The New York Times: The new “West Side Story” begins with nothingness: a huge black brick wall rising behind a cavernous blank stage. A group of young people enter, walking slowly, surveying the territory. They form a line at the lip of the stage and stare at the audience.
9 comments:
While reading this article I truthfully felt very conflicted. I have never been a huge fan of West Side Story. Sure I know the story and all the elements that make it THE West Side Story, and I do like elements of the show; but I have spent many times accidentally falling asleep while watching the movie or a version of the show. I think a re-imagination of a past production is a valid attempt to make - especially since the same issues and themes are clearly relevant today, but because the show is being produced in this time our reflections of those themes are vastly different. I felt conflicted because looking at the promotional photos of the dancers and actors - the show felt unrecognizable. I had difficulty finding any part of this show that would seem familiar - other than like the names of characters or songs. This is the intention of the show it seems like? I would be interested to see what the actual show is like, but I feel like the question of whether or not I’m with a new revival of West Side Story is still iffy in my mind.
I’ve never seen west side story but I have heard very mixed opinions on the show. I didn’t really go into this article with any expectations but reading this made me feel like I was watching it. The specificity told the story in a way I hadn’t heard before. This cast of this production was young and consisted of mainly teenagers, which definitely aided the way this production told the story. The process and approach to this productions West Side Story was very different from other productions in the past. The cast was told to start from scratch and explore new things in the rehearsal room each day and discover who they are as characters. The whole goal of restaging the production was to give it a different perspective, which I think is very important and necessary for a show in order to keep it alive and keep it relevant.
When shows are no longer relevant to modern audiences, why don't we just write new shows? What is the point in reviving and "modernizing" shows that have outdated versions of diversity when we could just encourage playwrights of color and women playwrights? West Side Story did not need to be "reborn." Nobody needed this. I hate to be cynical, but I'm just not into this. I understand that giving a new perspective to a show is important, but West Side Story has been done to death. And, I don't know how I'm the first to say this, but if you're going to change West Side Story so much, just do Romeo and Juliet. I feel like with Shakespeare is much easier to justify significant changes to, so why do it to an established musical. Let me make it clear, I'm not promoting keeping West Side Story staying exactly the same way it is, I'm just promoting not reviving it. I don't think anyone really cares at this point, especially because the movie is coming out. I feel like this has been a very negative comment and I'm so sorry, but this just rubs me the wrong way and I don't want it.
I have been really wanting to see this new production of West Side Story, as there has been so much controversy surrounding this new adaption. Some of the backlash is due to the fact that some of the original, iconic songs were cut from the show. The adaptation has been called “violent” and “rough”, however, I think that as this show progresses with time the meaning of the work changes, which is a really special thing that the creative team attempted to capture. This is illustrated especially with the use of media within the set, in order to create a more modern environment. With any iconic show, especially something that has a movie adaptation, audience members feel as if they can go in knowing what to expect, which is why some audience members have been so shocked by this piece, some even walking out as mentioned in the article. I have heard that some people hate it, and some people have left the theatre with questions and thoughts, but so far I have not heard anyone who has absolutely loved it. I am dying to go see this show for myself
I have been really wanting to see this new production of West Side Story, as there has been so much controversy surrounding this new adaption. Some of the backlash is due to the fact that some of the original, iconic songs were cut from the show. The adaptation has been called “violent” and “rough”, however, I think that as this show progresses with time the meaning of the work changes, which is a really special thing that the creative team attempted to capture. This is illustrated especially with the use of media within the set, in order to create a more modern environment. With any iconic show, especially something that has a movie adaptation, audience members feel as if they can go in knowing what to expect, which is why some audience members have been so shocked by this piece, some even walking out as mentioned in the article. I have heard that some people hate it, and some people have left the theatre with questions and thoughts, but so far I have not heard anyone who has absolutely loved it. I am dying to go see this show for myself
Ivo Van Hove is, arguably, one of the most radical directors on Broadway currently, because he has learned how to marry the risk-taking, riffing on the classics theatre that is relatively common in Europe, and make it just palatable enough to appeal to mass, commercial audiences in the market-driven world of Broadway theatre. The marketing scheme for his revival of West Side Story has been purposefully secretive and hush-hush about details of the actual production itself- this article was the most I’ve ever heard about this show, and the design of it. But as Elizabeth said, the photos of the show do not feel recognizable at all. I understand that this revival is a “hot new take” on a revered classic musical, but I think there should be some nod to the original production within Ivo’s revival, some acknowledgement of its forebears that paved the way to the current iteration.
I will preface this comment with the fact that I have never seen a production of West Side Story before, but I am more or less familiar with the plot. As much as I love a classic, I think, for the most part, they should stay that way. They were written in and for a different time, with typically outdated notions of diversity and social standards. To adapt them is to rewrite the past, but would it not be better to create new stories instead of changing old ones? Trying to rewrite the conflict in West Side Story is just rewriting West Side Story into something else, is it not? Why not encourage up and coming young writers of all backgrounds social strata to create new and engaging stories instead? We are all tired of Disney remaking their animated movies into live actions, this is not so different.
As someone who is familiar with the film but has not seen an actual production of it, West Side Story was not exactly a musical that I was completely enthralled by or one that I looked much deeper into. It is clear after reading this article (and I read the entire thing, it’s quite long) that there are some stories that might be interesting to revisit. This appears to be a revival that is extremely calculated in its choices to interpret the text in a way that is distinct from the original and common interpretations. Some might view this extreme subversion of what is common for West Side Story to be pretentious and an unnecessary quest to make it “edgy.” I haven’t seen this production, so I can’t speak to what I think it accomplishes, but I thought it was absolutely fascinating to try and understand what the artists behind this production were wanting us to see in this story that we didn’t before. I know that the “recycling” of pre-existing material can draw comparisons to things like Disney remakes, which are surface-level, soulless, and uninspired, but it appears that this production is a daring attempt at interweaving the sentiments and attitudes of today with those of a time before. It is interesting to consider though, when does a modern take on a show reveal something new and meaningful to us? How far can a source material be pushed before it becomes perverted? When I read things like “cutting lines in the script for pacing and clarity” or “shooting new footage...with iPhones, to make it less polished,” it does seem a little dubious. I guess we will see if it sticks the landing with audiences. This was a fantastic and insightful article.
The casting process for this production is fascinating to me. The fact that most of the cast (33 out of 50) are making their Broadway debut reveals the emphasis on the individual performer's talents, and not necessarily how well known they are in the NYC scene. Casting all races really does serve to emphasize the vision that in America we are all immigrants--some of simply came more recently than others. The contrast in the creators is also resonates with me because their artistic styles and processes appear to distance them, but the combination actually makes for a more dyanmic production. Along with the descriptions of cast and team, what I find so interesting about this piece is its detailed, acute descriptions that still leave me wondering. Maybe it's the nature of the production, but I would still have a hard time telling someone what this show was like, even after reading about it.
Post a Comment