A criminal act. Everyone associated with this first degree felony should be tried and convicted and sentenced to the maximum.
2
Finally saw this last night. Packed house. Agree with review 100%. No emotional connection. No intimacy. Distracting. Frustrating. Such a great big beautiful stage, gone to waste. "America" and the "Finale" sorta almost worked because they were the most pared down...but it was a glimpse of "what could have been" and was too little/too late. Meanwhile, I was 5th row center and the action in Doc's was so far upstage I felt like I was peeping through a keyhole. At this point, I am holding my breath for Spielberg's version...based on the stills, it looks like a cross between "Grease" and "Titanic," but I'll take it!
1
I just returned from seeing WSS. I disagree with Brantley--I did not think the singing was particularly good--except for Shereen Pimentel. I realize that there was a great deal of 'engineering' to improve the singing for the soundtrack of the movie, but there are great singers on broadway, who could have done better. I also didn't really like the portrayal of Tony as goofy. I wouldn't go back to see it again.
Lots of things to pick over and argue in this production but here is a warning. If you are over 5'7, if you are even moderately overweight, you will find yourself wedged into a seat that reminds you of the worst of airline seating. (This is the mezzanine, btw). I am 5'7, my inseam is 29", I'm somewhat slim. With my back all the way against the back, my knees had to spread outward, i.e, I had to manspread because there was not enough room for my poor knees to aim straight ahead. I am dead serious. If you are over 5'8 you absolutely will not fit into the seat and there is no intermission. God help anyone who is over 6' because THEY WILL NOT FIT! Why is this? Corporate interests I would guess, literally trying to squeeze the paying public, to wring out every penny. Shame!
Sounds pretentious and awful.
Drama should be left to storyteller. When people put special effects first, you end up with an incoherent mess. See, for example, anything ever created by Tim Burton, Baz Luhrmann, etc.
I was thrown off in the beginning when Maria wanted Anita to make the neckline of her dress to be lower and then the dress turned out to have buttons all down the front.... that doesn't make any sense!!!
1
Be aware that this show is one hour and 45 minutes with NO INTERMISSION and if you go out to use the bathroom YOU CAN'T COME PACK IN. I assume Broadway shows are doing this now because keeping under a 2 hours time limit makes union rates cheaper or something like that. However, this makes this show and all other shows with no intermission an immediate no-go for my husband and I. Just the stress of having to sit for almost 2 hours with no possibility of getting up is too much, especially when paying over $100 a ticket! Additionally, the intermission is a chance to socialize and makes the show more of an "evening out".
1
@Kathryn Birstein, I heard this had been left open for more comments, and therefore lots that for some reason I hadn't read.
But this is the strangest aspect - regarding "if you go out to use the bathroom YOU CAN'T COME [BACK] IN."
Is that for real? Was the plan to restrain you from getting back to your seat?
Oh dear! We bought tickets for a March show. I watched 60 Minutes story and read reviews. Now I just want my money back. No desire to see this anymore...
4
While the world is cheering the downfall of Harvey Weinstein, am I the only soul who laments that his last-announced production will apparently never materialize on Broadway? Rather than this critically-reviled revision of "West Side Story", why isn't the Broadway Theater instead presenting the theatrical version of the classic Hollywood musical "Singin' in the Rain" as reported by this newspaper exactly 4 years ago? The major selling point was that it would mark the Broadway debut of young Derek Hough, who belongs on Broadway. Already acclaimed as the finest dancer and choreographer of this generation, Hough has already amassed millions of worldwide fans (and matinee idol status) thanks to his Emmy-awarded appearances on TV's "Dancing with the Stars", his sold-out nation-wide tours, his blond-Adonis good looks, and his endearingly humble personality. While Mr. Hough has attempted to sustain interest in bringing "SITR" to Broadway by performing two of its musical highlights (the title song and "Moses Supposes") with the panache Gene Kelly himself might envy, he has ceased telling interviewers the show is still a future possibility. Instead, theatre critics and potential SRO audiences continue to be deprived of his company.
Gene Kelly was 40 when he filmed "SITR". Do we have to wait until Derek Hough is 40 to see him bring that show to Broiadway? Soon enough, the Broadway Theater should be available when its current inhabitant is evicted!
1
I had a chance to see the show twice in previews. I agree with Brantley's review in how the video can get in the way of the show at times, while other times, its works. I also agree about the one dancer in the street videos that ghosts the live event on stage. One thing that's missing in this review (or I missed it), however is that the bones of the show are amazing. The cast is stellar and delivers a great performance. The arrangements are fresh and new, and the grittiness of the show work. I witnessed a cast deliver great performances each night I saw the show (1 was on the 1st public preview), and wanted to see it again. I was hoping the use of live camera work was going to be reduced when seeing it the 2nd time, but was still ok with what I saw. I so feel the video is over used, but I also really want to see this show get scene and be a hit.
1
I agree. I saw the show in late January and WSS is my favorite musical, but I’d never seen it staged. I left the theatre with a big shrug. The dancers and singers were compelling but they were swamped by the video which was good as a scenic backdrop but distracting when it videoed the dancers. I left wondering if the theatre was too big for the show as even the orchestra seemed diminished from the get go. “I feel pretty” was missed as the actress for Maria was a beautiful singer but could have sung that credibly and the reason for her magnetism with Tony was absent. Tony’s singing of Somewhere seemed rushed and diminished too. Overall underwhelming but I wouldn’t lay it on the choreography, rather the staging.
I agree with Brantley's review. This show is close to a real stinker and pays horrible non-homage to one of Broadway's best ever musicals. I saw the show in early February and left with a shrug. What worked wonderfully in Network was a huge distraction. Would much rather view the original movie than watch Van Hove's version while being distracted from A-Z.
4
I'm often at odds with Ben Brantley's reviews, and I'm generally a big fan of von Hove's work--so it says a lot that I believe this particular review is spot-on, as much as it pains me to say that. I left the theater during the second week of February unmoved and unemotional, mostly thinking about how the show hadn't worked.
In addition to Brantley's points, all valid, I'd add that the book does not hold up, its "cool" slang now sounds hopelessly dated, leaving the show feeling stuck between the past and present. And while the quicker pace of a von Hove "edited" production is usually successfully, it does not serve this show well. As Tony and Maria speed through their blossoming love on the fast track, I found myself not believing it for a second.
98
I saw the show in one of the last preview performances and I agree with almost everything in Ben Brantley’s review. The video totally conflicted with the actors and it stole much of the vitality and intimacy that is the very essence of live theater. The singing was always "serviceable" but never transcendent. And with the mixed casting of the gangs, it was impossible to know who was who. I did enjoy the infectious portrayal of young love by Isaac Powell and Shireen Pimental, and some of the new choreography had a vocabulary that was of our time. But all in all, it was emotionally uninvolving. But in spite of the many shortcomings of this production, the sheer brilliance of Bernstein's score still manages to shine through. It is a miracle.
98
I found Brantley's review way too kind. I thought it was awful. It's a production that sounds possible on paper and does not work on the stage. Firstly, most of the actors are just out of school - in their low 20s. They don't have the skill of how to act except how to be angry. Also, this score is much more difficult than a typical musical. For the leads you need people who are exceptionally well trained singers. Only Anita and Maria are. The Tony sounds like he'll destroy his voice in about 3 months - he screams and will probably kill his voice. Ramasar as Bernardo is very good, but it's a one-dimensional role - he was clearly hired for the dancing.
This production made me realize how brilliant is Jerome Robbins's choreography, multi-layered and complex. By comparison this choreography feels lame, simplistic and unaffecting - most of the time you feel the cast is just walking in circles.
In a 2009 interview Sondheim spoke about the near-impossibility of making West Side Story more realistic - and that it wasn't even realistic in 1957. That's because at its core, WSS is a *dance work* - it was generated and created by Robbins. Updating is silly - instead, be more cognizant and respectful of what makes the thing work: the music and the dance.
196
@Bob
Agreed. Among the many things wrong with this production (longing for Puerto Rico in 2019 after 50 years of assimilation, for example), the casting choices were largely below an acceptable standard for any Broadway musical. Given the nature of these roles, there must be dozens of young actors who could do a better job singing.
9
I was thinking that if people want to see actors projected into enormous sizes onto screens, someone could invent something called movies.
327
@Linda What she said!
2
I am a retired college theatre director/teacher. I am 80 years old. The original West Side Story was the first Broadway musical I saw. There is no doubt in my mind that that experience in 1957 provided the inspiration for my career, and though nothing I ever directed was as pure and as full of light as Jerome Robbins' production, it served as my lodestar.
I've seen countless West Side Story(s) in the ensuing years, most recently a beautiful production at Lyric Opera in Chicago last Spring. I also saw Mr. van Hove's attempt at an early preview in December. Because it was months before its opening, and because of my age, I thought it unusual, strange, puzzling, overthought and under performed. But then I came to my senses: I hated it. All that remained of Sondheim was the orchestra, all that remained of Robbins was a memory, all that remained of the story was lost in the blur of projected vignettes of New York and a director/designer/choreographer's triumph of form over content. That form erased the actors, the singers, the dancers and what was left was sense impressions of what was and remains America's greatest piece of musical theater.
I wanted to like it. I tried to like it. After that evening's performance, I tried to excuse it. Since the next morning and until today, I still and will always hate it. The sheer outrageous attempt to undo a classic a la van Hove does have a place in Broadway history. Not the one that Mr Rudin, et.al. planned.
326
@David Marshall excellent review
12
@David Marshall, agreed. Please see the parody below--pretty accurate depiction of what I saw.
https://vimeo.com/60866548
15
@AJ Campbell Thank you - absolutely hilarious.
4
Bravo for change and fresh ideas. Van Hove never said he was remaking WWS to be the 1958 version. This is a production that fits within the zeitgeist of this century. There is no humor to be found in the treatment of immigrants, black youths or any minority in today's world, be it religious or otherwise. The audience, of which I was a part, was quite moved emotionally and spontaneously rose to their feet in ovation. The dancing was beautifully staged. The video served to create different layers of reality and reflected the imbalance of today's social and political uncertainty. This production does not sugarcoat but is an important reflection of today. The music, acting, singing, staging, and dancing are magnificent and transformational. I highly recommend seeing it.
3
Don't listen to the "critics." This reimagining of the classic story is as relevant and moving as ever, daring, and beautifully staged.
3
Ben is misguided and ignorant of what is happening in today's world of perfomance. Yes Ben, some of us are able to consume multiple forms of media at the same time. Sad that readers would give him credibility and run the risk of missing this amazingly staged, moving and ultimately stunning reinvention of an American classic. I read the review and was dreading using the tickets I purchased six months ago. I couldn't have been more wrong. Isaac's incredibly touching performance of Maria had me crying mid-show. (His euphoria of first love is almost painfully identifiable..I don't think anyone has captured it the way he does.) Shereen's mind-blowing voice has to be heard live to be believed. The refreshing choreography is a character in itself, which each actor/dancer uses deftly to define their characters. And yes, there is the big back drop of projections of what's happening on stage. The images are captivating, engrossing and lured me into the story on stage like I haven't felt in a long time. Seeing the characterizations from different angles and being close in to the drama, while also witnessing from afar, made for a rich and immersive experience that was so realistic it spilled out onto the street with me as I left the theater. In fact, on the way home, I almost expected my fellow A train riders to break into song and dance. Don't miss this experience.
6
Who's got the bigger ego: Robbins or van Hove? Hard to tell.
Who's got more talent? Easy!
2
Ahh - WSS - I've never seen a stage show, never was one close enough to North England. However, I loved the original film, which I thought said lots of important things about conflicting societies at the time - very exotic to a 25 yr old Northerner then. Always felt sympathy for all sides, but more the "Jets" I'm a hopeless romantic, and out of favour as a "melting pot" dreamer (anyone remember Blue Mink?) Much of my (origin white Scot/English) family now in mixed-race relationships...
1
How far the West Side Story has morphed from its original reality into today's adult fantasia. Back in the early 50s, when Arthur Laurent's son and I were pre-teen and teen classmates attending Junior H.S. 118 in Manhattan, there were four gangs in our school. The white Aces and the Ramblers and the Puerto Rican Latin Dandies and the Gauchos. The conflicts and the fights between these four gangs developed into the central theme behind Laurent's book and eventually the play and movie. Our classmates even participated in a school sponsored festival called The West Side Story. None of the real gang members, fighting each other with fists, chains and switchblade knives were over 15, unlike the hyped-up adult dancers on Broadway and the screen. To someone who lived it, the revival is pathetic.
8
@skeptik2 "Pathetic" is being kind. It was bad. Van Hove doesn't have a clue about NYC - now or then. But maybe he does think that New Yorkers frequently use the term "daddy-o" in everyday 2020 speech? Or that the Puerto Rican migration is problematic now? Or that there are gang wars here in 2020? Or, most importantly, that anyone on the planet could improve on Robbins' work? Yes, it's great to re-interpret, but to mangle? What a disappointment this production was. How wrong-headed. Fortunately, Paul Gemignani and Jonathan Tunick preserved (and, in some cases improved) on the critical musical elements. Let's face it - WSS was always about Bernstein's and Robbins' work. Laurents vastly improved his book in the most recent revival, but Van Hove? Just flat out wrong. I didn't go to the theater to watch videos.
1
This is so sad to read. West Side Story is one of the most incredible musicals ever made for the theater. Instead of trusting the masterwork of Jerome Robbins and Bernstein's music, once again the Broadway 'director du jour', who is not even an American must put high concept to something that was so far ahead of it's time to begin with. Art doesn't need video screens. Gone are the days when a great musical or play transported the audience into the world of the playwrights and lyricists. So sad to hear that this revival seems to have fallen far short of that.
10
Is this a revival of the original stage show, or a revival of the movie? I love the movie. I probably know it better than any other film. But when I saw the stage version, I was severely disappointed. Just watch the original movie. It never gets old.
@cleo
"Just watch the original movie. "
Or watch a better stage version. The Atlanta Opera did West Side Story two years ago and it was magnificent.
2
What is it with van Hove and half naked wet men? He did the same thing in A View From the Bridge. Granted, the sight of a bare chested Mark Gold showering after a long day's did not hurt my eyes, but it was the acting, not the barren, symbolic production that made it incredible.
5
@Sarah We all pray we ever looked that good.
My sentiments exactly! A MESS! And the absence of I Feel Pretty, is the least of it! Hoping Spielberg’s film version is more respectful to the intent of the original storyline.
5
Various opera companies have suffered from the same, desperate impulse to "update" productions by including video projections. And in every one I've seen the result has been the same - splitting the audiences' attention and focus between the image on the screen and the actual performer on the stage. To be truly emotionally moved by a performer, you need to be drawn in and focus on their face. It's amazing how many directors are completely oblivious to this basic tenet of theater-craft, and instead of stillness, insist on artificial chaos and visual distraction at the most inappropriate of moments.
6
"Sing pleasantly"? I thought Isaac Powell was absolutely spellbinding as Tony, and Shereen Pimentel perfect as Maria, conveying a feeling of youth that I've never seen in the character before. I much preferred this production to the Arthur Laurents revival. The projections were occasionally distracting, but in that cavernous theater, from the rear mezzanine, it was nice to be able to see the actors' faces and expressions. I missed "I Feel Pretty" but understand the reasons for cutting it. "Officer Krupke" felt dated, but my husband liked the number and the use of the screens to portray overbearing police tactics, and it was his first time seeing a live production of the musical. Overall, I thought this "West Side Story" was terrific.
8
In spite of the unneeded projections and the distractions they created, the production was true to Bernstein, Sondheim, and Robbins. When an entire audience is in tears at the close, the production has met its mark.
The show was “spot on”
3
@Theater Junkie It sounds as if the point of the production was not to be true to Bernstein, Sondheim or, especially Robbins. I know many people love the production, but don't kid yourself. Van Hove had no desire to be true to anything other than his 'vision.' That it works for some people is great.
5
@Theater Junkie I appreciate your experience, but in mine, the entire audience was definitely not in tears
1
And here I thought it was impossible to butcher this materpiece more than the last Broadway revival!
3
@HKGuy That's why I got tickets for my birthday. Worst present EVER.
2
So many of these negative reviews are hilarious in their close mindedness. Imagine, a musical production about street gangs in 2020 eliciting criticisms of videos (what?), predators (proven? / not) , dancing, acting.....it’s almost laughable. How is it that a couple of aging boomers from the suburbs found the production to be passionate, incredibly acted and danced by a corps of young people , many new to Broadway. The music and story of the original masterpiece is still intact, just adapted for a world very different from the world of 1957. How many reviewers can even imagine young women of today wearing and acting like the young women of that time. It’s ludicrous. This production amazed my wife and I. Even the rain during a dance was amazing, as we were in th second row and could feel the humidity in our seats. A risk? Yes, but it was executed well and contributed to the overall sensation. We are going back soon to see it a second time as I imagine will many others who don’t lack the interest and fortitude to experience a truly original reinterpretation of a masterpiece.
14
I purchased tickets in August, unaware of the issues regarding Ramasar, a known sexual predator. I couldn't get my tickets refunded, so decided to give the show a chance. I actually enjoyed some of the show, but could not understand why the actor, Ramasar, was simply not replaced since his performance was lack-luster at best. The now rape scene of Anita, was excruciatingly difficult to watch because all the while, I was acutely aware that in the wings, was a sexual predator who this young Anita actor, Yesenia Ayala, would have to continue dancing with.
