May, added to three other trips already on the books between now and the fall -- I'd be doing one to NYC. But there is only so much I can afford, and I'm already surpassing that!
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:42 AM
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are so right, cpg. it's all so subjective. First of all, obviously, the WSJ critic never read the NY Times interview with Laurents in which he explained his concept in directing this revival and why he made certain changes in the production. I don't think Laurents' changes in any way violate what the critic calls "idealized romanticism of Robbins' choreography and Leonard Bernsteins' jazzy score." Both are still brilliant!
The critic writes, "...but no amount of tough-guy retouching can make 'West Side Story' into anything other than what it is, a starry-eyed portrait group portrait of a bunch of basically nice kids who find themselves caught up in an unforgiving world of violence and hate." That pretty sums up our basic point of disagreement. The gangs are not a bunch of basically nice kids. For starters, they are extremely prejudiced kids. And, no matter how gentle a rape scene was portrayed in the past, these kids are still rapists! And remember, Tony has broken away from the gang and fails in his attempt to get his friends (the Jets) to stop their violent ways (i.e., the rumble).
I'll stick with my original assessment: The new version of West Side Story is appropriate.....and wonderful!
The critic writes, "...but no amount of tough-guy retouching can make 'West Side Story' into anything other than what it is, a starry-eyed portrait group portrait of a bunch of basically nice kids who find themselves caught up in an unforgiving world of violence and hate." That pretty sums up our basic point of disagreement. The gangs are not a bunch of basically nice kids. For starters, they are extremely prejudiced kids. And, no matter how gentle a rape scene was portrayed in the past, these kids are still rapists! And remember, Tony has broken away from the gang and fails in his attempt to get his friends (the Jets) to stop their violent ways (i.e., the rumble).
I'll stick with my original assessment: The new version of West Side Story is appropriate.....and wonderful!
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:58 AM
#29
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm suddenly reminded that when the movie came out when I was in high school, several of us went to see it and loved it. But while there we saw our Latin teacher. On Monday in school, she read us the riot act. That movie was disgusting and the kids were hoodlums and we should not have been allowed to watch such filth! She even called our parents to confirm they knew we had seen this "horrible" movie. They had and thought the teacher was crazy (well, they were right). Oh, and she was furious that they dared to compare this pornographic movie with Shakespeare! How dare they.
The point is that the way a person in 2009 looks at the portrayal of those kids in the 1960s is totally different from the way people saw those same portrayals then. At the time we thought they really were hoodlums and tough kids. Looking at that movie today, we get a whole different feeling.
So the difference in the way people saw "tough street kids" in the 1960s and the way they see them today means a lot for the total effect of a modern production.
The point is that the way a person in 2009 looks at the portrayal of those kids in the 1960s is totally different from the way people saw those same portrayals then. At the time we thought they really were hoodlums and tough kids. Looking at that movie today, we get a whole different feeling.
So the difference in the way people saw "tough street kids" in the 1960s and the way they see them today means a lot for the total effect of a modern production.
Mar 22nd, 2009, 08:35 AM
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick, you've made some excellent points. Today's world is vastly different from the world of 1957, which, more or less, I think, supports my attitude that this is a show for our times....more than the original would have been...and a version that a perhaps a 1957 audience would not have "accepted."
(PS: It's ironic that your teacher thought that the movie version was pornography, considering the fact that the film version, if anything, softened the "hard reality" (my words) of the show.)
(PS: It's ironic that your teacher thought that the movie version was pornography, considering the fact that the film version, if anything, softened the "hard reality" (my words) of the show.)
Mar 22nd, 2009, 08:51 AM
#31
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, don't forget it was the 1960's, we were all about 16 years old, and our little old Christian Latin teacher thought anything beyond Disney was evil. She was also one of the teachers who ranted on and on about those disgusting Beatles with their "filthy long hair" and how they should be banned from TV -- and although I missed it, I'm sure she nearly died when Elvis appeared on TV and gyrated his "private parts"! Yes, all that seems innocent enough to us now -- but remember the stir such things caused at the time? So yes, today's version of West Side Story would almost have to be significantly different to gain the same or even a similar effect of the original one some 50 years ago.
