Before HAMILTON, THE BOOK OF MORMON, WICKED, THE PRODUCERS, RENT, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, and CATS...there was A CHORUS LINE.
The Original Broadway Production of A Chorus Line ran from 1975-1990 and was the longest running show in the history of Broadway at that time. It's success was undoubtedly a phenomenon and in a lot of ways, you could track its success as almost being the savior of Broadway...or at least it managed to keep Broadway afloat as NYC descended into urban decay in the 70s and lasted into the 1990s.
Before I go any further, I do want to express something here.
I am not a passionate fan of A Chorus Line. I don't hate it by any means but I have never been one to say that I absolutely love the show. I feel like what made it remarkable and groundbreaking in 1975 has not necessarily held up...and a lot of that has to do with the Book scenes. It is very known in the theatre world that at the Tonys in 1976, A Chorus Line swept the awards while another musical got shafted completely and also closed in two years after its opening: Chicago.
Chicago, in my opinion, is the show that was truly ahead of its time in many ways and I think it is very telling that the current Broadway revival that opened in 1996 has since overtaken the OBC of A Chorus Line is the longest running musical on Broadway to have originated in the United States. It is also rather telling that the revival of A Chorus Line that opened in 2006 closed within the year...which I saw that production and it certainly lacked a spark.
What I am getting at is that A Chorus Line is a musical that in some ways served a purpose but I don't think it has held up. Certain aspects of it are still quite good and still pack a punch (particularly the monologue that is given by the gay character of Paul) but it is a musical that could use a fresh coat of paint. It also needs a creative force behind it that also understands it story and doesn't try to stray far from that at the same time.
A Chorus Line had been the brainchild of famed director/choreographer Michael Bennett who began making a name for himself working with Hal Prince on Company and Follies while also saving the musical Seesaw while it was in out of town tryouts. Bennett's goal was to interview many Broadway performers about their lives and then incorporating it into a show in which we watch the casting process of several dancers vying for a slot as an ensemble dancer in a Broadway show...and these are dancers who have been struggling and begging for a break. Many are facing their final years as being viable for a chorus dancer so you have that added bit of desperation.
On this basic level, there is a universal connection. Everyone has been at a point where they are desperate for a job so even the musical goes into a career that the general public may not fully understand, they at least connect to the idea of "God, I hope I get it" and "I really need this job". A Chorus Line is basically Job Interview Set to Dance & Song.
So with all of this in place, it was inevitable that Hollywood would come calling begging for the rights to produce a movie version.
Michael Bennett didn't have much of an interest in adapting it for the screen. In fact, he wanted to do a movie about actors auditioning for a movie version of A Chorus Line....talk about meta. However, he did with many directors who had an interest in doing it but many were scared away because they felt Bennett was the only one who could make such a theatrical prospect work on screen.
Then came actor turned director Richard Attenborough.
Attenborough just won Best Director at the Oscars for GANDHI, which was his film debut. I guess you could say he must've been feeling pretty good about himself having made a film that won 8 Oscars and affectively put people to sleep.
Attenborough met with Bennett and it was obvious that he was not the least bit apprehensive about tackling the project. It was also obvious Attenborough didn't view the content of the musical in the way that it was meant to be portrayed.
Actress/dancer Kelly Bishop, who originated the role of Sheila and won a Tony for her efforts, once commented on Attenborough as being "an idiot" because he viewed the musical as being about "a bunch of kids trying to break into show business" as opposed to "veteran dancers looking for one last chance before they cannot dance anymore"...and Bishop in particular would've closely related to this as the character of Sheila is written as a snarky "old" 30 year old who ends up not getting cast and leaves the stage at the end of the show glaring at director Zach knowing that she could possibly never work again.
This would prove to be one of the many issues that plagued A Chorus Line: The Movie and frankly, I am happy to discuss this movie because I think it has been largely forgotten about. In a way, that is a good thing but I also think it is a prime example of how not to adapt a beloved stage property.
Before I get into the plotting itself, I have to discuss the technical aspects of the film.
Frankly, the movie looks and sounds horrid. Any time the movie cuts to a song, you can hear an audible difference in the quality. A lot of the music sounds like it was recorded in a tin can and the orchestrations were reworked in such a way that the score comes across as sounding as generic as some kind of upbeat 80s public domain music you might hear on a low budget exercise video. A lot of the cinematography consists of strange closeups and angles and a sense that they are trying to go for artsy but it comes off as sloppy looking (Tom Hooper before Tom Hooper). Hilariously, the Sound was nominated for an Oscar...but you can't be too shocked. Even recently, they gave Best Editing to the film Bohemian Rhapsody which is often cited as one of the worst wins in the history of that award.