A woman in the cast even wrote anonymously how uncomfortable she felt sharing the stage with Ramasar.
Bows were also disturbing. Ramasar put his hand on Ayala's hip, as if urging her along, when they stepped forward for their bow. The show requires her to bow with him, to make sure he does not get boo-ed. I wanted to boo. I felt as if I let women, and all victims of sexual abuse, down. I was profoundly disturbed and worried for my own teenage children who are in theater. I will never rush to buy tickets again. I am requesting a refund. I think the show owes it to all women and all victims of sexual abuse to replace Ramasar with a different actor. Going to see a show on Broadway should not be marred with issues of supporting a sexual predator and leave patrons feeling guilt, regret and exasperation. Shame on the producers and all the people responsible.
11
@Maria - I don't know the status of this matter, but are you saying whatever he did to earn a living - that he shouldn't be able to make a living and therefore have to be supported by the taxpayers? That result can be troubling too.
1
@Maria - You are entitled to your feelings. But I think tarring Ramasar as a sexual predator is vastly overstating the facts of what happened. He texted a photo of his girlfriend without her knowledge or consent, which was absolutely wrong. But he realized he'd made a mistake, learned from it, and sincerely apologized to her. They are still together, and she has stated that she is not a victim in this and supports him fully. Have you never made a mistake in your life that you regretted, that hurt somebody else? His career should not be over because of one stupid act. You can read about his girlfriend's statement at Deadline. https://deadline.com/2020/02/west-side-story-amar-ramasar-protest-alexandra-waterbury-broadway-scott-rudin-1202848660/
10
@Maria
I've read all 124 "statements of fact" in Alexandra Waterbury's lawsuit against NYC Ballet, her ex-boyfriend Chase Finlay, Ramasar, and one or two other men.
You obviously have not.
Ramasar texted a single topless photo of his (still) girlfriend and immediately notified her of having done so. Ramasar was not the source of any of the vulgar and degrading statements shared between the men.
Assuming the statements of fact are all true, Finlay and the other men are legitimate targets of Ms. Waterbury's legal action. As an outside observer, having read Ramasar's girlfriend's statements, I can't put Ramasar in the same category with Finlay and the rest.
3
I saw this in December when it was in previews. I am Mexican-American and I adore West Side Story for being one of the few "big name" musicals that feature Latino characters in the lead. I was already disappointed that they chose a non-Latino for Bernardo, let alone one with sexual harassment complaints.
I hate the use of the screens. I felt the shower over-relied on them and the effect was less striking and more boring. When the actors are playing to a camera, instead of an audience, the show loses its sense of theatricality.
It felt like many of changes were change for change's sake, not due to any reflection of the modern world. When we got on the train, we heard a lot of similar comments. I think people will go see the show just to decide for themselves but I don't think this show will have much longevity beyond that. At the very least, the show provided a debut for a new slew of talented actors.
10
Saw in December in previews. Was moved and impressed. Rousing ovation at end but a couple next to us stormed out in a huff. Videos can be distracting but they also pull you in. Agree with Ben it can be hard to tell the gangs apart but that does seem appropriate today. Can you tell Crips from Bloods by apppearances? Go with an open mind. It’s worth it.
7
@JohnFred actually yes, you can. The Bloods wore red. In the 1980’s, if you walked around in LA wearing red, the fear was that you’d get shot dead just for wearing that red shirt or bandana.
3
Amar Ramasar is indeed a sex offender, and I encourage everyone to do their research before supporting a show that has put him in the spotlight, and fully supported him despite his involvement in a ring of secretly taken, sexual pictures and videos of young women. For more information, you can visit http://chng.it/HN8gdrpZ
7
sounds like trying to rewrite The Bible. Just change the name. Years ago SFBallet created Song for a Dead Warrior--- which was brilliant and incorporated other mediums. That ballet, however, was not overstated.
3
How sad.
WSS was my inspiration as a teen and young adult.
It was showing on a long flight I tppl recently, and seeing it again moved me to tears with its brilliant and heart-warming songs and choreography.
And how sad that Sondheim, et. al. would allow this artistic train wreck to ruin their legacy.
Musical theater brilliance as we know it has gone the way of cinematic and operatic brilliance: down the tubes, a sign of our perverted culture.
That's NOT entertainment!
8
@Unlisted - it's interesting that your thought goes to all the heart-warming aspects, since by the end, doesn't it feel like our hearts were warmed just to be incinerated by harsh reality, even in the film? The tiny coda of hope feels unearned but necessary, in a way like the unconvincing but useful moment of hopeful shmaltz at the end of the brilliantly done devastation in "Dear Evan Hansen."
And if Sondheim had been so cautious not to allow this risk, he might not have allowed the rethought "Company," which seems 99% sure to be the greatest 90th birthday celebration his millions of fans could have imagined for him. And I know some people disagree, but we might not have had the IMHO wonderful John Doyle Sondheim revivals, or the "Follies" revival with Bernadette Peters allowed to try a take where Sally is certifiably losing her mind which was exciting even if not perfect, and (though it's been a few years since it was done) there's that rethink of "Forum" casting that was drastic but hinted that there could be a way to keep that show alive and well.
1
@Unlisted
I would a history of Broadway that included an interview with Sondheim. He apparently was disappointed with the work he did on West Side Story. No wonder he let the team ruin his "legacy".
West Side Story (the 1959 film) was a seminal moment for me. Our wonderful Frankford High School choir teacher, Bob Hamilton, took a big group of his students to see it in a downtown Philly movie theatre. We were fascinated by the music, the dancing, the whole package.
I watched it a couple of weeks ago on TV with my husband. He had never seen it, but he had seen a number of more traditional musicals. He was as transfixed as I was, again, in 2020. It is sad to think that the latest incarnation is a kind of mish-mash. I await the new film version with great interest.
7
I vividly remember the first time I heard the score for WSS. I was in a record store in Jersey City. I was about 17 years old and it was being played on the shop's loud speaker. Not knowing what it was I freaked. The sound of that music made my heart race. The clerk told me it was a Broadway musical and in that second I was hooked on Theater.
West Side Story is a musical masterpiece. No one can destroy
its power. It will resonate no matter the interpretation.
8
Saw it twice and it's a glitzy mess. Van Hove and De Keersmaeker have NO idea of what to do with a musical or how to use the format to tell a story. They end up resorting to "inventive", juvenile, technical flash and flat, linear, generic choreography to obscure their confusion. *sigh* Such a lost opportunity and such lovely young talent on stage. Yes, West Side Story can be rethought and reinvented - but hasn't been by this team. It's simply been deconstructed without any insight or reconstruction. On a side note: If a director cannot find a way to reinterpret numbers - such as the deleted "I FEEL PRETTY" or "Somewhere Ballet" making the material relevant and allowing us see it with new eyes - but simply resort to cutting the material they can't seem to make fit, have failed their mission and failed the musical.
34
@junkie4306
I Feel Pretty sad at what's been done to this American theatrical and cinematic masterpiece.
And I'm afraid that the Spielberg version will just be a p.c. propaganda piece, as well as an artistic disaster.
8
@Unlisted - regarding "I Feel Pretty sad at what's been done" -
I hit recommend not for what you said, which I hope will not come true, but the way you said it! Did you just invent a whole new category of wordplay, turning a title of a work completely on its ear with an extra word?
The Somewhere ballet is not a song per se, it’s danced with an off-stage singer (the character Consuela) in the original stage production. In the movie the song "Somewhere" is sung only (no ballet) by Tony and Maria. If people are going to get upset because the current WSS is not like the movie, why aren’t they upset that the movies is not like the original stage production.
Laurence Olivier's highly regarded movie of "Hamlet" cuts about half of Shakespeare's script and dispenses with three major characters. The much admired movie, “The Godfather” does not parallel the book of the same title. Yet the author of that book was one of authors of the film’s screenplay, Mario Puzo. I hope you’re getting the point here.
2
I was too young to see the original but I saw the 1980 revival with Debbie Allen. It was breathtaking. Based on this review I think I’ll pass on this revival.
7
I saw it in previews..
“A Mess”
This is the WSS you get with a Happy Meal at McDonald’s
Trying to be avant-garde so desperately it flies into the realms of being maudlin. Maybe AMEX will give me a credit for theater fraud.
18
@Robert , it was great to hear that your theater fraud case was resolved amicably after they threatened to cancel your "Music Man" tickets, and that the nondisclosure agreement you signed was voluntary.
tune of "Gee, Officer Krupke"
Dear kindly ticket buyer
Your email made us laugh.
You called the show a liar
When it was your own gaffe.
You knew Ivo von Hove
Was slated to direct
Holy Thespis, what did you expect?
— [customer]
Gosh, Customer Service
I’m fit to be tied.
I’m sorry I offended you when I said you lied.
I should have expected what Ivo would do.
Bye, Customer Service - thank YOU!
7
Unlike many of the other commenters I never saw the original B’way show (I was only 4 years old and lived 300 miles away). As an 8year old I saw the movie at a drive-in and was bored to tears ( I had voted to go to the other drive-in to see Demetrius and the Gladiators). Thankfully, Mom and Dad bought the recording of the movie soundtrack and over the years, that music became my “American songbook” along with the jacket photos of Natalie Wood, Richard Beamer, Russ Tamblyn, George Chakiris and Rita Moreno. I don’t ever need to see a “relevant” or updated version of the music I was enthralled with so long ago.
9
Brilliant. Saw it in 2019 in preview. I wanted to see WSS in its own backyard. IvH has nailed it: he's upset as many people, as he's enthused. WSS should not be vanilla, it should be in yer face, challenging, provoking feelings and responses. I love the original style and I love the new style. They ARE different, get over it! You lot don't know how lucky you are to have this in your own backyard. I'd love this to transfer to the West End, where I suspect there will be a little less knee-jerk shock. Consider this, WSS is a modernised version of Romeo and Juliet. Modernisation of a classic is exactly what WSS has always been about.
8
@Juzza YES! It's OK for things to change! And art doesn't have to please everyone to be worthy of respect. I'm an older woman, and I LOVED the edginess of the video elements - the "in your face," intruding quality that represented the feelings and energy of several of the characters. I think the young, less-experienced actors brought an imperfect freshness. A lot of you amateur and professional critics just seem to take yourselves and your opinions way too seriously. I ENJOYED this show and would love to see it again.
1
Did anyone figure out what was on the TV? This was bugging me too.
@Brooklyn Bread Baker - I read somewhere on the net that what's on the TV was an ad quoting from the comment directly above yours: "In yer face, provoking feelings and responses. Hugh Jackman. He'll make you play fake instruments and like it."
1
Check out the PlYbill site which collects all reviews. Contrary to Mr. Brantle’s, most are positive. Frankly, I am blown away by the number and tone of the negative comment. This is a Broadway show, not the Bible. BTW, saw it last night and loved it. Advise those on the fence to see it and make up your own mind.
6
Saw it also. Share the reviewer’s negative impressions. Not moved or interested in any of the dialogue or singing. Was too busy trying to figure out the insanely distracting videos. We thought producers are trying to appeal to millennials with thousands of tats and dizzy staging. Entire production lacked joy and hope.
And by the way I love the protection police offer. They are not the enemy. Look in the mirror...
17
@Barnmom I saw it today with two millennials, and we all agreed with you.
2
@Barry Sussman One should only look at legitimate media on such review aggregates and ignore the many Broadway fandom sites that exist -- and are read almost entirely by -- to allow their "reviewers" to be comped, and thus praise nearly everything, lest they bite the hand that feeds them. The legacy media seemed divided about 60/40 yea/nay.
1
Don't understand the rationale behind jettisoning the premise that an audience's attention has to be directed (by the director and actors).
Whether my attention is drawn away from the main action stage left by a jiggling foot stage right, or whether by a giant moving picture image upstage, when distractions occur, I'm missing key moments from those who are acting, i. e. moving the plot forward. It's annoying.
10
@cmk It's simple. In the terms of producing a theatre piece, these "fixers" simply do not "trust the material." I saw this in a brilliantly acted revival of Miller's "All My Sons" (Lithgow, Weist, Wilson) in which the forgettable Brit director's conceit was to project WW II bombers in the air behind the action. "See THIS, you stupid old Americans!!!"
2
This particular production sounds/looks overly aggressive - we live in a violent, ugly world and recently saw a young female student murdered by young "men" in a public park - horrid. Unfortunately, the new players in this version of WSS look like the accused in this case.
I don't necessarily see this new approach to WSS as "entertainment". The original was truly beautiful in its conception, approach and thoughts. Can you say that about this new production? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
6
@Joanne The Jets and Sharks in the original looked just as threatening to middlebrow, middle-class audiences when it premiered, which was one reason why it is considered such a landmark show. Your offense tells me you don't want to see a show about gang members in which the players -- horrors! -- look and behave like gang members.
@HKGuy
No, Joanne wanted to see a show contrasting the gang members with the idealistic lovers. The musical is not "about gang members".
2
My initial comments on this WSS were among the first 40 submitted yesterday morning; since then there have been 400 more responses. I think this might be a record for the number of theatregoers responding to an opening night review in this paper.
Numerous comments were made by people who have not yet even seen the show--or who now perhaps do not plan to see the show, based solely on Mr. Brantley's review. This is wrong. ( Personally, I like Mr. Brantley as a critic; I just happen to disagree with him regarding certain aspects of this production).
I would call to your attention that many other critics from other papers and periodicals have furnished very glowing reviews of this production, which has a lot of bold theatrical ideas in its execution.
Of the three NYC revivals since the original 1957 production, this is by far the best. It also has the most believable Tony (Isaac Powell) and Maria ( Shereen Pimentel) since Larry Kert and Carol Lawrence.
What's most important about this production is that it sends people out of the theatre talking and arguing, and exchanging ideas about what constitutes great theatrical art. It's the conversation that counts. That is why this production will--years from now-- be part of the books written on the history of the American musical theatre. This production is controversial and challenging, perhaps a bit flawed, but also highly intelligent, and very much worth your time.
15
@robert I have not seen this production but after reading Robert's comment and criticism of the NYT review, I read the reviews of The New Yorker and NY Magazine. All concur on a rather chaotic interpretation of what was a splendid performance so many years ago.
I would love to see The West Side Story on Broadway in its original production, not an apparently failed remake.
4
@robert
" I would call to your attention that many other critics from other papers and periodicals have furnished very glowing reviews of this production,..."
Yeah, like the Wall St. Journal: "Worst Side Story"!
5
@robert That argument might fly with me had my friends and I not gotten suckered into the recent butchery of "Oklahoma!" by the critical huzzahs. Food me once, shame, on me. Fool me twice, shame on the critics.
1
I haven't seen this and don't plan to, because I've already had 40 years of exposure to directors with delusions of grandeur, and need no more of it from Ivo van Hove. That exposure has been in the rather more rarified arena of Opera, the best description of it yet coined is "Eurotrash", and every opera lover knows exactly what that term means when they encounter it. Now, it has crossed over to Broadway musicals, and I hate to tell Broadway aficionados what they are in for, but they may imagine it for themselves when they fully contemplate the absolute savagery inflicted here on "West Side Story" by cutting out one of its most famous and popular songs in order to more fully realize its mini-talented (by comparison to Bernstein-Sondheim-Robbins-Laurents) director's "concept". None of this is done for the greater glory of the show's creators, or for its greater efficacy as a stage vehicle, but only to allow Mr. van Hove's mini-talents to enjoy a share of reflected glory from the bright lights he has chosen to diminish.
13
@Joe Pearce Maybe it’s just that Broadway is too small for the European art.
1
@Joe Pearce And as far as I know I feel pretty wasn’t much of the like of the creators. Also, told by someone who saw the show, it seems it doesn’t make sense on girls with tattoos. Absolute savagery sounds far fetched. Savagery belongs to other walks of life.
@Sergio Nonsense!
2
With all this reported large screen jumping .zooming and gyrating around would it were that the designers were on weed ?
Just asking for a friend.
2
At 1:45 without intermission (!), a lot of Bernstein's music seems to have been left out. All of the songs seemed truncated to me, although I'm no scholar of the show. The entirely new music that now introduces (and deflates ... ) the transition to Dance At The Gym doesn't even sound like Bernstein.
I don't have a problem with discarding Robbins' choreography, as long as it's announced. But discarding Bernstein's music is a different matter.
I didn't care for Van Hove's "Crucible" either. But it's a terrifying sign of Political Correctness invading Broadway that the Latin Cultural Council (I made up the name) forced the producers, and an innovative director, to hire two Latin-safe choreography doctors. Although authors and directors (alas) have lately prevented producers from cutting dead wood out of shows in modern times, it seems that we now have "art by committee." That is seldom the best ... art.
8
@Tim
“I Feel Pretty" and the "Somewhere" ballet have been cut from the show. Otherwise the score is faithful, albeit reorchestrated (beautifully). Stephen Sondheim, the original lyricist and great theater composer in his own right, was involved at every step. I know the score quite well and it was not otherwise truncated. “The Dance at the Gym” music is unchanged. I think a bit of music was added to the final scene.