Mar 22nd, 2009, 02:01 PM
#32
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 26,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also so depends on your perspective - the milieu in which you grew up. When the movie of WSS came out, it was a big deal where I grew up. It played at the movie theater where all the "special" movies played, the kind where they had an intermission and you dressed up to go there. Anyway, I was TEN, and my parents took my older brother and me for his birthday, and I've been a lifelong fan of WSS ever since. I don't remember how "thug-ish" I thought the characters were, but I do so remember loving the music and dance, and my parents didn't think I was too young for THAT (Thanks, mom and dad).
Mar 22nd, 2009, 03:11 PM
#33
HowardR, Like you I saw the original. It was as a college sophomore. I enjoyed the music, but it was too close to home, reminding me of my neighborhood without the singing and choreography. Instead of the Sharks and Jets, we had the El Quintos and the Imperials.
Mar 22nd, 2009, 05:19 PM
#34
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm delighted that this thread has turned into such a lively discussion of West Side Story.
Lest I (or the WSJ critic) give the wrong impression, the current revival of the show is not THAT much different from the original. It's been toughened up a little, but the show is basically still the same wonderful experience it was 52 years ago. From opening number on, it was wonderful and thrilling to reexperience Robbins' groundbreaking choreography. And Bernstein and Sondheim's music still soars and grabs you as the music from very few other shows do.
Lest I (or the WSJ critic) give the wrong impression, the current revival of the show is not THAT much different from the original. It's been toughened up a little, but the show is basically still the same wonderful experience it was 52 years ago. From opening number on, it was wonderful and thrilling to reexperience Robbins' groundbreaking choreography. And Bernstein and Sondheim's music still soars and grabs you as the music from very few other shows do.
Mar 23rd, 2009, 02:33 AM
#35
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 23,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting New York Mag article on Arthur Laurentz---what a guy!
http://nymag.com/arts/theater/profiles/55341/
http://nymag.com/arts/theater/profiles/55341/
Mar 23rd, 2009, 03:18 AM
#36
I would love to see West Side Story! I loved the movie version. I never got to see it on broadway.
I also loved the movie version of South Pacific and saw the traveling show a few years ago. Such a great show.
I loved, loved, loved Gypsy growing up and have seen it several times on broadway. Ethel Merman was before my time, but I do have her album. I saw it a few times on broadway and off. I would be singing all the songs in my room. My parents never thought it was too racy that I sang Bump it with a trumpet at the top of my lungs....Thanks mom and dad!!
I would like to see it again. I think it is currently running and I am not sure who is the star?
I also loved the movie version of South Pacific and saw the traveling show a few years ago. Such a great show.
I loved, loved, loved Gypsy growing up and have seen it several times on broadway. Ethel Merman was before my time, but I do have her album. I saw it a few times on broadway and off. I would be singing all the songs in my room. My parents never thought it was too racy that I sang Bump it with a trumpet at the top of my lungs....Thanks mom and dad!!
I would like to see it again. I think it is currently running and I am not sure who is the star?
Mar 23rd, 2009, 05:01 AM
#37
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eks, you're right. That New York Magazine article about Laurents is interesting. Long...but very interesting.
girlonthego, you missed the most recent revival of Gypsy. It starred Patti Lupone and was one of the best productions ever of the show.
girlonthego, you missed the most recent revival of Gypsy. It starred Patti Lupone and was one of the best productions ever of the show.
