Although not one of them is an out and out rave, they are very consistent on what they are saying, that the show is none less very good, hope this will be reflected on the longevity of the run and it manages the full year, I am sure it will.
Reviews are making me re-evaulate my thoughts on the production when I saw it in preview and was underwhelmed. Might let it get into its stride and pay a return visit.
Although the reviews are mainly four star they read like three.
Why are the critics so curmudgeonly and reluctant? This is a ground-breaking, Pulitzer Prize winning drama that spawned countless imitators many of which, in the UK at least, have over-shadowed it and taken credit for the ground ACL broke.
I never tire of seeing A Chorus Line and can't wait to see this production.
I thought the same thing (that they seem like 3 star reviews not 4.) I usually HATE the old "West End vs Broadway" debate--about what kind of shows work where, and jealousy about London shows ruling Broadway for a while, etc. But a part of me can't help wondering if part of it is that Chorus Line to some may seem like such an American Broadway Show and some weird resentment.
It seems odd to complain that the show now seems like a franchise because it's been staged in the same production so much--when pointing out at the same time that it hasn't been seen in the UK in a major production in thirty years. And while I think the score is vastly underated (whether Hamlisch is seen as a "major Broadway composer" or not to misquote one of the reviews), any review that doesn't talk about how striking the staging still is, just baffles me.
"Why are the critics so curmudgeonly and reluctant?"
IMO, they were right to not go overboard in its praise. Its a good, but not an amazing production. Anyone who saw the 2006 Broadway revival will say that that production jumped off the stage like the London one never does.
Alos, im intrigued by what imitations you think ACL spawned.
And to be fair, the New York critics were positive but lukewarm to THAT revival (although nearly all of the reviews were pretty much the "I saw the original cast and this just doesn't quite have that wow factor" variety, which strikes me as unfair but when the show had run so long in NYC I guess it was unavoidable.)
I can't speak for Scripps, but I'd guess by imitations he means more in terms of style and technique than story. But you can certainly see things from Chorus Line even in hopelessly mediocre (or downright crappy) shows like Fame or Flashdance.
I don't think there's any resentment about Chorus Line being a huge success - after all, "we" surpassed it with Cats, Phantom and Les Mis in terms of a long run!
The staging is phenomenal, I agree (despite some very dated lighting cues...) but I guess maybe the sentiment of the show doesn't play well to us Brits? For all of Chorus Line's metatheatricality, there is still a sense of glitz, pizzazz and "jazz hands" to it that I think isn't particularly popular here - and certainly isn't a strength of British performers, however technically accomplished.
Ticket sales have been poor so far, apparently. They couldn't even find a cast, hence why they had to delay the opening slightly and bring Americans over to play Connie and Richie (the only non-white actors in the production). It's not just a tough sell to the critics - it's a tough sell to everyone.
I saw the 2006 Broadway revival and I thought the production at the Palladium compared very favourably with that. The only aspect of the New York show that I would say outshone this one is that it had the awesome Michael Berresse as Zach.
I was also at the opening night of the original West End production in 1976 and - though this new production (nor any other I've seen) did not quite match the mindblowing impact of that night, I was still blown away by pretty much every second of last Saturday night's show.
DeNada I think that makes sense--though I think the feeling that it's all "jazz hands" is pretty off, even if the show is often sold that way in advertisements, the actual show is somewhat cynical and less overt. But perhaps something doesn't translate, just like there's a certain style of hit UK musical that is very popular with audiences (not with critics) and is a hard sell in the US. That's more what I meant--not so much a jealousy about the long run aspect--though you can bet certain critics, though not the audiences, did have a ton of resentment (stupidly IMHO) to the slew of massive UK shows in the 80s coming to NY.
My comment isn't about this production compared to another.
My comment is about the critics failing to recognise the importance of A Chorus Line in theatre history, and a rare opportunity to see it in the West End. They have given it four stars because they know it's an important work but they haven't communicated that importance in their written reviews.
ACL is the dramatic manifestation of the pshychology of self-awareness: I have never heard characters in drama that pre-dates ACL speak in the way they do in ACL. Whereas it has become regular in all sorts of drama that has come afterwards.
Both John Partridge and VHB off last night. Very disappointing.
Even if they hadn't been I suspect I might have felt this production lacked gravitas compared to the 2006 Broadway revival (which I also saw). Have they deliberately understated it for British audiences? A rare case for me admitting that (here at least) less is not more. Only the guy playing Richie gave it the full American - and the audience recognised that and loved him for it.
Audience full of ecstatic poofs none the less - proud to be one of them.
Audience also full of weak bladders - proud not to be one of them.
Depending on when you saw the 2006 production, Scripps, you probably saw this Richie there - he played the role in the first cast of the revival. I was a bit disappointed that the only non-white actors in this production had to be imported from the States - but there's no denying he gives the full cheesey whammo performance.
The Standard on Friday described the show as a "schmaltz fest" in an article about enjoying short plays with no interval - I guess even allowing for British reserve it's still too much for us.
I saw it early in its run DeNada so it almost certainly was the same actor playing Richie.
I don't see A Chorus Line as being cheesey or schmaltzy - it's a musical about hard graft that promises little reward and a high likelihood of disappointment. In that sense it's the complete opposite of what we stereotypically expect of American culture and the American dream. And it's the complete opposite of the true cheese and schmaltz of the pseudo TV talent competitions that the BBC and ITV regurgitate endlessly on Saturday evenings.
Bea Arthur Nude Sells For Nearly $2 Million At Auction
Gyllenhaal, Pine in Talks to Join INTO THE WOODS Movie?
BWW TV Exclusive: Prince, Lewis & More Remember Kevin Gray
STAGE TUBE: Join Them! Watch the PIPPIN Cast on Letterman!
TV: BROADWAY BARES to Return to Fire Island, June 1
X FACTOR Season 3 Judges to be Revealed Monday
Morgan Freeman, Diane Keaton to Lead Comedy LIFE ITSELF
Rihanna Suing Topshop for $5 Million
FLASH SPECIAL: Always - An Irving Berlin 125th Birthday Celebration
Apple and Sony iRadio Negotiations Stymied by Song-Skipping
BWW Reviews: 'And the Winners Were...' A Report Card for the Metropolitan Opera's 2012-2013 Season
BWW Reviews: FIAF Presents THE ULYSSES SYNDROME Celebrating World Nomads Tunisia
Regional Orchestra of the Week: Delaware Symphony Orchestra
joined:8/31/06
Posted: 2/19/13 at 08:45pm