6
@Tim - Even Spielberg and Kushner are working actively with the Latino community on their new film version, based on news articles. At first, they were surprised when it was brought up to them at an event, but by all accounts, even names as huge as the two of them have embraced the Latino involvement!
@Freddie
If was silly of Spielberg to not even consider a Latin collaborator instead of Kushner, who apparently wrote the script while consulting a Spanish dictionary.
Rita Moreno, who is in the cast of the current production, but played Anita in the original movie, told Spielberg that their Spanish was terrible, and he allowed her to make some improvements. What does that tell you? Maybe after all these years it is time to have a more Latin-lead version?
Lin-Manuel Miranda had already added Spanish text to the previous B'way production with Sondheim's approval. Why couldn't Spielberg have done the same thing?
My daughter and I were looking forward to seeing this revival but from Brantley’s review and many of the comments, we will pass. The video projections seem looming, distracting from the actors/dancers on stage. What engages us most is the intimate emotional immediacy of live performance. We loved The Prom! It closed too soon
7
@betsy still go! Ben has punctured many a fine Broadway show. I say, based on experience, go see for yourself.
9
As a theatre maker and professional performer myself, I get so sad to hear people determine whether or not to see a work / a piece based on one person’s opinion (aka Brantley or Green). Go see for yourself! Support the arts! I encourage you to keep your mind open because you might be moved or gutturally surprised — and if you don’t like it, you’ll get to make your own assertions and have your own passionate and heated discussions about it with those loved ones who shared in the experience of seeing it with you. Make a self empowered and self informed decision. This is ONE person’s opinion. If you were excited to go see it, go see it. Brantley’s review deterring you? How will you ever clarify your own tastes if that’s the rule of thumb you’ll live by?
13
@JL
Isn't the point of reviews to give the readers enough information to decide whether or not they want to see the show?
If you read enough reviews by a writer, you get a sense of whether you and the reviewer generally agree or not.
Given the cost of Broadway tickets, how many people are willing to drop big bucks (many travel from out of the area) to see an "iffy" show?
7
I saw this WSS in late January out of curiosity but went in with modest to low expectations. I saw the filmed version of van Hove’s “All About Eve” (London stage) in December and was underwhelmed at best. I had also read hundreds of aggregated reviews online submitted by regular theater-goers since WSS previews began in December. Those ranged from a few raves, a number of so-so’s, to disgusted rants.
What did I think when I saw it? I was stunned by its gritty visual beauty and hard-edged take. There were shortcomings, but those were superseded for me by the production, its great orchestra, and energetic cast. I can appreciate many of the criticisms, especially about the video elements, but that was not my experience. I sat in the front mezzanine where the viewer’s perspective differs from the orchestra. From that vantage point I saw the actors first, then the projected visuals.
This is NOT the 1961 movie, which itself was not true to the original production. But this WSS should not be dismissed by those who have not seen it. There are cheaper seats upstairs and with the videos you won’t miss a thing. Other professional reviewers had different takes, some quite positive, from that of Ben Brantley, whom I truly respect as a critic. We just disagree in this instance. (I didn’t love “Hamilton,” it was just pretty good for me.)
I saw this WSS a second time the day before it opened and plan to so do again in March. I haven’t done that for any show since the 1970s.
14
There is room in theatre for change. Van Hove never said he was remaking WWS to be the 1958 version. This is a production that fits within the zeitgeist of this century. There is no humor to be found in the treatment of immigrants, black youths or any minority in today's world, be it religious or otherwise. The audience, of which I was a part, was quite moved emotionally and spontaneously rose to their feet in ovation. The dancing was beautifully staged. The video served to create different layers of reality and reflected the imbalance of today's social and political uncertainty. This production does not sugarcoat but is an important reflection of today. The music, acting, singing, staging, and dancing are magnificent and transformational.
14
I have a BA in set design and worked in community theatres for many years. I always followed this advice (can’t remember who originally said it): “The actors are the only part of a production without whom there would be no production.” You can take away music, have barely any lighting, and no sets, but you still need actors/actresses to have live theatre. I feel that in this techno age producers think that if you don’t give a visual overload, throw in everything but the kitchen sink, you won’t have an engaging production. This version is definitely a new take on the old WSS but does not make it better or more contemporary. I refuse to spend the outrages dollars that Broadway charges to have an ADH experience. But…maybe that’s what this generation of theatre goers are looking for when they part with their money.
14
@Leona If you don't think you're an important part of the process, why do you do it?
The emperor has no clothes.
And thank you, Mr. Brantley, for the warning!
Sitting through this one must have been an excruciating hour and 45.
18
It. Was. Not. Easy. Or. Pleasant.
4
Did not enjoy. Found myself wondering if during rehearsals anyone said to Ivo, no one can see what's happening on the stage. Reminded me of Bullets Over Broadway when only the gangster - who had no reason to pander to the director - had the common sense to point out the obvious.
17
@jg I can't tell you how many times I have walked out of a Broadway theater and asked my companion, "All those people working on a show, and no one could see it was a dog?"
2
I was so looking forward to seeing this and was horribly disappointed. Maria has a beautiful operatic voice that just did not fit in a Broadway musical.
8
Our perception of a “Broadway voice” has changed drastically since WSS was written. Leonard Bernstein consistently conducted classically trained sopranos in the role of Maria. I’m happy that this casting stays true to the original!
3
Making it bigger doesn't make it fresh or worth the price of admission.
Blowing it up could have been accomplished with a deck of cards or the I Ching to reorder the scenes. Perhaps zombies. Perhaps Republicans and Democrats instead of sharks and jets. There must be a play in the current culture war. Hamilton died 200 years ago. Art is supposed to be creative. Everybody knows every song and how things go wrong when a tale of woe is told of Juliet and her Romeo. Time to go over the top of the guys who take this country to the edge every day.
1
I found the video to be distracting at times especially during Maria and Anita’s duet. I thought for sure they would decide to change the giant Tony running behind them with blood on his shirt the entire song. Apparently, they have not.
12
If only Broadway/Hollywood could leave history (real and theatrical ) alone. I'm sure that a younger generation has enjoyed re-makes of classics and the re-writing of history. Box office receipts reflect that. So be it. I'm just glad that I can remember the "West Side Story" of Carol Lawrence and Larry Kert. And I'll wait for the all-white version of "Fences", the all-minority version of "My Fair Lady", etc. etc.
4
@seniorsandy - regarding "the all-minority version of "My Fair Lady" -
I remember when "Pygmalion" came into public domain, a young writer at BMI had ben working on a version of "My Lady Jones," which everyone was skeptical about - until we actually heard a 20-minute what she was doing, and her idea unfolded without being stopped with people saying why this couldn't work commercially. (I come back to Hairspray again today - as it was like Edna Turnblad in Hairspray, saying well, if you'd told us in advance that you'd be so successful at doing this, none of us would have told you endlessly that it was silly to even try it, lol.). But in the 1990s, "everyone" was sure she'd be competing in everyone's minds with "My Fair Lady" which back then, "everyone" considered a perfect musical; times have changed on that verdict.
And I hope this doesn't offend, but to me, part of the brilliance of "Fences" that helped it reach a diverse audience was that something in the geist artfully gave a lot of us a feeling that Troy was flawed in the way Willy Loman was. It certainly helped many of us accept that August Wilson was taking a real risk by presenting a pretty unfeeling black lead character.
@seniorsandy
putting aside the other merits of van Howe's revival or lack thereof, to equate the extremely logical ethnic casting of this revival of West Side Story, which is, after all, about ethnic rivalries and whose original Broadway cast, true to its time, had a white Lawrence, play a Hispanic lead) with the facetious call to mount an all white "Fences" or all-minority version of "My Fair Lady" just shows how clueless this country is about race.
I am far from being politically correct about theater, and despite your acknowledging remakes might make sense to younger audience, you clearly lament them and would prefer to instead "Make West Side Story Great Again".
In 1958 my music teacher in junior high played us the 33 1/3 recording of West Side Story. We not only listed to the sound track but studied the storyline as well. I’ve been a big fan of WSS ever since. When I saw bits and pieces this interpretation on 60 Minutes I was appalled and dismayed that they are trying to culturally destroy a 1950s hit musical. It’s blasphemous.
18
I wore out the movie soundtrack as a kid, but WST was forever *ruined* for me by the brilliant parody on IN LIVING COLOR, "Crown Heights Story."
1
@Michael Conroy - or Cher doing what I'd figured as her having sung all the parts in "WSS" in her room as a kid, planning to do all the parts on TV one day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNhIgvqEHRo
The "Somewhere" Ballet at 11:05 seems to foreshadow Ivo von Hove projections. And Cher playing the dead Bernardo takes the fun away for half a second.
1
After seeing this play, I went home and watched the documentary of Leonard Bernstein conducting the recording of West Side Story with Kiri Te Kanawa as Maria and Jose Carreras as Tony.
Unlike this play, it was a joy and I was in heaven.
21
@Pups You didn't find it odd that Jose Carreras (with a glorious accent) sang TONY-not Bernardo?
Son et lumiere for the chattering classes? But why not an aggressive 21st century interpretation of values seen as eternal expressed in an originally 20th century musical? Contemporary performances of Shakespeare's plays would be as unrecognizable at first blush to its original audiences as a West Side Story performance in 2525 would be to the creators of this 21st century version. But if they'd cut through the son et lumiere du jour they'd discover the common thread. Will the best musicals of our age be enduring enough to become the Shakespeare plays of 2525? I for one am sad I won't be around to find out.
3
I have seen West Side numerous times including its tryout in Boston in the 50’s. Has there been as exciting production since then? I doubt it.
Come on Ben. Let’s move forward. If they had done this like all the others I worry the gist of your review would have been, “same old, same old. Why don’t they try something new and exciting. “
Bravo to all who told us a new West Side Story.
9
@Howard B AMEN and indeed! Well said.
1
I rarely agree with Ben Brantley, but I must say that in this case, he his review right on target. This was a horrendous production. In my opinion, among the worst of its many shortcomings was the use of extremely distracting projections on an very large screen. I felt I was seeing a bad movie while trying to watch a poorly staged show. I encourage anyone who has enjoyed earlier versions of West Side Story to avoid going to see this miserable production.
31
Perfectly put. It was miserable. Staging. Dancing. Singing, Acting, The Rain, and most of all The Videos. I wanted to weep...
7
Maybe Van Hove knew he needed the video projection since the producers choose to sell ridiculously expensive seats in the first 5 or 6 rows of the orchestra. Without the video, audience members in those seats would have had no idea what was going on at the back of the cavernous open stage. If you care to see ANY of the dancing that De Keersmaeker created don’t pay the ridiculous price to sit in these seats. Opt for the balcony.
10
I'm glad I saw this in January having read zero critiques and reviews. It was awesome, compelling, annoying, off-putting, challenging, beautiful, and puzzling. I'm not even sure I liked it, but I believe you will regret not having seen this show. Especially if your reason for staying away is because you want to protect the romanticized Bernstein/Sondheim/Robbins vision from the impurity of this interpretation. Their collective genius is only reinforced by this production. My advice: put on your big girl pants and take a chance.
18
What will the Tony committee do when considering this as a revival or a new musical?
1
@John Hay - it may be of interest to that question that when the Revival category was first introduced, to was. called “Most Innovative Production of a Revival.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/06/archives/annie-sweeps-7-tonys-shadow-box-named-top-play-dorothy-loudon-julie.html as opposed to best production of a revival.
1
@Freddie
Thank you. If I understand, without seeing it (yet), then this production would fit in a "most innovative revival" category. But, what are the parameters to new and revival? Is it the title, the music, the choreography, the sets, the credits?
I have to say that this was the very first Broadway show that I've ever seen that was not only not enjoyable, but also very frustrating to watch! If the viewer was not familiar with the original story
, and I'm sure most if us were, one would be lost altogether! What Ivan is attempting to do with the actors wearing cameras is a novel idea, and may work in a different format, but in this production, with film being projected on the back wall from various actors and also a cameraman who is onstage filming live as well, AND prerecorded images of streets and scenes interposed, it all just equals confusion! And a huge detraction from the live acting onstage which becomes secondary to the screen. I did not come to Broadway to watch a movie, yet this is what this show feels like. And there is no distinction between the rivalous gangs, as the costumes and dances blend into one and the same in every recurring scene. Most of the important scenes take place behind the stage, covered only by cameras projecting images we're trying to figure our where from on the back wall screen, while the expansive, barren stage, devoid of sets or props, remains completely empty in front of us!
24
This whole thing makes me sad. I’ve been a fan since it first was performed, loved the music and the dance but this sounds awful. I haven’t seen it but I don’t think I’ll bother. What destroy a classic? Call it an adaptation not West Side Story. Bernstein must be spinning in his grave. I’m glad I didn’t buy tickets. 😞
18
I knew Bernstein. He’s not spinning. He’s loving it.
1
Best reply yet. WWLD? He’d revel in it.
I am a big fan of the original and have been since I was a kid - this did not offend me. I took it as more of an experiment, and I was watching fascinated by this radically different version of a show that’s lately seemed to me a bit tired and stale in production. I was glad someone was trying something different. Was it successful? Not entirely, but I got the best Tony I have ever experienced in Isaac Powell (I don’t know why more people aren’t calling him out, he transcends this whole production - his is the revolution in this production) and got to hear this incredible score played beautifully (and full - the sound fills the theater). Some moments with the screen did work for me, at times there was an intimacy that really worked for scenes like ‘One Hand, One Heart” - it felt like you were eavesdropping on a very personal, quiet moment, and it was actually quite beautiful.
Choreo was uninspired, Maria unfortunately felt misdirected, and Laurent’s book came off a bit creaky (for comparison, I was very taken by the way Hammerstein’s book shined in the latest Oklahoma), but I still appreciate the attempt. I will always have the original (and we’re getting the new film - though I’m anticipating Spielberg won’t be taking too many risks with this new one), so this isn’t it. I hope creative teams keep taking risks with classic musicals, they’re living, breathing things.
22
Ugh, seriously? I'm confused. Annoying video installations aside - Robbins' choreography was replaced, but not equaled in intensity? They flubbed the gym dance? That's just tragic. Why bother?
16
@AM Would the Broadway Sharks and Jets in this production have attended a high school dance in the first place? I enjoyed the new production, but that was an anachronism.
1
Interesting experiment into Broadway plays with the video backdrop, the two holes in the video drop for the "interior" scenes, the "run up four flights" for Maria's bedroom.
But it isn't West Side Story. Some of the melody and lyrics are there, although the biggest are gone because the director thought they were not cool. The dancing has zero to do with the amazing choreography that made the play epic and instead was an egotistical indulgence by a choreographer.
They finally had to bring in a Hispanic Dance coach to the anger of Anne Theresa because the Belgian had no clue how American Latinas and Latinos moved.
Actually that is the problem -- the nameless play is now "diverse", meaning obsessed with "race", and have thrown out everything that is Puerto Rican. How strange the producers let those clowns butcher the show, when the current darling of acting and plays is Puerto Rican Lin Manuel Miranda who came to fame with a play about Puertoricans in New York.
Go see the "new" Broadway, relish in the social statements that the police are crude hateful oppressors, immerse in "race", but don't expect "West Side Story".
11
Mr. Sondheim, very much more than still here, allowed major rethinking to be tried to this show and also major changes to "Company." By all accounts, the "Company" rethinking gave a terrific alternative. There may be some aspects of this which he'll like and some he won't.
The account of the cast staring down the audience reminds me of my Dad's surprised reaction to the beginning of "Pacific Overtures," when Mako (who'd looked so sweet and friendly as part of the making of "Somewhere in a Tree" TV special that we'd seen very recently) glared and growled angrily at our whole section at the start of the show. Mako did ease up, and was in full charm mode by the time "Someone in a Tree" started up, and it was yeah, there's the great number that made the folks want to see the show after a full day of work. (But he later said he thought, I just got here from Europe in the late 1940s, I really didn't do it.)
@Freddie Yeah, glaring angrily. a terrific alternative.
But if it ain't Puerto Rican, doesn't have the signature songs, and signature dancing --- it ain't West Side Story.
Next, let's make the sets for "Oklahoma" as Brooklyn and leave out the song "Oklahoma" because the "Where the waving wheat can sure smell sweet" is not wheat -- and smells bad. And do the whole show in "Rap" because it is "today".
10
@Tom Mariner, on that, I was referring to the new "Company" opening on Sondheim' 90th birthday.
If we must have premium: Could this upcoming spring 2020 revival be a Sondheim show finally really going premium on Broadway? (The 2009 "A Little Night Music" revival almost did, but that was so super-star-specific.)
"Another 100 Patti Fans Got Off of Their Phones" https://youtu.be/biOPO57uQ1M
or a shorter version for shorter attention spans https://youtu.be/o1s1ScBSV3An
Sometimes the "original" version is THE version and perhaps that is the version that should be shown, again and again.
16
I saw this play in early January. I left furious. The use of video to tell the story was insanely distracting. It dominated the cast members who, otherwise, I am sure, could have told this compelling story. I couldn't help wondering if the producers were just trying to save money on set design and development. "Let's tell them it's a brilliant new take on the classic! There's a sucker born every minute!"
Lesson learned. It will be long time before this sucker antes up money for Broadway tickets.