Mar 23rd, 2009, 10:07 AM
#38
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've found the rewiew that most matches my enthusiastic reaction to the show. It's by the reviewer from Variety, the show business "bible." I couldn't find the link on line, but here are some excerpts:
"The consummate craftsmanship of 'West Side Story,' with its matchless ability to weave a solemn narrative through music and dance, still dazzles after more than 50 years. Leonard Bernstein's majestic score, in particular, is undiminished, shifting fluidly between blasts of syncopated brass fueled by testosterone and rage, and some of the most achingly beauiful expressions of love ever sung. So it's rewarding to report that after nearly three decades' absence from Broadway, this masterwork has been given the revival it deserves. Under the direction of Arthur Laurents, the 1957 show remains both a brilliant evocation of its period and a timeless tragedy of disharmony and hate.
"....Most notable innovation is the choice to translate....much of the Puerto Rican characters' dialogue and songs into Spanish. This heightens the division in the turf war between rival gangs....and is far less artificial than forcing people to convey extreme passion or grief in their second language....
"....From the opening notes of Bernstein's antsy 'Prologue" and the first images of choreographer Jerome Robbins
iconic moves, with finger-snapping, low-hunching gang members darting in and out of tenement windows and off fire escapes, 'West Side Story' comes at you with a familiar rush....
"....The shows high points are too many to mention...."
"....But the true stars of the production are Robbins' graceful, endlessly expressive choreography and Bernstein's score which still sounds bracingly modern a half-century after it was first heard...."
I couldn't have said it any better!!!
"The consummate craftsmanship of 'West Side Story,' with its matchless ability to weave a solemn narrative through music and dance, still dazzles after more than 50 years. Leonard Bernstein's majestic score, in particular, is undiminished, shifting fluidly between blasts of syncopated brass fueled by testosterone and rage, and some of the most achingly beauiful expressions of love ever sung. So it's rewarding to report that after nearly three decades' absence from Broadway, this masterwork has been given the revival it deserves. Under the direction of Arthur Laurents, the 1957 show remains both a brilliant evocation of its period and a timeless tragedy of disharmony and hate.
"....Most notable innovation is the choice to translate....much of the Puerto Rican characters' dialogue and songs into Spanish. This heightens the division in the turf war between rival gangs....and is far less artificial than forcing people to convey extreme passion or grief in their second language....
"....From the opening notes of Bernstein's antsy 'Prologue" and the first images of choreographer Jerome Robbins
iconic moves, with finger-snapping, low-hunching gang members darting in and out of tenement windows and off fire escapes, 'West Side Story' comes at you with a familiar rush....
"....The shows high points are too many to mention...."
"....But the true stars of the production are Robbins' graceful, endlessly expressive choreography and Bernstein's score which still sounds bracingly modern a half-century after it was first heard...."
I couldn't have said it any better!!!
Mar 23rd, 2009, 12:47 PM
#39
I am so disappointed to hear that it is gone? I saw Gypsy with Angela Landsbury and another time with Tyne Daly.
West side story sounds great. I may need to take a trip up to visit family this summer and take my girls to see it. They love WSS as well...
West side story sounds great. I may need to take a trip up to visit family this summer and take my girls to see it. They love WSS as well...
Apr 5th, 2009, 06:34 PM
#40
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw the performance yesterday and it was wonderful. The music is still amazing. Both Josefina Scaglione (Maria) and Karen Olivo (Anita) were outstanding and gave very moving performances. After all these years, I was again in tears at the end. Although some Spanish dialogue probably enhanced some scenes, I (and all in my party) did not appreciate the two musical numbers in Spanish in Act 2 even though we probably know the lyrics in English by heart. And even though I loved the show, I felt that "A Boy Like That" was a detraction in Spanish. The original lyrics are so powerful that it's a shame that they were altered. Quite a few people sitting near us apparently felt the same way. But this is a show not to miss!
HowardR - Anita was great in the gym, but no one has legs like Helene Alexopoulos! And I never dreamed that I'd see the underside of the Westside Highway again in this lifetime!
HowardR - Anita was great in the gym, but no one has legs like Helene Alexopoulos! And I never dreamed that I'd see the underside of the Westside Highway again in this lifetime!