Technical quibbles are one thing but the film's true faults lie in the scripting/direction.
1) The elimination of certain songs
-"And...", "Sing", "The Tap Combination", most of the "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love" montage...and perhaps the most unforgivable: the majority of "The Music and The Mirror".
In many ways, you could argue that "The Music & The Mirror" is something of a centerpiece for the show. Cassie was a role devised for Donna McKechnie, the triple threat who had been Bennett's muse and, briefly, wife despite sleeping with men. McKechnie, despite being more of a Featured performer than a Lead, managed to win the Leading Actress Tony over Chicago stars Gwen Verdon and Chita Rivera. Her 10-minute scene complete with this song/dance/emotional monologue is certainly fantastic and it goes without saying that the dance number itself is iconic in the musical theatre canon.
In the film, the song is replaced by "Let Me Dance for You". If you have the time, I want you to watch these videos: one is of "Let Me Dance for You" while the other is for "The Music & The Mirror". For the latter, the video quality is not great but the strong performance of McKechnie shines through. Then you have the former, which was performed in the film by Alyson Reed.
"Let Me Dance for You"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEJnL1W4FfY
"The Music & The Mirror"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuMBGXcyW-E
When watching these clips, I feel like there is a certain sadness that is missing from the film version. It feels a little too upbeat while frankly Reed's performance feels too brash for the big screen. It also doesn't help that the song itself is a cheap ripoff of its predecessor.
2) The relationship of Cassie/Zach...and the expansion of her role
-In the end, the role of Cassie is still mostly a supporting one but the film version gives her more to do. The film also thinks that the past relationship of Cassie and Zach is a fascinating topic.
No. It is not. I don't care.
That isn't to say we didn't care about it onstage but we were also invested in a lot of these characters' lives and stories. The film essentially reduces the time given to the other supporting categories (something I will return to in a moment).
At the beginning of the film, during the famous opening number "I Hope I Get It", the film keeps cutting to Cassie desperately trying to get to the theatre for the auditioning while sitting in a cab that is stuck in traffic back when Times Square had more car traffic than foot traffic.
(Seriously, the 1980s Times Square just looks/feels so drastically different from the Times Square of today that its insane)
The film feels that it needs to use this relationship dynamic to pull the audience in whereas in the stage musical, it was essentially a solid B-plot that was used just sparingly enough to be effective.
3) Michael Douglas as Zach
-Make no mistake. Michael Douglas is a good actor but this simply felt like a truly bizarre role for him. I can sort of see why Attenborough felt a name actor would be a good fit for Zach but Douglas' presence and energy doesn't fully suit the film. I also think the power of Zach is greatly lost because in the stage show, we mostly only hear Zach as a "voice of God" kind of character whereas in the film, we keep constantly cutting to him for various reactions and often times, he comes off as simply being an ass.
4) Allyson Reed as Cassie
-As I sort of stated above, I find her performance to be a complete misdirect. Attenborough doesn't bring her in and I don't find myself connecting to her in any way emotionally. I have probably seen videos of dozens of Cassie actresses over the years (including a couple that I saw live) and even actresses who are probably too young to even be playing the role had managed to find the emotional stress and fear that Cassie is supposed to have. Cassie knows she is talented but Cassie also knows that the other people around her are too...and the stage show has it be clear that Cassie doesn't feel the least bit insulted to be grouped with these people. She may be "too good for the chorus" but "a dancer dances". Cassie, in the stage show, knows her limitations while in the movie, I felt like I was watching someone who was supposed to be some kind of attainable star. I have to stress that I have seen Reed perform before in various other projects and it is obvious she has talent but in terms of her acting in this film, she was given lousy direction and a lousy rewritten script.
5) The Aforementioned Lack of Focus on the Other Ensemble Members: or "HIDE ANYTHING THAT IS HOMOSEXUAL!!!!!!"
-Cassie and Zach's love affair is meant to be the core of the movie...and it completely degrades the other members of the ensemble in so many ways but the true offense of this movie is primarily what they do to the character of Paul. Prior to A Chorus Line, there weren't really any representations of gay men onstage despite that fact that the Theatre was basically known as being the true haven for men of a certain orientation. Early examples could be Rene Auberjonois' Sebastian in Coco and Lee Roy Reams' Duane in Applause. In the case of the latter, they even have Lauren Bacall's Margo Channing express to Duane to "bring him along" when he mentions having his partner come to a party.