21
Saw the show in early January and was impressed by the actors' vocal ability and dancing and even loved some of the interesting choreography, but could not get past the graphic rape scene magnified full-screen on the video. Left the theater feeling nauseous.
14
Maybe I’ll go back. I don’t know. I have a voucher because the “Tony” I was to see hurt himself and I pretended I didn’t know. (I love seeing understudies. NYC talent is so deep, so I went knowing I wouldn’t see the casted lead.) I left 45 minutes into the performance. (Not because of understudy Tony.)
I’m saying this no offense to the performers, because I couldn’t see you! I wish I could have. But for the time I was there, what a joke. What arrogance. Put the kids on stage and direct them.
9
@zelda "Kids." Yes, that's who the major characters are supposed to be. Amar Ramasar, in this review's photo, is obviously a long-since ex-kid. I checked Wikipedia. He's nearly forty.
3
@zelda
Kinda sad to know that you "pretended" you didn't know about the understudy to get a free seat to a second viewing and then brag about it too boot. Part of the "new" acceptable deception that is part and parcel of the Trump years.
Wow. Based on the intensity of the discussion, Spielberg better watch out!
3
@EN
Spielberg's not short on ego so reviews of his yet to be released version will have no impact on him, good or bad. I find his "need" to remake this classic to be out of touch, out of control, and beyond necessary. Next up: remakes of Gone With the Wind and Casablanca.
1
Trump would definitely be up for a remake of “Gone with the Wind”, as long as wise guy Brad Pitt isn’t in it.
In a just world, this show will close quickly and Ivo van Hove will never, ever be permitted to inflict his ego on a stage again.
26
It’s just an interpretation of a musical. Nothing to do with justice. Calm yourself.
1
My first thought when reading about this production in one of the zillion articles about it in The Times or The Washington Post was to wonder if the producers know about research using eye tracking cameras and tried them out on a few volunteers to
assure themselves that the stage performers were even
relevant under that video load.
3
This was a huge risk and though it didn't work. and unexpected protests lines may have kept even walk-ins away - it would be great to hope that the experience didn't create a split between this director whose work always seems risky, and this producer, who somehow with all the strange stuff he does still keeps giving the world inclusive work that will last long after all of us are gone, and was doing inclusive as a rule well before inclusive was ever needed. Risking big can bomb big, but can also hit big.
I know we're all going to have fun with what a safe bet "The Music Man" will be, the way we had fun with what a safe bet Bette Midler in "Hello Dolly" was. (Even there, who expected that would throw off chances to see other greats who just were not premium box office like Bernadette Peters and Donna Murphy and Betty Buckley do the part?). But with the terrible things about most commercial producers and premium creating elitism which is so ill-timed now, those safe bonanzas make risks by investors possible, and we've seen even make artistic triumphs like "Waverly Gallery" with no real shot at big profit, possible.
So looking forward to seeing what artistic risks the safe "Shipoopi" and "Til there Was Hugh" money will bring. That this risky "WSS" happened, rather than another safe "WSS," can be seen as a good sign.
3
I generally can stand behind Mr. Brantley’s reviews, but I have to say I am surprised at how vociferously I disagree with him. This vision of 2020 gangs destroying their own world is seering, daring, and groundbreaking. The video allows us deep into the characters feelings and motivations, down to the forming fog on the mirror as Maria and Tony stand breathlessly on either side of it. The horrifying rape of Anita becomes even more terrifying and potent. The choreography is magnified with chaos and violence. Unspoken moments are offered to the audience, such as two men lovingly holding each other as Chino refuses to enter the shop saying “it is a place for women”, defying his misplaced and threatened masculinity. There are so many touches that inform the Jets’ and Sharks’ reality, which the video brilliantly allows us to see.
I cannot wait to see it again. It is searing, and as disturbing to a 2020 audience as it must have been shocking to an audience in 1957. This production surely won’t leave anyone without strong feelings, and that makes it art.
57
@Philip Pierce "This vision of 2020 gangs destroying their own world is seering, daring, and groundbreaking" Great, but don't try to fool everyone and grab the memory of the brilliant play. Don't. Call. It. West Side Story!!!!
2
The millennial version of a classic. I saw enough on the 60 Minutes segment to convince me to not look forward to seeing this criminal interruption of the real West Side Story. I hop it folds in less than a month like a deck of cards. Shameful.
27
Is it possible to remake such a beloved classic as West Side Story?
Between remakes and turning movies into plays, I wonder where all the creative material is? I guess it's all about the Benjamins.
17
@Bill Brasky So by this standard we must wonder what Shakespeare would have made of the Sondheim/Bernstein/Laurents remake of Romeo and Juliet. And yes, it's a good thing when artists make money. I dare say even Shakespeare was paid to create not only his own work, but was paid to adapt the work of others.
11
@rachel
fair point.
Enjoy.
1
I have seen both this production of WSS and also the current production of Agrippina by Handel at the Met Opera. Both are examples of directors taking classic, well-known productions from the past (WSS in the 50’s and Agrippina in ancient Rome) and putting them into contemporary settings with contemporary costumes, using video (both pre-recorded and live), and introducing contemporary markers like cell phones, tattoos, gender identity, and so on. Both productions are bold and risk-taking.
Here’s the difference: this Agrippina is stunningly successful. It’s genius for its wit, and for the direction/set/modernity that enhance the music and the story and reveal the characters. The new production doesn’t crush the original work, it elevates it for both new and nostalgic audiences.
Whereas this West Side Story is simply a mess, filled with gratuitous tricks and lazy methods that another director would have rejected as bad ideas that disrespected the audience. Like the hidden tiny sets. Or all that rain. Why? To me it was like a high school theater project that shouldn’t get a passing grade.
If you can, go see Agrippina and see what is possible. But it may make you sad to think about what this production of WSS could have been.
29
@Kate
This West Side Story production is stunningly successful. as you said above. It did not crush the original work at all, but rather transcend it! The characters were real, were NOW, the story is now, the connection is real! The tiny hidden sets, were not hidden, they were projected on the entire backdrop. The rain was real, was intense, a brilliant idea and NOTHING was like a high school production. On the contrary.
7
I saw this in previews and loved some aspects of it but agree with the review. The video screens were distracting and made some people motion sick. Maria’s voice was amazing but she didn’t capture the spirit of Maria that we associate with this musical, but that was okay. Anita was perfect and Officer Krupke and the rain scenes were stunning. Going off stage and watching scenes on the video screen did nothing to improve this show, just a gimmick. Overall, the pros outweigh the cons and would recommend it.
8
I have tickets to see “WSS” in March. Whether good or bad, I’m sure it will be unique.
I‘m in no position to evaluate the show yet. It is receiving the diverse reviews I expected — some seriously critical, some laudatory.
If the video overwhelms, & the show feels like an extended music video, I will be disappointed. But I come with an open mind.
I reject the oft-repeated reaction here that a classic like “WSS” cannot be radically reinterpreted or that live theater should not include extensive, large-scale video.
Theater is a living, breathing, evolving thing & the greatest of works have always had various interpretations applied to them over time. This feels like an effort to create a “tone poem” out of “WSS” that, perhaps, tilts it toward 21st Century performance art. It may be a disaster; it may not be.
There are plenty of productions of “WSS” for unbending traditionalists if they want to skip this, but radically reimagining the show doesn’t invalidate it.
Last year, I saw a grand and wonderful production of “WSS” at the Lyric Opera in Chicago. I then went to see a small, intimate production at a rep theater in Milwaukee that I liked even better. I saw the movie with a live orchestra last year. I’ll see another production in Chicago after the Broadway version and finish out this run with the Spielberg film at the end of 2020.
I don’t expect any of these 6 “WSS” experiences to feel redundant. Here’s to artists re-staging & reinterpreting this great show forever more.
11
I agree with the spirit of your comment, but as my 8th grade biology teacher Miss Burmeister said before we dissected a frog, “Do not mutilate for the sake of mutilation!” I’m afraid that’s what this production did—it tore down something beautiful without artfully creating a different, compelling, and provocative reincarnation. Others have catalogued its many shortcomings, so I won’t here. Suffice it to say that in the long run (or maybe not-so-long run) it tried to be timely and energetic and modern and iconoclastic, but was simply uninspiring, haphazard and boring.
9
@Arthur Hochstein I’m looking forward to seeing if I feel the same way as you do. Whether I do or not, some of the comments here suggested that an iconic, legendary musical theater piece like “West Side Story” shouldn’t be addressed in such a radicalized way. Others suggested that because large-scale video is such a key part of the production, it is an insult to live theater. My point was that I strongly disagree with the spirit of these comments notwithstanding rendering an opinion yet about the show.
As I continued to read so much about this show, I suspected the reaction to it — especially by professional critics — would run the gamut and many people would be up in arms about it. Both seem to be the case. The LA Times, the NY Post and several other media outlets have raved about this new WSS today while others have been scathing. Mr. Brantley in the NY Times falls somewhere in between but is more negative than positive.
If the show is radicalized and reinvented for seemingly no other purpose than being provocative as you infer, then I suspect I’ll fall into your camp. But there are many who feel otherwise, too, so all I can do is await my evening with Tony and Maria and their friends and foes in a whole new way.
3
My 14 yr old and I saw this production a few weeks ago. Both of us are fans of the music and the story and I must say, this production gave me a stronger insight into how timeless this musical is. I was so affected by the end of the show. The video was initially distracting to my child, but she quickly got used to it. I thought it was fantastic, as it created a dimension that allowed us to let us peek into the actors’ emotions and their backstage worlds with startling clarity. It forced us to take notice of every detail. I loved how the gangs did appear merge with one another, from time to time, as in life. These kids are really not so different from each other. The rain was spectacular - adding another dimension to the performances. When it stopped there was a visceral sense of a new day dawning. As Mr Brantley says, the kids in these gangs were both Goliaths and playful. They fought the stereotypical behavior. They were human. I Feel Pretty did not belong in this production, nor did an interval to disrupt the experience. The music was soaring and the show was immersive. What’s theatre if it doesn’t ruffle a few feathers?
11
@Jacqui Brown You are so right. You should read the LA Times whose reviewer is one the best reviewers for another perspective that open minded and thoughtful!
2
Dismissive review, misses the mark, as usual. I’m not a huge fan of Ivo van Hove’s, but you know why the videos (largely) worked for me? Because I was sitting in the last row of the balcony, and thanks to the videos, I could see the actor’s faces.
15
After the OKLAHOMA! fiasco, I'm not going to see any more of these re-imagined classic musicals. These "avant-garde" directors keep trying to use these classics to try to say something or make some point about the modern world. And they inevitably fail, because that's not the purpose for which these shows were written.
WEST SIDE STORY, says enough on its own without you messing with it. Musical Theatre is a writer's medium, not a director's medium the way film is. It's not a chance for you to be an auteur. Your job as a director is to PUT ON THE SHOW.
These shows were written the way they were written for a reason and directors should really have more respect for that. Their purpose is to ENTERTAIN :) The beauty of them is that they already say something without you adding bells and whistles, anything else useless frou frou.
30
@Noah American classic+ European director= unholy mess. It happens over and over again...
6
@jiminirob
I must disagree. I saw van Hove’s A View From the Bridge and it was one of the best nights in the theatre I’ve ever had. It was so intense at one point both I and my companion started to cry - - not that it was at a sad moment, but that the tension created was unbearable. That’s the power of live performance.
2
Yeah, anyone who has seen The Wooster Group in the past thirty years will recognize the video background. Stale idea.
11
Saw the revival of Oklahoma!, in the early naughts! It’s dark undertones left something to be desired! However, this revival of West Side Story, scrapes the bottom! When people say The Gutter Has Come To Power with Donald Trump in the White House, it’s not the only place in our culture, dominated by mediocrities!!!
18
Nothing about the overly graphic sexual assault and attempted rape that was projected larger than life? All I could think when seeing that was: are we really getting something about the story here as members of the audience that is worth the cost to the actors (particularly the actor playing Anita) as they go through the violent groping, grabbing, and nauseating miming of rape night after night? I don't think so.
26
@Medea Rape is ugly and brutal, even in musical theater.
I don't understand why people are so upset that a director has decided to portray an attempted sexual assault realistically.
2
I enjoyed the show but was very glad I did not have any one young with me. The rape scene is very difficult.
1
It is interesting to read how the critics love Mr. van Hove (The Demolition Artist: 3 Critics Debate Ivo van Hove, NY Times January 9, 2019 ) and those of us who paid to see his work do not.
To me, he is a lazy director with minimalist sets that add nothing to a performance. Even the outstanding acting by the casts of View From The Bridge and The Crucible could not save the productions. Further he hired a choreographer for the West Side Story who told his cast to "improvise"! What? Do your job!
17
@Wiley Dog: Yep, that's Ivo Heave-ho for you - he is worse than clueless: He destroys what is most important about this work, as he's done with other shows he's "directed."
8
Brantley is right about most of what he says. I saw this a few weeks ago and thought the giant video projections to be distracting and overused- and especially didn't like the videographer interacting physically with the actors. I saw Network and van Hove's use of video was organic to the story and used in an integrated and often witty manner. But this made me feel like the actors were supporting players in video version of the musical. After a while I resented having to look up at the screen when the live actors were hidden inside the sets. I also thought that De Keersmaeker's choreography was indistinct and lukewarm. Although no one can match the original genius of the Robbins choreography, I've seen much more innovative uses of hip hop, crunk dance and even in tap to express violence and confrontation. However, the orchestrations and performance of the music by the orchestra were worth the price of admission and the singing mostly well done. Thank god they went for classic presentation of the music!
The other big issue I had was by making one of the gangs multi-racial and the other Puerto Rican, it didn't seem to make any sense culturally. By removing the racial element, the motivations for the hostility between the two groups seemed inexplicable , especially since Puerto Ricans are American citizens and nowadays mostly speak English. It just didn't make any sense in the context of the retelling of this story.
22
Saw this is previews with 5 serious theater-goer a few weeks back. No one was happy. Here's a summary.
- The video is clever to start, but comes intrusive quickly. A superb use of video (like "Poor Judd's Dead" in the recent Oklahoma) is revealing and creates insights. this doesn't.
- Apart from Anita, the voices are week and not suited for the quasi-operatic nature of these tunes. Tony simply cannot sing.
- "America" is a smash number.. we felt sad that energy came and went.
- Maybe given the specific text and tempo WSS really can't be done except as a period piece.
- Good call about no intermission.. the audience would have mostly walked out.
- van Hove is doing Don Giovanni at the mt next season. That could be another problem.
26
I thought Tony was great but the head of the Jets was downright bad. Are you sure you didn’t see the understudy. I think the actor playing Tony was out for a few weeks with an injury. His voice was sublime.
@Judy No, it was Powell we saw. Atleast on the night we were there his voice was reedy and kind of unpleasant.
3
And here - New York Times readers - is the true irony of this story --
"West Side Story is a musical with a book by Arthur Laurents, music by Leonard Bernstein and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim.[1] It was inspired by William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet.
"The story is set in the Upper West Side neighborhood in New York City in the mid 1950s, an ethnic, blue-collar neighborhood (in the early 1960s, much of the neighborhood was cleared in an urban renewal project for Lincoln Center, which changed the neighborhood's character) --
And - as another commenter has pointed out regarding "sweatshops" --
"Maria works in a bridal shop with Anita, the girlfriend of her brother, Bernardo." -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Story#Act_1
The wiki page also references revival Broadway productions from 1980 and 2009 - as weel as one in the U.K. and various national tours --
Last night - at a rehearsal of a Beethoven symphony - a few of us were discussing various recordings made over the years --
Someone noted that Herbert Von Karajan recorded the complete cycle of all nine Beethoven symphonies on five separate occasions - the first being in 1963 -
Some of us have a difficult time understanding why Karajan made separate recordings of the cycle --
Why - ?
Because he got it right the first time --
And the same is true here - regarding "West Side Story" --
Don't mess with success...
12
I'm not going to be able to see this production of West Side Story and I don't know if I'd like it if I did. But what I find hard to take is the whining from the people who saw the original Broadway production or some touring revival, or saw the movie and are furious that the current production dares to tamper with their memories. Keep your memories! How can they be so fragile that a new production of a musical(!) can destroy them? And let the theater more forward, for good or for ill.
Personally, I don't much care for the movie. Most of the actors are much too old to be playing gang members. I don't think Natalie Wood (whose accent makes me cringe every time she opens her mouth) or Richard Beymer are good enough actors. I spend most of my time watching the incredible dancers in the supporting cast.
Steven Sondheim is okay with the changes made. HE doesn't think that his work should be preserved in amber. If it's okay with Sonheim, it's okay with me.
9
@laura174: You left someone out: Jerome Robbins is not here to rip de Keersmaeker to shreds, as she deserves. What she's done to the choreography is definitely NOT okay.
11
My wife and I saw the show and really liked it. Thought it had a few issues with the video being out of sync and overpowering but we knew it was a work in progress. I could not get over only one thing - it does not rain "under the highway" - they would be covered yes? Other than that - all good - going to try to see the "set" production to see what the final decisions were.
4
I won't see this. Saw the orignal in 1957 when I was fourteen and was overwhelmed by it. There was audible sniffing throughout my section of the balcony at the end.
I also stopped going to the Met Opera; I'm tired of parasitic, arrested-adolescent directors marking great works the way dogs lift their legs and mark their territory on a fire hydrant.
