Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Arthur Laurents | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:47 am EDT 07/13/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Arthur Laurents - Chazwaza 05:12 am EDT 07/13/18 | |
|
|
|
| I understand your position even though I see it differently. Re plays vs musicals, the timeline is different: you can recoup in a limited run play with a big star; you can't in a musical. (I would also question if we are ever getting Shakespeare presented in a way that recreates the original, unless it is the Rylance Globe recreations, and even then.) I think the desire to see the original choreography etc is completely reasonable, but my question is where I think it makes sense to do it. To me (and I am not trying to convince you to agree) it is in the non-profit sphere. I'd also note that when we see original ballets (as well as opera) recreated it is ALWAYS in a non-profit. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Arthur Laurents | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 06:06 pm EDT 07/13/18 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:05 pm EDT 07/13/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Arthur Laurents - ryhog 09:47 am EDT 07/13/18 | |
|
|
|
| I just don't want to let the two points get unclearly mixed up... my Shakespeare analogy was regarding Laurents' statement about "why" do WSS again unless there's a new perspective to bring to it. That statement I fully disagree with, and was saying we don't do Shakespeare (or xyz great play or classic) only when there's a new perspective, we often do them because they are good enough to be seen again, or someone wants to star, or any number of reasons. It wasn't to do with recreating an original of a play, or shakespeare even specifically. Recreating original direction and/or choreography was as separate (though I guess similar) point. And to you point, I would actually argue that non-profit is the main place to see NEW choreography to an old piece. A commercial first-class revival often won't want to take the chance screwing up a beloved classic with already genius staging that was intrinsic to the entire piece (writing and production) and what made it work so well... and will likely want to bring in people who want to see the show they love without too too much veering creatively from what the show was/is. I love when commercial producers take a chance on newer talent and original visions... I don't just want to see slavish recreations. But I also know that most of the choreographers working today aren't even in the same league with legends like Robbins, Fosse, Bennett, Tune etc, and often do much worse jobs serving the show creatively with their "original" work then would have been if they'd used the original. It's always impossible to know how it'll turn out - a recreation could be lifeless or boring if we've seen that version several times... but new staging could be bad and miss the mark and screw up the show in any number of ways. Anyway, now is time for a new vision of WSS and I'm excited to see it. While I want all generations, and anyone new to WSS to see the unbelievable Robbins choreography, I'm also dying to see another first-rate choreographer tackle it because the music is just so sensational and varied. I'm so grateful we have Robbins work so perfectly and popularly captured on film... which does make doing a Robbins-free revival more attractive and easy to swallow. That all being said... I know Gower Champion was a legend too, but I will say I've seen Hello Dolly revival twice now and (plus countless videos of past productions) and I've never been all that impressed with his choreography on HD. I find Michael Kidd's (and maybe some Gene Kelly?) choreography in the movie immeasurably more interesting, fun, and dynamic. So on one hand I'm glad to see a revival of a classic old show that tries to retain much of the original... on the other hand I'm curious what a different choreographer would have done. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Arthur Laurents | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:12 pm EDT 07/13/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Arthur Laurents - Chazwaza 06:05 pm EDT 07/13/18 | |
|
|
|
| Understood and apologies if I contributed to the mixup. A few quick thoughts: 1. I think we pay too much attention to the opinions of people just because they had a creative hand in something. To me, it's like listening to parents tell you about their grown children. 2. I am not inclined to make qualitative judgments comparing the past and the present (or future). I think there are a lot of exciting choreographers around nowadays. 3. While we may disagree about where is the best place to do what, right now we can anticipate something fresh in a commercial production and look forward to that. 4. I think I have mentioned this before here, but I was quite taken with what Jon Rua (of Hamilton and In the Heights, and now of Squarepants), a fine dancer and choreographer (see #2) who did a tribute to WSS by re-inventing Dance at the Gym with his choreography, set to Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines. (linked below) Like with Shakespeare, great things prompt great re-inventions. (E.g., R&J to WSS to this.) To me this is the sort of thing that keeps things exciting. |
|
| Link | Rua/Thicke/Dance at the Gym |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Arthur Laurents | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:08 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Arthur Laurents - ryhog 07:12 pm EDT 07/13/18 | |
|
|
|
| I appreciate all you're saying and agree with much of it. But I don't think that video is relevant to the discussion of new choreography to WSS... that is a music video of Blurred Lines, with the premise for the video being inspired by the dance at the gym in WSS. If anything this would support the argument that if we want new fresh stuff people today should just make new stuff and not revive the things from the past, aside from nodding to or honoring them. And the choreography in the video is really good, but this isn't an example of the fresh stuff we could have in a Robbins-less WSS because no one danced like that in 1956. So unless they want to do the whole show with modern dance in a period piece, this wouldn't really fit. And I wouldn't be opposed to that... not unlike the concept behind Spring Awakening actually. But that's a specific take on how to do the show now... it's not necessarily doing the show as written. Not to mention that the music isn't at all fitting for this kind of choreography. I know you weren't suggesting this is what we see done for the actual WSS but I'm not entirely sure what the point was because you can turn on So You Think You Can Dance and those kinds of shows and see exciting modern choreography to modern songs, that doesn't mean we're gonna see that applied to a musical taking place in the 50s. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Arthur Laurents | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:54 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Arthur Laurents - Chazwaza 06:08 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| well it seems I continue to do a great job of mixing things up. No, I am not at all suggesting that this could slide into a production of WSS but more along the lines of how it could be the foundation of a work inspired by it, in much the way that WSS was inspired by R&J. I do think it might be interesting to see this style of choreography set to LB's music, but I haven't really thought out how that would read broadly. I do believe there is something to be said for telling the WSS story taking place in NYC in the 50s in a way that relates to New York 65+ years later, and maybe 65+ blocks farther north. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.013301 seconds.