At any rate, neither of those musicals have stood the test of time (I would argue that between Applause and Coco, neither were as interesting as Purlie from that year but I am going wildly off topic with that)
A Chorus Line was the first musical to basically delve into the lives of gay characters but none more memorable than that of Paul, a Puerto Rican gay man who also works as a drag queen. His monologue, which singlehandedly got Sammy Williams a Tony for Featured Actor, was a true turning point for the theatre in how gay people could be portrayed and with the candor in which they could be showed.
However, the movie came out in 1985...smack dab in the middle of not just the conservative Reagan administration but right at the true height of the AIDS epidemic. Despite some of the more salacious details that were in the original musical and even some that made it into the film, it was decided to basically tone down a lot of the gay topics in order to make the film more family friendly.
I suppose families in 1985 would rather have their sons walk around talking about tits and ass rather than the idea of a man putting on a dress and having that man seek acceptance from his parents...
In the original stage show, Paul is quite possibly the most tragic character as after he has this monologue, he later trips and injures his knee and thus not only ends his chances of getting this job but may very well never dance again....and thus brings me to....
6) The WTF Decision to Completely Upend The Meaning of "What I Did For Love":
-In the film, Zach asks the remaining dancers after Paul's accident what they would want if they were unable to dance again. Diana responds saying she hopes she will be remembered in some way, even if it is just dancing in the chorus. The others onstage basically agree with her and they move on with Zach casting his chorus line.
In the stage show, Zach asks: "If today were the day you had to stop dancing, how would you feel?"
Diana still responds to him but instead sings "What I Did For Love", a ballad that would arguably become the song most associated with the show aside from the show's rousing finale, "One". The song, at its most simplistic core, is about having no regrets and how that may relate to having to give up the career the basically defined you.
Thanks to the desire to expand the love affair of Cassie and Zach, the decision was made to turn this bittersweet ballad about giving up your career to a generic expression of a long lost love affair. It is one thing if the song had been written to be as such but considering this was a musical about dancers and how their lives revolve around that love of dance, it just seems like an extremely idiotic, misguided, and truly insulting choice to pass the song off to Cassie...and by that point, I felt less compelled to even care about her story.
__________________
CONCLUSION:
In the early 2000s, we had the grand return of big movie musicals. Moulin Rouge paved the way and then Chicago came out the following year and managed to take Best Picture (with a lot of help from Harvey Weinstein...as often felt like the case with Oscar campaigning in the late 90s/early 00s). After that, very few movie musicals have lived up to the pedigree that those two films received (and I would argue even they have many detractors these days). Some did find solid success like Hairspray but many were deemed major disappointments like The Producers, The Phantom of the Opera, Nine, and none more egregious than Cats. Even ones that got a lot of awards attention have since sort of fallen behind in the public's eye, a la Dreamgirls.
When A Chorus Line: The Movie came out, it was not an easy time for the movie musical genre. I feel like the only movie musical to come out in that time frame to do fairly well was Little Shop of Horrors the following year but it managed to keep a lot of its soul in tact despite some rather big changes (notably the "happy ending" that sucked the darker edge out of the material). I feel like A Chorus Line: The Movie was trying to be something completely different for no apparent reason...and it certainly didn't help that its actor-turned-director fresh off of an Oscar win directing one of the most overlong and stuffy biopics that Oscar voters loved for decades thought of the film as a bunch of kids trying to break into show business.
I do see a world in which A Chorus Line could work as a movie...but I also think it is source material that needs a fresh coat of paint. That opens up a whole other debate entirely as that would require completely rewriting a show and we live in a world where people are freaking out over directors like Ivo van Hove and Daniel Fish reimagining classic plays and musicals like A View from the Bridge, The Crucible, West Side Story, and Oklahoma....and you could also loop John Doyle in that group for his creative treatment to multiple Sondheim musicals (with my favorite still being his vision for Company).
I think some kind of treatment like that could do wonders for A Chorus Line. I think the reason it hasn't found the same kind of passionate fanbase among many musical theatre fans today is because it is often treated as a museum piece. If you've seen one production of A Chorus Line you've seen them all...and I have seen at least 3-4 productions over the years and yes...they were essentially the same in many ways.
You might say to me: "Anthony, you were just bitching about the movie being so different from the stage show and yet here you are complaining that you think the show needs to be different. Pick a lane!!"
First of all, yes...and calm down. I think the content and ideas for A Chorus Line are still strong. I just think they need to revamp a lot of the scenes and dialogue....or at least find a way to make the show more palatable to modern audiences. It just feels too trapped in its 70s setting.
The movie might've tried to spice it up a little but instead it ended up coming off as bitter and cold with too much overacting....but at least it is fun to watch to see when Audrey Landers disappears from the screen when more difficult dance routines come along.
No comments:
Post a Comment