Yeah, I'm old, so sue me. LOL!
17
@Eddie Lew
Sorry, Eddy, but you are indeed old, and you're closing your mind. I also adore the 1957 production and still listen to the original cast album. But life goes on. Sometimes the new things are better, sometimes worse. But to say you won't even consider the new things is a mistake. Summons and complaint to follow.
5
@Steve B, I didn't say I won't see new things - I live in NY for heaven's sake and work in the arts. It's that I'm 75 and have seen lots of the new and avant-gard. Give me credit for knowing something about trends in theater and art. I can sniff a parasite director and his or her ego running amok defacing works of art. Let them create something original and see if they can rank with Bernstein, Robbins and Sondheim. The greats create, not decorate.
34
@Eddie Lew: Exactly!
7
Do I understand this correctly? I Feel Pretty was omitted while Officer Krupke with its homophobic lyrics was left in?
8
@Molly Bloom.....To be a true updated version the director could have left the song in but had a gang member, who is a cross dresser, sign it in drag.
9
"Director" whims can be deadly.
Something inane pops into an empty head in a desperate need to be "creative." The video is this season's culprit.
A while back another "genius" decided to change the color of Blanche's dress in "Streetcar" because the white dress had "become a cliché." The writer's intent ignored.
Children who need to tinker mindlessly with art should be banished to limbo, where they can't exploit any more rubes.
8
Maybe it’s time to get the younger critics at The Times reviewing these big bold
Interpretations. I’m sorry, Mr. Brantley, but you seem woefully out of touch with the power of what is happening on that stage and what it means not only for storytelling but for the future of American Theatre.
11
@Michael: Your comment amply demonstrates that bashing older people out of hand and presuming that they simply are incapable of comprehending “the power of what is happening” in the present moment (irrespective of its actual merits) remains the single acceptable prejudice in this country.
31
@Michael: Wrong! And this is NOT a "big bold interpretation" - rather it is a DEPREDATION and a DEGRADATION of an original and brilliant work.
Some day, you'll see how this feels when YOU are "old' and "Hamilton" gets re-conceived by someone who decides to set it in outer space.
17
I AM an old person, younger than Mr Brantley but old enough to be a parent of some of those on stage. If Mr Brantley’s video references are to a Calvin Klein commercial he needs to update those references. What? Is it 1992? Amazing strides in storytelling are being made with innovative videography. And Luke Halls pushes the bounds with his work. It’s too bad that the reviewer dismisses out of hand something he clearly has little grasp of. It would be nice if the Times opened up the reviewer pool to younger people who maybe are better poised to receive the work as intended.
2
Let's face it Ivo van Hove is a terrible director. He totally ruined the Crucible and View from the Bridge. Now he has taken his hacksaw to West Side Story. Hi minimalist sets usually tell me he hates set designers. If his name is in the credits, it goes off my list.
22
I am always surprised at how many people "know" something is bad from reading a review. To commenters: please don't opine about something you haven't seen!
9
@gregoryf: I've seen MORE than enough in the infinite video "previews" and "glimpses" that are all over the internet, thanks.
2
@L Seeing something on the Internet is almost the opposite of seeing something in a theater!
2
So is “seeing “a scene on a video screen from a room on the top floor of the theatre. Not live theater.... it’s a you tube video
2
Did Brantley and Peter Marks attend the same performance?
3
I really like "I Feel Pretty."
This version of WSS sounds pretty ugly!
Glad they managed to keep "America" intact.
5
I would like to add a dissenting voice. I thought this was a great production. I loved the cameraman among the dancers and their screen images. I also tjought it was brilliant, the way a street w/ storefrontscwas evoked, and that we could only see a glimpse of the interior, so that action had to be filmed and projected. Team colors during the fight scene? Really? I found the gang members plenty menacing, even in projection, and in most staged fights I don’t know who is who. Who cares? It didn’t matter here. I’ve been a WSS fan since I was a child. This is a wonderful production, and despite this picky review, I predict it will run for a long time.
5
@Samantha Kelly: "In most staged fights, I don't know who is who." If you're that willing to dismiss important parts of the piece, you might as well stay home.
4
My senior class at Bay Ridge High School in Brooklyn did a better job putting on a production of WSS in 1965. And we were an all-girls school, so it was not without challenge.
22
And no doubt your class ring is better than the Hope Diamond. Don’t ever lose touch with that Bay Ridge high school girl inside.
I surprised my husband on his 70th birthday with premium tickets. We could not have loved it more! We loved the innovative set and thought the way video was used along with the scenes in the drug store and the dress shop was brilliant. It's true that our attention was divided between the live actors and the big screen but we both agreed it worked well. Maybe we are accustomed to seeing contemporary art exhibitions and art performances where your attention is divided using video and live action. It was a challenge for the director to update the story while still keeping original quaint terms like "rumble" and "dance at the gym," but it didn't bother me. A great example is when the the song "Officer Krumke" was not only performed in a different order, but became a scene about police brutality. I also think when some of these commenters are critical of the disconnect between the use of cell phones, yet Anita is sent to relay a message to Maria in person, they are taking it all too literally. If everyone tried to make reason and take literally most Opera's story lines where would we be? This is art people ... license is allowed, and allowances should be made in order to get the bigger message across. The original West Side Story from the 50's is such a big part of our childhoods we were a little nervous about the new Broadway production not stacking up, but we were not disappointed and we both were brought to tears with emotion during the performance.
13
Having watched a segment of 60 Minutes about the play, I appreciated how much work the audience would be required to do to absorb the stage action, music, lyrics, dialogue, special effects and backdrop of large screen images.
The task reminded me of how TV news shows went from one camera on Walter Cronkite to multiple camera angles and multiple newscasters and a ticker tape under their screen and a banner over them, then a split screen with an on-the-scene reporter plus Stock Market results and a commercial. Phew!
Yet, we’ve all been trained to see what we can. I pick and choose, i.e. read the ticker tape or notice the scene, etc. Not sure this is how I want to experience a show that costs megabucks to attend.
10
@ReggieM And the commercials are intrusive, mean spirited, unending, and as President Trump would say; They suck!!!
2
This reiew is right on target. I saw this in previews and was horrified. I cannot understand the videoing of the entire production and projecting on the back wall of the stage. I too thought the street scenes were riduculous and wondered why there were Railroad Crossing signs in a streetscape of NYC. All RR crossings in this city have been above or below grade since Gov. Al Smith. I too saw the figure way down the street dancing in the dark and I thought "who's that suppossd to be , Mr. Bojangles?" It's nonsensical that the Jets are multi-racial and mutli-ethinic. Why then, would they not let some Puerto Ricans into their gang? Also the presence of gay jets coupling in the background is nothing more than some kind of politcally correct statement. The only thing I understood when Icame out of this show is why "I Feel Pretty" was eliminated. The director ought to stick with making music videos.
11
Everything ‘created’ nowadays has been stolen from the past. Nothing cultural is new.
4
I think event directors (and theatre critics) have trouble distinguishing between the "conceptual" and the "perceptual/cognitive" patron experience or even the consequent patron "emotional" reaction.
Yes, conceptually you can have crazy roughshod video. But that has nothing to do with FIRST being able to take in the video visually and make sense of it. If the director intends to make you feel ill at ease or something or other, the headache you get watching this video visual fun-house is doing it albeit in an abstract way unrelated to the piece.
Even worse offence arises from TV news broadcasts with backgrounds sliding about randomly. Of course, in that case, maybe the director's purpose it to make you sick. Who knew?
3
From everything that I have read, this is just another experiment to change a great musical to use modern techniques. I saw the original 8 times and always found something new but loved the dancing and acting. I often saw the actors on the street looking like their parts in the show. At what the current prices of musicals in NY charge I would say you should buy the DVD and see what Bernstein, Sondheim Robbins and Laurents wanted. I don't see why Speilberg is making a new film of the show. Will he have John Williams rewrite the music and add unnesessary lighting effects for today's audience.
5
@steve well for one thing, Mr. Speilberg is hiring Latinx actors to play Latinx roles.
2
West Side Story was made so that the masses could have a simple story set in the gritty neighborhoods of the West side of Manhattan. To appreciate the undercurrents of the setting and time is to be a native New Yorker from that era. Think gritty and think poor - that was where the Puerto Rican people made their lives not because of choice. To survive those very mean streets (turfs) you belonged to many different factions boiled down to 2 for the Westside story for simplicity sake. My Westside was Hells Kitchen which was exactly the same look and feel all the way up to 125th Street - the same street turfs wars being played in the same way. These poorest youngsters saw the great wealth a short walk away and often times bumped up against those that looked like those the color of wealth but actually just as poor that lived among each other. The dynamics of West side story is all about the backdrop of NYC in the 50s that an individual who was not native to our city having experienced it somehow first hand is not necessarily the best judge of the current product fostered upon us today.
4
Between the review and the comments, I now know that there is no reason for me to travel to NYC to see this thing. Remakes tend to be lacking and this one sounds ghastly.
15
I kind of stopped and lost interest with the removal of "I Feel Pretty". This is Leonard Bernstein. You don't remove the music. That would be no different than removing "Spargi d'amaro pianto" from "Lucia di Lamermoor". It just indicates that the director has no concept of what he is dealing with. No interest in this. Next.
24
@Jonny Walker
I read that their justification for the removal is that the character would never have "felt pretty" in the environment and atmosphere in which she lives. I fully disagree with this, and support your analogy. Remove Un bel di from Butterfly and it's no longer valid.
Ego drove the director to this. We can only hope he learns a lesson from this when (if) it closes prematurely.
2
I will be skipping this one.
13
If you want a modern take on West Side Story, and have 20 minutes to spare, look up "Operation L.O.V.E." (you can probably find it on Youtube).
Those screens?! Ughhhh.... Suddenly it seems screens are everywhere on Broadway with film production replacing theater sets. I feel like theater goers need to raise their voices in protest before the magic of set design is gone forever. The screens are so so distracting. Don’t we have enough of them in our daily lives? I agree one hundred percent with the many comments here that we go to the theater to see live theater, not movie clips.
17
@Julie Boesky Theatre goers today are raising their voices by talking during the show, as if they're at home watching TV, despite having paid over $100 for the experience. You are absolutely right: "...we go to the theater to see live theater, not movie clips."
12
I love how they get very high brow foreigners to re imagine something that is very very American at it's core. You have to live to know it.
As a scenic designer myself, dearest directors STOP with the video walls if we wanted to make a movie we would have. I can see what he wanted to "achieve" but anyone should have been able to see it as distracting and begging for approval. No Tony for you.
18
Don’t we all have enough screens in our lives already?
20
How unusual for a Broadway review to mention the orchestra! Only, after the headline, there was no mention. Oh well. 2nd class citizens, as usual.
9
The prominence of the video in this production reminds me of the old Jewish joke about a grandmother and her friends bent over a baby carriage. "What a beautiful little boy," says one of the women. Grandmother replies, "That's nothing, you should see the pictures!"
I only saw short snippets from a television news show, but it seemed immediately obvious that the video took away much more than it added.
15
Yet another cogent argument for the elimination of television.
4
I love to listen to my fellow boomers whine about how good everything was in the past.
5
@T. Rivers
As another boomer I have to agree, please stop whining. That was then and this is now. I saw the play a few days ago and loved it. The play moved me and yes I was sniffling at the end. Bravo.
2
No finger clicking?! That's just not right. I'll pass.
11
I saw the show in previews and my standout thought was, can't I just go and be entertained? Why does everything have to have a political message in the age of Trump?? Especially disturbing was Maria pointing the gun at the audience at the end, the very visible gang rape (I could have used my imagination, thanks) and the very angry Black Lives Matter officer Krupke number.We get it enough in real life, can't my plays and outings be a respite from the world, not a reminder?
10
Yeah. If you want to see the Belgian version of West Side Story here is your show. Otherwise skip it.
16
I know a boat this production can get on .... Bye! Bye!
21
Whenever I see comment boards like this, full of people with closed minds and preconceived opinions, it only makes me determined NOT to become that way. Sometimes things can surprise you! I've gone into shows with mild expectations, and come out with my mind blown. That's my favorite thing in the world. So who knows? That said, there are a lot of negative reviews for this, LOL. I still look forward to seeing this and finding out what I think of it. Regardless, at least it should be interesting.
Just remember - new versions of things do not destroy the originals! They will always be there. It'll be fine. If the new thing is that bad, it'll go away. And we'll never have to speak of it again.
7
@jas This new take, and stripping away the brilliant choreography, allowed me to experience anew the magnificent writing. I was deeply moved.
2
@jas: This production can't go away quickly enough, then.
6
This sounds like a mashup of an arena concert meets music video release meets online gaming meets Broadway. Trying to be Very Today, but lost in translation.
There was a song from "Gypsy", in which the Steven Sondheim lyric was: "Kid, you gotta get a gimmick."
"West Side Story" deserves more than a gimmick.
11
I saw WSS the other day and found that this version was incoherent. Members of the gang shoot the fight scene with their cell phones; however, when Maria needs to send a message to Tony, she has to have Anita go in person. Suddenly, the ability to send a text message or snap doesn't exist. This is but a tiny example of what makes the production bizarre. The characters dress in hoodies and sweats common to 2020, but talk about rumbles (quite an anachromism) and hang out in Doc's drug store--which in modern NYC would not exist. The ambiguous setting aside, the video overpowered the audience and was at times quite gratuitous. Showing video of the US border during the number "America" to highlight Trump's xenophobia seemed like a weird political smack over the head that was not needed. The strange staging of Officer Krupke (with similar political video) seemed overdone and lacking any subtlety. So many times I just wanted to go straight to Van Hove and tell him his direction was so wrong.....and at other times I felt like I was watching a junior high school production of WSS as the choreography (especially during the fight scene) seemed so sophomoric. Also, filming scenes off stage live instead of letting the audience see the characters was offsetting. I really wanted to love this, but was left scratching my head and wondering why nobody talked sense into Van Hove and company.
118
This comment nails it. Well done.
23
@Hexagon
I wrote a similar comment about the inappropriate/bizarre video at the same time the (live) cast was on stage, but yours is so much better ... thank you.
10
@Hexagon The more people compare it with the original production, the more it will be irreconcilable. All this criticism just makes me think if theatre goers are really open to changes. If people are in love with the original they can always dust their old VHS tape and watch it as many times as they want. Taking a purist approach, then I would say that setting the drama in Manhattan with Broadway tunes is blasphemy; only fair Verona and a staging at The Globe or the Rose should be accepted.
Art is always recreated, you can see that in Las Meninas. Picasso’s approach to Velazquez’s master piece is as worthy as the original. Just a few days ago this very newspaper published an article about an exhibit in Brooklyn touching a similar subject. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/arts/design/kehinde-wiley-brooklyn-museum.html
I grew up with the movie soundtrack and later got the DVD. In spite that is a great work, it feels dated now. I know people in their forties who don’t even like musicals, maybe this staging will create a new following. I find pretentious those comments about better high school productions. I had the chance to see it with a touring company in Anchorage, and the band was a tragedy in itself; specially when one is familiar with the Symphonic Dances. During one performance I once counted 102 musicians at the concert hall.
Bottom line, you can’t trash something that is different. It’s been 62 years, a new approach is welcome, just as they often do at The Met.
4
We all bring our own sensibilities to every show we see. A beloved classic like WEST SIDE STORY, changed and re-conceived, will certainly elicit resistance from many.
Saw the show in previews in December and was floored. One of the best things I've ever witnesses after 45 years of seeing 30-40 shows on Broadway every season. Great dancing, wonderful performances, bold staging. Try to see from front of mezzanine. The use of video allows even that person in the last row to be fully immersed in the show.
Usually agree with Brantley, but this one makes me wonder what other 'outside' drama from the Great White Way influenced his notice? Way too personal and snarky, even for him. Read all the other reviews across the spectrum and you'll get a better sense of audience reaction. Maybe not? To each his own.
For me, it will always remain one of the best experiences I've ever had in a theatre. Can't wait to see it again... and again.
6
@Alan Gary
Absolutely agree with your statement about to each his own. I never, and I mean never, agree with Brantley. But on this one, I am solidly in his corner.
7
Frankly I am sick of directors whose ideas all flow from using gigantic video projections to set scenes, establish moods, occasionally to replace scenery altogether, etc. I haven’t seen this production but I have been so turned off by this dehumanizing way of approaching theater in show after show that I now actively avoid them.
8
@QTCatch10 Am I correct in assuming all this video nonsense started with Peter Sellars? I was hoping it was to be nothing more than a fad with a brief shelf life. Alas.
2
I love this musical but Van Hove is not for me. I don't want to see giant screen images of the dancers onstage. Spielberg is really sentimental and that is more my speed. It's difficult to concentrate on a story and characters when you have giant images, multiscreens and the like. No thanks.
6
If you go to see West Side Story and you aren't moved, did you really see West Side Story? I'm by no means a theater buff, but I'm a human capable of at least the basic emotions; I felt nothing but confusion watching this. Confused not by the script (though there are plenty of head-scratching edits), the choreography, the drama (or lack thereof), nor the ghastly screen that might as well be wired into the back of my eyeballs at this point (and I for one actually enjoyed the presence of all the screens in Van Hove's rendition of "Network" last year... or maybe I just really liked Bryan Cranston), but confused as to why I wasn't feeling anything (other than confusion). The show somehow put me in an emotionless trance for 2 hours (I saw it in previews, before they trimmed the fat, so maybe you'll get lucky and only be numb for 90 mins). What WSS production -- or really any show -- have you ever been to where it didn't make you feel anything? ANYTHING?! Perhaps I'm either dumb or a sociopath, but barring those options I will blame the production, as even Mr. Brantley seemed befuddled: "... the fact that our focus is repeatedly splintered obviates much chance for emotional concentration and, consequently, the possibilities for being truly moved." I guess you should go see this if you are 1) an emotionless robot, or 2) teaching a robot about human culture and need negative training data.
10
I guess my mother was right: "It's nice if you like it". After reading this review and the comments by readers who have seen the production I must see it for myself!!
4
If you go to see West Side Story and you aren't moved, did you really see West Side Story? I'm by no means a theater buff, but I'm a human capable of at least the basic emotions; I felt nothing but confusion watching this. Confused not by the script (though there are plenty of head-scratching edits), the choreography, the drama (or lack thereof), nor the ghastly screen that might as well be wired into the back of my eyeballs at this point (and I for one actually enjoyed the presence of all the screens in Van Hove's rendition of "Network" last year... or maybe I just really liked Bryan Cranston), but confused as to why I wasn't feeling anything (other than confusion). The show somehow put me in an emotionless trance for 2 hours (I saw it in previews, before they trimmed the fat, so maybe you'll get lucky and only be numb for 90 mins). What WSS production -- or really any show -- have you ever been to where it didn't make you feel anything? ANYTHING?! Perhaps I'm either dumb or a sociopath, but barring those options I will blame the production, as even Mr. Brantley seemed befuddled: "... the fact that our focus is repeatedly splintered obviates much chance for emotional concentration and, consequently, the possibilities for being truly moved." I guess you should go see this if you are 1) an emotionless robot, or 2) teaching a robot about human culture and need negative training data.
1
If you go to see West Side Story and you aren't moved, did you really see West Side Story? I'm by no means a theater buff, but I'm a human capable of at least the basic emotions; I felt nothing but confusion watching this. Confused not by the script (though there are plenty of head-scratching edits), the choreography, the drama (or lack thereof), nor the ghastly screen that might as well be wired into the back of my eyeballs at this point (and I for one actually enjoyed the presence of all the screens in Van Hove's rendition of "Network" last year... or maybe I just really liked Bryan Cranston), but confused as to why I wasn't feeling anything (other than confusion). The show somehow put me in an emotionless trance for 2 hours (I saw it in previews, before they trimmed the fat, so maybe you'll get lucky and only be numb for 90 mins). What WSS production -- or really any show -- have you ever been to where it didn't make you feel anything? ANYTHING?! Perhaps I'm either dumb or a sociopath, but barring those options I will blame the production, as even Mr. Brantley seemed befuddled: "... the fact that our focus is repeatedly splintered obviates much chance for emotional concentration and, consequently, the possibilities for being truly moved." I guess you should go see this if you are 1) an emotionless robot, or 2) teaching a robot about human culture and need negative training data.
1
A friend saw this recently and reported that in Act Two, Scene Four, when Anita goes to the drugstore to see Tony, and then lies to the Jets by telling them Chino has shot Maria, that the abuse she receives actually results in her gang rape by them. With nudity.
Is this right? I haven't seen the show and have no intentions of doing so. I think Van Hove and his reinterpretations of American classics are vastly overrated. Especially by critics such as Mr. Brantley. You can keep them.
My friend brought her young children to the show. She felt the staging was definitely inappropriate for children. Should there have been a warning on this production that it was not appropriate for children under 12?
Should parents worry going forward that well-known classics will be brutalized into post-Modern "re-imaginings" that remove all humanity, empathy, and generosity out of the staging?
If so, no thanks.
6
@Biff Anita has always been the victim of at least an attempted rape at Doc's - even in the movie. This is why she tells them to tell Tony that she is dead.
1
@Jennifer NJ
Thank you for your comment.
Quoting from the script, the stage directions are:
"The taunting breaks out into a wild, savage dance, with epithets hurled at Anita, who is encircled and driven by the whole pack. At the peak, she is shoved so that she falls in a corner. BABY JOHN is lifted up high and dropped on her as DOC enters from the cellar door and yells."
I suppose a director can make the scene as much a dance or a brutal assault as s/he wishes--which speaks to the artistic intention of that director.
1
Saw the show and enjoyed it. Do not bring younger kids to it.
I read a great deal about this production prior to its debut. I decided that it would, for me , be too overwhelmingly busy to pay proper attention.
1
Thank you, Mr. Brantley, for saving me the money I might otherwise have spent on this fiasco.
10
“Anton Ego: In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. ... We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”
2
The heart of West Side Story is the collaboration between the choreographer, Jerome Robbins, and the composer, Leonard Bernstein. Stephen Sondheim's lyrics, as brilliant and memorable a they are an afterthought.
Replacing Jerome Robbins character-rich choreography with cliche ridden, herky jerky line dancing is not a mere update. It is removing the essence of the show.
18
I saw it. I snored. But , I'm sure, somewhere in this hodge-podge of a revival, the great Westside story exits.
1
I'm still excited to see this production, though the strong negative reactions are surprising. I guess they shouldn't be, since people are understandably reticent to see changes to beloved material. I try to keep an open mind and form my own opinion. Maybe I'll will be one of those who enjoys it. I saw Van Hove's "The Damned" and thought it was fantastic. I'm still thinking about it. The video element was new to me and jarring at first, but I got used to it. I also really loved the new Oklahoma. My favorite show of the year, which was a complete shock. I'm curious if the commenters here saw that show, and how their opinion might correspond to their thoughts on WSS. Did you like one and not the other? Or perhaps one either appreciates reimaginings or not. Maybe it depends on the material. If it's something particularly meaningful to you, you might not enjoy seeing it messed with. I have had negative reactions to such things. But now I understand that artists push boundaries. It's just what they do. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. But you don't know unless you try.
1
I saw this in December. What a bomb.
So glad the NYT reviewer agreed with my reaction to this farce of a classic.
Talking of farces, the following week I saw a straight-forward production of Dion Boucicault’s 1841 classic farce, London Assurance, at the Irish Rep Theatre in Chelsea.
It was so good I went back a second time, I - and the audience - laughed so much.
Which left me wondering, “Why are some directors hell-bent to ruin classics just to make a name for themselves?”
(I’m talking to you, “Oklahoma”.)
19
I read Mr. Brantley's review with palpitations, fearing that we would be poles apart. I saw the show in previews and came away with my heart pounding, almost crying at the disembowelment perpetrated on this beloved and classic American musical. The company itself is top-notch. So many of these young dancers and singers were making their Broadway debut. Thank you, Mr. Brantley, for validating everything I felt about this production.
21
I could not disagree more with this review. I saw the show two nights before it opened with my 15 year old son and a friend of his, as well as my almost 80 year old mother and her friend. All five of us were mesmerized. For the reviewer to say about the two leads that "both performers sing pleasantly," is an injustice. They were both phenomenal. As was Anita. If you want to read a review that gets this show, read the Washington Post's review. That critic seems to understand that this adaptation is both true to the original and wildly bold and innovative. It speaks to the youth of today while paying homage to the original. I am so surprised that Ben Brantley could not see that. And he barely mentioned the rain, which added so much to the grittiness and sexiness of it all. I also take issue with Brantley's inability to differentiate between the gang members during the rumble. If you pay attention at all, you come to quickly recognize who is a Shark and who is a Jet. The video screens actually help with this as each person becomes more real when you are able to see close ups of all the faces. They are not just dancing bodies on a stage but individuals. I think this entire review says more about how Ben Brantley watches theater than it does about this stunning production.
11
@JG Well said.
@JG I agree heartedly with you comments. Also, read the LA Times review by one of the best reviewers now writing.
I agree with the sentiment of what you stared in that the use of HD has come to denote what the production is about. Perhaps the trend has become the norm.
There is one glaring omission in your criticism that I must make. I had seen the show in preview, with my daughter and her 3 children, all boys, ages 9-14.
With the use of HD cameras on stage, the "rape" scene, which as I recall in the original version, yes I am that old, was portrayed in a way that left most to the imagination, visually, as well as in the movie version. Most of the horror was left in the minds of the theatre goer However, the directorial choice to fully capture the horror of that scene in close-up, enlarged HD, shook my grandsons to their core- they were not prepared for the disturbing visuals, nor did management prepare, families with pre-adolescent/and teenage children, to what lies ahead, either in the program or in an announcement I thought that was a huge mistake, and I did write a letter to the theatre indicating that that error needed to be corrected.
My take away- although critical of many elements of the show, the shock value of the HD visuals of that scene, projected onto the screen, without preparing families who have younger audience members, for what was about to happen, was jarring and problematic.
Indeed, HD visuals have significantly changed the original.
16
This feels like one of those reviews that the author will regret 10 years later when they still vividly remember this production and can't name another show that opened during the year.
9
@Razini That's not necessarily a recommendation though...
8
You lost me at "sweatshop." Maria and the other girls are working in a bridal salon, not the Triangle factory. I am familiar with these family-owned shops in ethnic neighborhoods. The work may be hard, but it's a "labor of love" for customers who may be well-known to the workers. Much different atmosphere from what exists in the overseas facilities producing look-alike products for David's Bridals.
13
Wow, such a different take than my experience. WSS, seen in preview, was a joy. I agree with the earlier post noting from a mezzanine vantage point, you could enjoy the the different perspectives, although admittedly, it is at first an adjustment.
The well thought out re-make performed beautifully by actors, dancers, and musicians, which a previous NYT piece informed, left my sister and I energized, inspired, and so much more satisfied than Mr. Brantley.
5
Being a boomer, I saw the original, Broadway and on screen versions. Somethings are classics and not to be tampered with .. West Side Story is one of those things. Especially, at a time when the world is so insane , it's comforting to see something" a little old fashioned " versus something new age and PC.
When I saw the original West Side Story , I went through half a box of tissues , tears were profuse . this adaptation I think I would be hiding under my seat!
16
Yes, my sister and I saw WSS in previews, and this review nailed our disappointment. The opening was awful, static, lacking the Jerome Robbins exuberance. The big screens were a distraction, a great disservice to the actors on stage. (The actress playing Maria was a standout, she has an exceptional presence and voice.) Incredibly, during "America," the screen shows a picture of a hurricane-destroyed house in Puerto Rico. My heart sank--I have family there. Too soon! Van Hove also uses video of the U.S. border wall with Mexico--totally gratuitous. I guess he felt he could throw a few "crowd-pleasing" images to the American audience, and we'd lap it up.
23
Hmmm, guessing that Ben Brantley didn't sit in the upper Mezzanine. From the people's seats, the action on stage was mesmerizing and the video projections gave close-ups of the emotions between characters. Rather than trying to split focus between 'the screen!' or 'the stage!' if the reviewer had let the whole view emerge it would have the immersive quality that we experienced. Much like real daily life.
7
@mhchang3 - regarding "didn't sit in the upper Mezzanine. From the people's seats, the action on stage was mesmerizing"
To almost quote Michael ("Mack and Mabel") Stewart's line for Mae Peterson, in his wonderful "Bet Bye Birdie" book - The time we feared at last would come at last has come - arguments for premium extending to the upper Mezz! Up to now, it's just been every seat downstairs except the stalls in the rest rooms. (Lou, I'm coming to join you - up in the balcony, the people's seats. That could be a ruse like when they charged extra for the helicopter seats at "Miss Saigon" for the then-unheard of $100 a seat.)
I'm betting the producers wanted so much for the critics to sit in the upper balcony, but those were taken. (Recalling my friend saying at Kennedy Center, around 2010 or so, after I related seeing the entire NY Drama Critics Circle in the lobby, "There's Ben Brantley" and I of course looked from our appropriately bad seats towards 6th row center, and she said "No, there!" I got lightly slapped with the Playbill when I said in head-shaking wonder, "oh, too bad, I guess rear side balcony was taken!" At Kennedy Center, turned out they considered best seats where you could HEAR the best.)
We now attend concerts and view the video screens instead of the artists and musicians directly on stage. We’ll even take social media pictures of the video screens so it seems we had a better seat. Please, not Broadway too. Mr van Hove is a talented man, but Mr. Brantley is correct with this production.
17
I am 75, a New Yorker. I remember the gang fights, turf wars, the influx Puerto Ricans. Out of necessity of the times, the original and the movie were Whites Only.
I saw this version and loved it. Not everything was perfect, but it was 2020. And the Video? I am typing this comment on my phone, which is also 2020.
14
@Irate citizen You were born in 1945 and pretend to know the new york of the fifties, when you were five years old? Man, I am tired of old people saying they have seen it, when it is obvious they could not have know those days unless they were carried around as toddlers..
4
@grace thorsen First of all, learn some manners. Secondly, the Upper West Side gang turf-wars went on for years and years. In some areas, they continue today. I was six years old when JFK was assassinated and remember it vividly.
7
@grace thorsen you know the fifties were more than just the year 1950 right?
7
Not everything has to be a "comment on our times," or has to be made so. Art that has passed the test of time with flying colors already contains themes and feelings that people strongly relate to. And sometimes audiences worn down by their lives *want* to "go somewhere else" for a couple hours!
13
I’m sorry. Isn’t live theatre supposed to be LIVE? If I wanted to see a movie, I’d go to a movie. The real-time connection to actors onstage with theater goers shouldn’t be dwarfed by what’s happening on a screen behind them. Sounds like a vanity project for the director.
Just my two cents.
Long-time theater fan
38
@Be true to thyself - just from the perspective of not having seen this yet: Multi-media is a totally legitimate live experience, as long as the production doesn't hide that. Everything in its publicity, everything about what Ivo von Hove often brings to the table (as John Doyle had for a while been synonymous with actors also being the musicians, and when he didn't do that, it was always well-disclosed. interesting that both of those male directors really came to great prominence after age 50! Also similar Julie Taymor for use of puppetry for story-telling, as "Juan Darien" and "Transposed Heads" preceded "Lion King.".)
(My dream audience wish-list experience: Jack O'Brien and Ivo von Hove joining forces and artful multi-media giving "Hairspray" even more depth.)
@Freddie Ah yes, the vast depths of "Hairspray" are yet to be excavated!
2
@Bella Wilfer, we're spoiled in New York, but in Baltimore today, you'll still find a lot of folks who would take Velma von Tussle's side as to separate but equal if they could, and often they can. The TV version, where Kristin Chenoweth played the bigoted TV producer, more than hinted at the reality under the caricature of a bigot with power to decide who gets what. Comedy can say a lot, and those hilarious Shaiman-Wittman lyrics seem to come from empathy and pain - and what the late Tom Meehan brought in terms of societal observation to many works he got co-credit on feels clear, though he never let anything become overtly educational, without a laugh to punctuate it.
Rights are relatively safe in Manhattan and the laws pretty clear in NY. But try visiting Pennsylvania where you could use a GPS to figure out that the protected classes change when going from one city to another, or Florida where a gay person or black person can leave Aventura (where everyone is accepted, except that when you're driving nice folk can become horror!) and drive into North Miami Beach two minutes away and be treated so differently. (It's gotten where even though my parents live in North Miami Beach, I almost always stay in Aventura. Everyone "accepts" gay marriage because they have to, but one mile makes a difference.).
1
You really can't call a musical "immortal" if it has to be tinkered with to keep alive. That sounds more like a Frankenstein monster. The primary problem with reviving "West Side Story" has always been that its daddy-o dialect hasn't aged well. Even done as a period piece, the original elements, including Jerome Robbins' balletic choreography, can't overcome its downright quaintness by contemporary standards. Does its depiction of the Puerto Ricans' struggle to find their place in mainstream America seem merely condescending now?
It's understandable that the sensibilities of a decades-old Broadway show may seem outdated in modern times, and that the new crop of talent can't resist putting their own spin on the classics. And many musicals admittedly have flexible formats (it's doubtful that "Anything Goes" has ever been done the say way twice). But is that entirely fair to the work itself? Apologists argue it's a way of introducing the work to modern audiences who presumably can't handle the fairly obvious fact that the work is a product of its time. If certain elements actually offend, why revive the show at all? Come up with something new, as the authors of the show you're fussing with behind their dead backs did. I wonder how many people who see nothing wrong with revising midcentury musicals would be horrified to think that one day "Hamilton" will be similarly revamped for new generations.
7
It's fair to argue that classics should occasionally be updated, and it's fair to argue that the theater industry should be supportive of experimental productions, even at the risk that some experiments might fail.
My problem here is that this production didn't live up to the hype, and it's particularly sad because I thought the casting was brilliant and the young players exceptional. But, the central player in this production isn't a struggling young actor or actress seeking their first break on the big stage here. The central player is an established director indulging in a vanity project to gratify his ego, introducing digital gimmickry in place of innovation.
So far, reading both the review and the comments, I've seen some writers excuse the video or offer tips how to "get past it" but nobody has argued that the video somehow contributed to the production in a positive way. I suppose my two cents pale in comparison to what others have written, but for the life of me I couldn't identify where on the West Side any of the video images would have come from. If nothing else, this play should have evoked the place it took its name from, even if intervening decades have left most of the neighborhood gentrified beyond recognition. But really, sprawling parking lots and freeways? Did the producer presume the title was in reference to West Los Angeles?
Just imagine what could have been done if a struggling young no-name director had a shot at WSS with this budget.
31
The director forgot that a production is about engaging the audience, not building his reputation as an innovator.
I often disagree with Brantley, but he is 100% right here.
31
@DSM14 Yes. While reading Brantley's review, a memory arose of a long, long ago SNL sketch starring Madeline Kahn -- as the Bride of Frankenstein -- singing "I Feel Pretty." At least that was lifted out of context and presented as brilliant comedy.
Saw preview a couple of weeks ago and agree completely with Brantley. This production destroyed the power of theater to allow an uncanny connection between the cast onstage and the audience in their seats. It wasn't until the very last moment of the show when the cast assembles downstage and looks directly at the audience and for the first time, THERE'S NO VIDEO BACKGROUND, that I felt connected and moved by the show.
22
I was looking forward to this. I loved the recent rethinking of Oklahoma and thought that this could be just as interesting. I was sadly disappointed. I wasn't always sure what was going on. The stage was so big and it was disorganized. The last broadway staging of Fiddler replaced the fantastic classic Robbins choreography with something that was fantastic in a different, but just as appropriate, way. This choreography seemed all over the place and uninteresting. I saw Amar Ramasar in an ADM 21 youtube video a couple of years ago and fell in love with him. He was wasted here. I decided that since their was no point of view on the costume design, maybe the cast brought in what they thought they should wear. I still don't know what time period this was set in. In that big stage I didn't know where to look, so I welcomed the video. The West Side didn't look much like a community, more like the warehouses you see when you take a cab to the Museum of moving images in queens. They took the jazzyness out of the music. The songs sounded less significant and less beautiful. Even the latin music sounded less latin. I have to say that I saw it a few weeks ago, and they might have made some changes by opening. I loved the 2009 sweetness, but I am open to a rethinking of this, but it didn't work for me.
10
It's a hard balancing act, using video with a live stage performance. The best I've seen it done was by the REP at the University of Delaware, in their production of Murder on the Orient Express. The video served as a background, in proportion to the rest of the set, giving the production a larger than life feel without being overpowering. This, combined with a train that moved out to the audience and then right and left, gave a dimension I've never seen in a theater. It took a production, that we've seen before, but kicked it up many notches to make it feel new and exciting.
3
Saw WSS two weeks ago and it is a stunning reinvention, capturing every moment of the angst of the original. Though we are not mandated to reinvent but to create in theater, and that is what happens here. Go see it. Ignore BB's review -- he must have had a bad night. Finally, new creations are giving us something new! Excellent presentation every moment.
13
This is all part of the dumbing down of Broadway which begin with everything being mic’d and the use of keyboards and synthesizers in place of or along with other instruments. Now actors no longer have to be able to project their voice while singing or speaking - hence opening the door to a lot of untrained TV and movie stars. The musicians union fought hard against synthesizers and were able to create contacts that required live musicians as well. Equity would be wise to do the same thing with video.
The closer Broadway shows come to movies, the less people will go see them.
31
@puristartist I suspect the opposite: the more theater makes itself accessible to people with very short attention spans and no tolerance for subtlety or a contemplative mood, the more tickets they'll sell.
The old order changeth.
1
Saw a preview a couple of weeks ago and totally agree with Brantly. My two cents: the video destroyed the power of theater to allow what is an uncanny communication between the actors and audience. For me, the best moment of the show was the final one, when the cast assembed downstage,the video ceased entirely (for the first time) and the humans onstage looked into the audience. Then and only then did I feel connected with the story, characters and their emotional experience.
16
This is really too kind of a review. I saw it in late December and thought it was truly lousy. No overture, no set, insipid costumes, uncreative lighting, overwhelmingly distracting video, and no romance to the supposed love story. A good portion of the action is performed out of sight of the audience (!) with video cameras follow them. "Gee, Officer Krupke", normally a NEEDED comic relief, is done here as a dour, prosletizing polemic on police brutality. Please!
I actually wanted to boo after some numbers and at the conclusion, but of course wouldn't do that to the players as it wasn't their fault.
There's something Pythonesque about having four Belgians storm into Broadway to tell Americans how this classic should be produced, except it's not funny at all.
83
@Pete Thank you! Thank you! Every time a read an article, I thought to myself, "it's a "Cliff Notes" version of the real thing." It didn't sound good and you validated that. It is really sad that more and more revivals are going down this path. The only director I trust right now is Bartlett Sher.
19
I love West Side Story. It was the first musical I ever performed in junior high (I played Doc and am still very proud of the fact that the parents in the audience gasped when my stage-slap of Tony looked like the real deal). I think Brantley's review is spot-on, as are the readers comments about leaving the theater feeling nothing. I am all for revamping a tried and true piece of theater for the current age, but not at the expense of the original production elements which have worked for decades. I feel like the choreography of this production was Jerome Robbins-lite and therefore, ineffective. Maria had a beautiful voice and I loved the fact that she didn't look like a pretty musical theater ingenue, but I think putting people of color on the Jets side watered down the inherent commentary on racism that was of paramount importance to the original production, ie, it was white kids against brown kids; a depiction of polarization amongst groups, similar to what goes on in the prison system. I thought the IMAX-style video just did not work except for the "Tonight" ensemble. Am I watching actors on a stage or in a movie theater? I too think that the social commentary vis-a-vis the projections was ham-fisted, especially during "Dear Officer Krupke." They turned a song that is where it is in the show to give the audience a break from the tragedy into a heavy vehicle for social commentary, going against the grain of the original intent which has worked pretty well years. Pass, IMO.
27
I saw the play in previews and loved it. I have zero emotional attachment to WSS, so perhaps that is why I went into the play with an open mind. I found it fresh and exciting. I was sitting in the balcony and found the video to be beautiful. It added much to the experience for me. I can't comment on what it was like in orchestra seating.
7
@PK
From your comment and the responses of others, it seems WHERE people viewed this production in the theater made a significant difference in their opinions of its value, that the further away an individual was from the stage (balcony, mezzanine) the better that person was able to accept and enjoy the dual (live/video) interpretation.
8
I sat front row, center orchestra. A terrible place to watch the show as I had to rely a lot on the video to see the actors.
I had many mixed feelings about the production:
It was really hard to tell the Jets from the Sharks.
Turning a 1950s production into 2020. Do young people today even know what a rumble is?
“Gee, Officer Krupke” lost its way.
The bright spot was Shereen Pimentel.
4
Sat in the mezzanine and had a great cohesive view!
2
I loved and have seen it twice. West Side Story was spectacular! The wondrous score you know, the choreography; all new, was fast, daring and fantastic! The dance is incredibly physical and staged so intricately with every footfall minutely measured. So very impressive. The most innovative component of the new show is its use of multimedia. We can see the action on stage and on the stage size screen behind them. We have close ups of the actors faces where would never get to see them so strikingly in any other standardly staged performance. I can surely see how West Side Story “originalists” would be disturbed as the departure from the ordinary is extreme. This Tony and Maria are the most compelling of all I have seen.
My only other comment is, do not sit in the first six rows of the orchestra sections as views are diminished by the height of the stage floor.
15
The production is amazing. I fell in love with Tony and Maria and was in tears in the end. The Somewhere is extraordinary. The diverse representation of all types of people was moving and powerful. Run don’t walk!
14
@George Henderson
I DID RUN! FROM the theatre as fast as I could at curtain
time wanting the cold air outside to revive my sense of wonder, but only wandered the Great White Way, weeping for a time when every theatre on Broadway dazzled with real singers, choreography, and no cheap tricks.
I also wept for the two hours plus I'd never have again, and the serious money I could also have better spent elsewhere, returning to my hotel, leaping into bed and screaming bloody murder into my pillows.
1
CBS Sunday Morning did a piece on this. It seems the audience will be bombarded with all of the stuff going on. From what I saw I would not want to see this. I'll stick to the film.
14
Maybe for MTV Video - Nothing comes between me and my Calvin Kleins except "Rough, for the man you likes it that way". Brilliant commentary reduction. Video those those talents that really are not triple threats but must be enhanced by electronic means. Maybe style but no real substance. A director that thinks of internalization rather than true manifestation. A long video? Maybe. Theater? Not so much.
16
This was a bold, exciting interpretation of a classic. We've been doing this to all of Shakespeare's plays for over a century. Never before as anyone captured the youth, vitality, and raw, violent sexuality. A brilliant masterpiece told by a genius. BTW, I'm a proud senior citizen who knows greatness when she sees it!
18
....and I was just getting used to the remake/modernization of Oklahoma! I don't think Rodgers and Hammerstein are spinning in their graves, but I can see traditionalists occasionally wincing. Same here with WSS.
5
I saw the first version of "West Side Story" in 1959, followed by the second, third and now the fourth. This version I brought two of my children and four of my grandchildren. This theatrical interpretation by the director is definitely for the 21st century, and one that captivated my grandchildren, ages 11 to 15. It was intense, and spellbounding in the way it blended the essence of theatre, music and dance with the video and lightening techniques that went beyond capturing our imagination. As an aside, I want to thank the cast members who patiently signed autographs at the stage door after the show. I told my grandchildren that this is part of enjoying the full theatre experience on Broadway, NYC. My granddaughter will cherish the selfie she took with the actress Shereen Pimentel, who played Maria.
19
Ben just didn't get it.
Loads of us did.
Maybe he's getting old (I'm 72).
The leads were sensational.
The video was exciting not distracting.
The dances were electric.
My wife and I were electrified.
21
@James Smith
Absolutist opines feel cozy.
An objective standard we must "get" feels rosy,
Like glasses (I'm 57). But it's the worst hypocrisy
To deny absolutism's the enemy of democracy.
There's nothing to "get" out there
Our opinions live and die just under our hair.
Subjective bias is all.
Lyric Opera in Chicago did a glorious revival last year using Jerome Robbin's revolutionary choreography and a ethnically wonderfully diversity of performers who were totally committed to the performance. Truly was a West Side Story to cherish.
9
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. For me, the projections reflected how much larger the problems of racial and other divisions are than any that exist between one couple or group of people, even gangs. As I focused on the actual performers, the video behind them contextualized the story. I didn't feel distracted at all; in fact, I felt the whole story came across as richer.
But even more than that, I have to disagree about Isaac Powell. Mr. Powell made the strongest case for Tony I've ever seen. When he sang, it sounded as if he were discovering the words, and even the music, as they came out of his mouth. Not scripted, not rehearsed, not performed, but organically emerging from somewhere deep within. And consequently, I could feel the love he was feeling, instead of just being told about it. And for me, Shereen Pimentel, while perhaps not as radiant as Mr. Powell, and perhaps a bit more operatic than I would have liked, has a way finer voice and performance than merely "pleasant." I could feel her love and believe that Tony and Maria felt bound to each other.
I did, however, find the diversity within the gangs distracting and confusing. I can see the point Mr. van Hove appears to be making, but it came across as too muddled for me here.
The people I saw this with all left the theater feeling full and deeply moved.
15
Just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.
From my perspective, Ivo Van Hove's narcissistic view that he could make the iconic, game-changing, life-changing "West Side Story" somehow more impactful and "better" than the original is like saying someone had could write a better Bible.
Sometimes, art really does need to just be left alone. The original "West Side Story" is certainly a case in point. You don't, after all, repaint the Mona Lisa. To me, Van Hove's is version is blasphemous -- and inferior to the original in almost every way, save the orchestra.
10
@ALB Everything in theater, life and even the Bible is updated from time to time. Read the King James version of the Bible as one example. Shakepeare's work is often times updated, King Lear modernized was thrilling.
6
@ALB I never believe that art has to be left alone. Interpretation of masterful works is one of the most artful things an artist can do. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
8
I saw it in early December, so very early previews. The orchestra sounded great (what a score!) and the two leads sing beautifully. Isaac Powell is the best Tony I have seen, and what a voice - he is wonderful on "Something Coming" and "Maria." "Tonight" really works as well and creates the one great stage image in the show, shown in the photo leading this review, with Tony and Maria being pulled apart. Overall, the staging is annoying, dark and cavernous, the other actors don't get defined but overwhelmed, the voices generally were so-so, and the opening and closing numbers - so brilliantly and definitively done by Robbins - were flat. The music is enough to make it worthwhile, however, and the two leads.
3
Just had to check out old reviews from the last time West Side Story was touring (@2010-2012 was when saw it at the Pantages in LA) because I was as disappointed by that show as this reviewer sounds about this one, though it didn't have tech elements, it had been modernized in ways I didn't appreciate. I think these productions would do better to copy the original film (which reached a wider audience than the first play production) and not try to modernize but rather do an amazingly stellar reproduction. E.g. when Lady Gaga sang songs from The Sound of Music in tribute, I became a fan instantly because she evoked Julie Andrews and the magic that film held for me as a child. Just my 2 cents.
4
And what of the annoying, unceasing rain that starts half-way? All I could think of was the danger of electrocution...
10
@T. Sato Also, danger of performing that choreography on a wet stage, with water falling on the dancers. That's what led to numerous injuries, and some cast members had to be replaced.
At the preview I saw, there were half-a-dozen understudies performing, including one for Tony, since Issac Powell had been sidelined with a knee injury that kept him out for weeks and delayed the opening; Ben Cook, who was originally cast as Riff, was injured so badly that he was unable to return (Dharon E. Jones replaced him permanently). What a mess!
8
What would a revival of West Side Story look like if Kanye West was the director...I think we now know.
17
Sat in the fourth row and the video street scenes gave me motion sickness. On top of that, the interpretation inadvertently made a nauseating argument in favor of Stephen Miller’s anti-immigrant vision of America. Latinx immigrants were shown as tattooed violent gang members; people of color were rapists. Only Shereen Pimentel could really sing (I did not see it with Isaac Powell in the lead, however.) The choreography was sensational if you like gymnastics and club dancing (I do). Tone was jarring and there was no productive tension between the original book/lyrics and this sensationalist “raw” production. Huge disappointment and a cultural negative to boot.
16
Nope. Big screen TV, nope. Unview-able alcoves upstage. Phooey! And it rains that much under the West Side highway? Great stage effect, but really? I felt the composer-author trio of BLS completely lost in the melee onstage. Did I somehow miss a "Somewhere" ballet number? No "I Feel Pretty"?! If I were Shereen, I would balk. She has an incredibly beautiful voice (as does Isaac Powell). Hey, that dress shop interlude was such a welcome bit of Disney-esque loveliness in a world full of hate in the original. This "One Hand-One Heart" became a cast of thousands pulling on necks and arms. What? It lost all of the intimacy and child-like innocence of young love. Hey, this is a story of Romeo and Juliet, too, after all. Shakespeare got it right. He made the center of a hate battle a tale of tragic love. The original movie captured this too. This version, however, is a comment on racial violence with a maybe romantic aside of two kids on the block.
9
All this trendy overwhelming background screen magnification is doing nothing but distracting from the work, as was also recently the case with the Met's overdecorated Wozzeck.
5
@scrumble I SO agree. Very few people understand how to use projections onstage without completely obliterating the human scale of the actors/singers. An exception was the very beautiful WRITING TO VERMEER, a work by composer Louis Andriessen in collaboration with film-maker Peter Greenaway. who truly knows how to integrate all the elements without making them compete with one another. I considerably admired Kentridge's LULU, but thought his WOZZECK so often ignored or contradicted what the work itself was telling us that it was more an exercise in directorial ego than a realization of a masterpiece. Same here.
3
I went to see West Side Story expecting not to like it. I had heard negative stuff about it but I had to clear my mind to give it a chance. I first saw it when I was sixteen and it was in previews in London, hadn't opened yet, I remember the color of it with the PRs, George Chakaris and Chita Rivera, so much so I had my jackets lined in purple like they did. This version is black and white, no color. The only thing that almost spoilt it for me was the cinematic effect, so big that it made the performers so small but I concentrated on watching them on the stage instead of the film which I only really watched when they were in corners that you couldn't see on the stage. I thought the street scenes the cinematic effect worked. yes, a masterpiece had been played around with, the leads were wonderful in their innocence and voices. I'm sure the Spielberg movie will be spectacular to look at with little soul. Sorry guys, I liked it.
9
I saw this two weeks before opening and agree with a lot of the commenters and Brantley. One thing that isn't highlighted as much as I think it should be is the terrific orchestra....it allowed me to close my eyes and be carried away by the music when the screens became overwhelming.
The cast is talented, with the role of Anita particularly good, but for me I would have liked to see some of the performers turn it up a notch...it seemed like they were holding back a bit.
The video was interesting but overused. I think the screen, especially when the performers were off stage, put up an artificial barrier to my ability to connect on an emotional level with the show. The most shocking thing was when I left the theater, I didn't have any strong feelings one way or the other. There wasn't that connection and that's what I get when I see a show that really engages me. Although the music was amazing, this show really didn't stick with me.
10
I read several reviews this morning. Each point to the real problems with this mangled revision, especially those utterly distracting screens that wrest your attention away from the live actors. However, I'm surprised that none mention the insurmountable structural problem of forcing the 1957 script into van Hove's conceit that it's taking place right now. The interracial, heavily tattooed Jets do indeed look like today. However, they are rumbling with Sharks who existed in the last century. One gang is today, the other gang is from 60 years ago. The whole idea was that the European-descended kids of the last migration are battling the interlopers of present migration, i.e., the Puerto Ricans.. So this WSS pretends that the Sharks have just arrived from their homeland instead of actually being the third generation of the Puerto Rican migration, established "Americans," and would hardly be feared as the new guys on the block challenging territory. If you treasure the WSS of Laurents, Bernstein and Robbins, you'd best pass on this van Hove version.
13
No doubt the music is ravishing, but there's a key player missing from this review, and most worthy of being mentioned. The brilliant orchestrator, Jonathan Tunick again applies his exceptional skill to create the end result experienced at each performance. It's encouraging that Mr. Gemignani is even mentioned, however, because the music in musical theatre is increasingly ignored, or only parenthetically included in many reviews. One would think that a major reason people go to musicals, is because of the music, so please give credit where credit is due. In this case, that's Jonathan Tunick.
12
I saw it in January, and was curious to see how it would be reviewed. It was best when the focus was on the actors on stage, and not on the oversized video images. If I want to see a movie, I’ll wait for the Spielberg version.
11
Let’s project the Mona Lisa and animate her smile.
8
I saw this show in previews about 4 weeks ago. On that particular night, they literally had understudies for understudies - there were so many changes that a completely new cast page was inserted into the playbill - extremely confusing to understand who had replaced who. Apparently, at least two leads were out due to injuries. Injuries caused by the rain that drenches the stage about halfway through the show - keep in mind that there is no intermission, so the actors are now performing on a wet stage for the remainder of the show. Yes, this will will cause injuries and in my theatre laypersons opinion is the main problem with the show. The video elements seem cliche at this point given recent productions of Network and even Oklahoma. I love the theatre and I wanted to love this West Side Story - but I left feeling like there must be dueling egos out of control behind the scenes to produce such a flawed staging of a beloved classic.
17
The alcoves reminded me of mouse holes as the actors & actresses appeared like mice. And when you film in Sunset Park, don’t call it “West Side Story”—I was so distracted by street sign that read 2nd Avenue & I knew it was Brooklyn. I kept asking, did I pay to see a movie or a Broadway musical? This is a revival that needs to be revived not reviewed.
20
@Marybeth Zeman
"I was so distracted by street sign that read 2nd Avenue & I knew it was Brooklyn”
You too?
As a native Brooklynite, it was obvious the setting was Sunset Park and not the West Side of Manhattan.
Why would it have been so hard to film it in the actual setting?
I guess Belgians thought we’d never notice.
We did, guys, we did.
" I kept asking, did I pay to see a movie or a Broadway musical?
So true.
How does the director expect us to view the actors with one eye and at the same time watch that huge video of them backdropped behind with the other?
Folks, save your money.
8
I suspect the New York Times reviewer had an excellent seat on the aisle in the orchestra. From that perspective, the video might be distracting. For those of us in the rear of the orchestra or aloft in balconies, the video enhances understanding and provokes an emotional response. When you see a man's hand start to pull off Anita's jeans, her betrayal of Maria's wishes is raw and real in ways that the original stage production or that awful film version never achieved.
7
@James Wood
This isn't IMAX....It's musical theatre.
It's not meant to be a 70 mm inflated gaseous voyage to Mars. I was midway back in the Orchestra, Row J and center. I was desperate to be set free and didn't want to walk and interrupt the viewers on either side of my center seat in the row. I was trapped and claustrophobically wishing I'd done to see To Kill A Mockingbird instead.
It was intensely distracting, and made me feel like I was at a Celine Dion concert in Las Vegas, not a masterful musical composed by a legendary genius.
Beyond all that it was impossible to feel any sense of what distinguished a Jet from a shark....non-traditional casting made them all politically correctly an indistinguishable shade of hysterical, electro-convulsing psychiatric patients.
So it failed to even approach a slightly worthy comment on 2020 race relations if that was the trope it aspired to in this "reconceptualizing" massacre of the original.
It wanted to be so many, many things, to so many people, and left me feeling just like Hamilton did, an unwilling victim of a precocious self-impressed NYU experiment in being "radically novel" that was in reality a shouted, new version of RENT which seems much too common in this current theatre-making "musical" mayhem pushed on us demanding we accept these shows devoid of nuance, elegance, romance, and the real raging fires of true genius, that don't require a megaphone or an IMAX sized screen to beat you up with its "message".
1
Two years ago I attended the best production of "West Side Story" that I have ever seen. Small stage. Small orchestra. Original choreography restaged by Robert La Fosse. Very young, intense Tony and Maria. At the end there wasn't a dry eye in the house -- which goes by the name of the Barrington Stage Company under the direction of Julianne Boyd in PIttsfield, Massachusetts. The moral of the story: there's no need bedazzle brilliance.
16
I grew up listening to WSS and love the musical--I have seen every reincarnation. I purchased tickets to this production well in advance--I was so excited. Brantley is bang on in his review. The only item I would add was that the entire production seemed rushed. Actors waiting on stage ready to jump back in the fray, while other scenes are still in progress. Very disappointing.
To address the Puerto Rican reader who wrote about PRs coming in all shades. That is completely true. But why not put all of those different shades on one side, and then have the Jets as all different shades of white (yes, as anyone that has gone paint shopping recently can attest, there are many shades of white).
7
I saw this interpretation of West Side Story, in previews late Dec last year.
I am close to 70, so on one level I carry certain emotional memories of precious productions.
Being a senior citizen does not prevent me from being drawn to, and often dazzled by modern, energetic Art. I am often stimulated by and in awe of what is imagined, and put into action across many platforms. However, I found this production to be lacking a center.
Had I not know the backstory, I would not have figured out who to root for, or whom to admire or not admire. I definitely found my eyes constantly drawn to the videos, and not to the faces on the performers. I will say though that in all it’s chaos, the one thing I find myself thinking about, when I look back on seeing this show, is the dancing! What talent, what athleticism, what passion!
3
I am surprised at how many negative comments there are about the show based upon the review, from people who have not seen it. I saw it at the end of January and loved it. I think with the video, you just have to accept it, keep your mind from distinguishing, live action or video, see them both as equal without judgement. I like the way intimate scenes could be upstage, and the video lets you next to the performers. Regarding "I feel pretty," Sondheim was always embarrassed by those lyrics, let it go.
11
@NAS Reviewers are paid to help readers make decisions on which shows to spend their hard earned bucks.
1
I saw the original as a young teenager and was transported. The reframing of issues of ethnicity and gender were welcome but not the rest. With the use of video again and again this Director is becoming a bit gimmicky. One could not engage on stage with the videos larger than life, fragmenting one's emotions and even confusing one as to where one should look first. The use of hip hop would have been fine had it been imaginative enough to better use the space. Jerome Robbins' ballet with its expansiveness allows one to dream to the fire escapes and beyond. Here you are caged in by a virtual and less interesting reality.
10
I long for the days when Rodgers and Hammerstein owned and dictated their artistic vision. One could not stage their productions without the allotted number of musicians called for in the score, nor a strong allegiance to the spirit of the composition. They maintained tight control over the artistic product to prevent the type of desecration described in the review. Now we have musicals written by pop musicians of dubious musical compositional acumen, hip hop choreography, rock band accompaniments and rock and roll vocal techniques bellowing forth as if in agony, on the broadway stage. One might just as well attend a rock concert at your local venue.
All subtlety and beauty have been eviscerated and been replaced by vulgarity and ugliness.
The usurpation of Art music by the pop culture is on full display on Broadway and the fading memories of a once progressive culturally sublime, innovative medium is an anachronism.
Instead we have traded it in for a cheap imitation. Gone are the great composers, choreographers, actor/dancer/singers who graced those stages. Our current crop of gifted entertainers are relegated to revivals of our revered classics, but as is the case with this production, even those are subject to “reinvention” as if the original can be improved upon. It is sad and depressing to witness the deterioration of a medium I so loved throughout my lifetime disappear into a storied past.
24
@Peter The estates of Bernstein and Laurents--along with Mr. Sondheim-- allowed this production to use choreography different from the original Jerome Robbins' choreography. They also consented to the dropping of "I Feel Pretty" and the Dream Ballad extension that is part of "Somewhere." They obviously put their trust in Mr. Van Hove's astonishing directorial capabilities. Sondheim has--for years--complained that he never liked the lyrics for " I Feel Pretty."
2
That is my point exactly. Decisions are being made by “managers” of estates and not by musicians. I suspect the re orchestration using synths in lieu of an actual orchestra would not have been high on Leonard Bernstein’s wish list for a revival. He actually enriched his own orchestration for the project with Kiri Te Kanawa, Jose Carreras and friends soon before his death.
3
@Peter LOL. That WWS with Te Kanawa, Troyanos, and most ridiculous of all, Carreras, (a Polish boy with a thick spanish accent?) is hardly a good argument for Bernstein's musical integrity. AND, he didn't do the orchestrations for the original Broadway show, though he DID supervise them.
1
I saw the play with a two friends and was thrilled and deeply moved by the music, actors and production. I couldn't wait to see it again. The second time I sat in the rear mezzanine which allowed me and my adult son to take in the video and the entire stage which I could integrate or not as I wished. To me, the video and live action only enhanced the emotion of the story. But the play worked for me, not because of how the director tells the story but because the director and actors made me care about this Tony and this Maria. The young actors broke my heart and I heard other audience members sobbing aloud. Production methods aside, I loved this theatrical experience because it did what theater is supposed to do - feel deeply.
7
I suggest Van Hove invite the audience to sit down, turn on their ever present phones, and watch the whole thing on their phones while listening to the real actors in the background. That should just about get the zeitgeist right. Right?
19
Listen. As the daughter of a Puerto Rican immigrant during that era, the color blind casting is a more accurate representation. Many Hispanics, including this one, are white. Some of us have blonde hair and blue eyes. Don’t believe me? Go look at the current royal family of Spain. Many Spaniards are light and many Latin Americans are as well, having never intermarried. Latin Americans come in all colors, and our ethnicities include different parts of Europe. My family has German, English, Italian and French blood.
Moreover, at that time, many of the people living in Spanish Harlem were white Puerto Rican’s. I’ve seen the photos of my grandparents and friends and they were pretty white. Today, Hispanics in the US are gloriously multiracial, with roots that include various indigenous, white and African combinations with the occasional Asian mixed.
For years now I’ve seen white Americans regard me differently when I tell them I’m Hispanic. Just like they made Sofia Vergara darken her naturally blonde hair, America can’t conceive that Latin Americans come in many wonderful flavors and colors...
19
@GWE
I grew up in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn during the 1950s and we had our teenage battles with the Puerto Ricans from adjacent South Brooklyn.
Believe me, when we traversed into each other’s turf, both groups had no trouble distinguishing one from the other – who was “anglo” and who was “hispanic” .
It was clear to the eyes.
Mine are so fine-tuned, now I can generally distinguish a Puerto Rican from a Dominican from a Mexican from an Equadorian from a Castilian.
1
Oh! A place where I can profess my love of the original movie! For many like me, who have seen it more times than I can count starting when I was 11, the movie was simply transformative. Before I saw it the very first time, I spent hundred hours with the vinyl, looking at all the white and black pictures on the jacket, extracted from the production, and learning by heart all the songs, phonetically, mind you I had taken German as first language , not English. This was in the South of France in my little town of Grasse, and I can still remember the tremendous anticipation I felt, sitting in that dark room of our beloved local theater when the first drawings of NYC skyline appeared on the screen. When I die I hope my children at the funeral remember to play "Somewhere" .
11
I saw this a few weeks ago and this review nails it. I'm glad I saw it but I'm glad I got last minute $30 tickets on Stubhub. The music is too powerful to be submerged by the meager staging. But I, too, was unmoved and it quickly left my mind after ending. The only number that had power was "America" and the BLM montage felt ham-fisted. I thought Tony was really spectacular though. His voice was just lovely.
9
Thank you, great review. Have no intention of seeing this. I don’t want to watch Ivo van Hove ruin yet another great classic.
16
@Aline Bernstein
I have only seen one of his productions -The Damned- which was incredible. I'm still thinking about it. I had been looking forward to seeing any of his future work. Which classics do you feel he has ruined?
@jas
“The Crucible” and “A View From The Bridge” by Arthur Miller. Especially “A View...” one of my favorite plays.
I saw the show early in previews with my young adult children — every detail and description in this review is spot on. None of us felt anything but disorientation and a sense of bait-and- switch from this production. I do want to add to this review though: the photos included absolutely DO NOT convey the sense of distance and distraction that the videos evoke. We were sitting in the fourth row center stage and couldn't see anything but the top of that tiny, tiny cubby hole way, way back upstage. The discrepancy in size between the actors and the videos is gargantuan. We were forced to watch the grainy overwhelming video when we were craving a view of the living, breathing, acting, singing cast members. The emotion that I was left with was sadness for them that their work was so undervalued.
46
“Singing pleasantly” is a vast understatement and a purely subjective insult. I do agree that it was hard to tell the difference between the Jets and Sharks which added a degree of confusion where it should not have been.
5
I applaud colorblind casting but I agree that the mixed races of the gang members added to the confusion. Calling Tony, who was being portrayed by a darker-skinned young man a “Polack” just made no sense. And I was forgetting who belonged to which gang. Mr. Brantley joked about uniforms. Perhaps, in the interest of verisimilitude, each could carry a red or blue bandana, signifying their allegiance.
13
@Jen Lapidus I believe you saw Tony's understudy. Isaac Powell, who normally plays Tony, is white and might have made that insult less confusing.
I’ve been debating about tickets to “West Side Story;” I grew up listening to the music, and have used “America” often in teaching ESOL classes, which always sparks great discussions. After this review, however, I’ll pass. The video sounds simply lazy and gimmicky, and I’m guessing that the sound is over-amplified and annoying to go along with the show’s 21st c. “sensibility” (or lack of it). I guess this is acceptable if you’ve been raised on video games, but most people who can afford the ticket prices haven’t. Too bad.
17
Thank you. I can now ignore this production in peace.
60
Too bad this critic missed the power of this stellar and unique performance. A complex puzzle of real and virtual compressed into a truly enthralling spectacle. He had shut his eyes to it before he sat down. His loss.
13
This description of the the show makes it sound like going to Yankee Stadium and watching the game on the Jumbotron. I remember all too well the Broadway production of "1984" a few years ago. The irritating back-and-forth between onstage performance and video-only scenes was more than this theater-lover could bear. I expect directors to experiment with different theatrical devices; video is, however, not theatrical. It is a different genre altogether. Watch television; go to the movies; but please leave the theater live, in living color!
27
We saw it in previews, and the audience gave the cast a standing ovation — so the overall experience remains a very positive one. But, I did find the huge screen behind the performers distracting and at times used my hand to block the huge images to better focus on the actors on stage. That said, we watched the first half of the film version a few days later, and it seemed small, dated and boring in contrast.
13
@Pragmatist in CT NYC audiences ALWAYS give Broadway plays a standing ovation. My theory is that after paying hundreds of dollars for tickets (and exorbitant handling fees), theatergoers want to feel that they've gotten their money's worth.
78
@Pragmatist in CT
If you haven't seen a Broadway show in recent years, you might be unaware that a standing ovation is de rigueur these days. I have seen very, very average to downright bad shows (this West Side Story being one) that have gotten the same ovations. Today's audiences apparently think it somehow validates their large financial outlay for a ticket.
67
@Pragmatist in CT I saw it in previews also -agree completely with BB that the video was fatally distracting - maybe a generational thing? I didn't love it in van hove's Network either, but at least in that case it fit with the story. and I am afraid that standing ovations do not mean what they used to mean.
16
I love, love these new approaches to productions that pull in teens and young adults. Thanks to productions like this and Hamilton, theater will not die with me and my generation. Bravo!
5
@Angelica If this West Side Story is what is needed to pull in teens and young adults, I weep for the future of theater.
18
@Angelica But theatre is so much more exciting than video, a point this production seems to miss.
4
@Angelica I'm wondering how many teens and young adults will be pulled in considering the ginormous price of a ticket.
My husband and I saw Van Hove's Hedda Gabler years ago at New York Theatre Workshop, as well as his Toys in the Attic. Hedda Gabler was terrific, Toys in the Attic was really good. But we stopped going to see his work after a few of his misadventures with video. I found his plays to be almost unwatchable and I felt cudgeled by his direction. He should drop the video and go back to what he did best; re-imagining and deconstructing classics with good actors. Period.
16
Part of the problem of excising I Feel Pretty is that it established Maria’s sweetness and innocence. Without that baseline, her character’s arc, from innocence to fury to the deepest grief, is lost. And without Maria as the center of the story, the heart of the story is lost.
55
@Pat Sondheim hates it, you know. He thinks it is too 'poetic" for Maria and uses language not natural to her. That never particularly bothered me, for I assumed she had seen movie musicals and got her inspiration from them. It did, however, seem to come a bit late in the work and seemed to slow it down when it should be accelerating.
5
It seems to me that the song is there for balance, it’s the character’s counterpart to “Something’s Coming” - we get to know them, their optimism and romanticism - those qualities that set them apart from those around them, and that they recognize in each other. Also, musically it’s a light and charming moment, sort of a “breather”. It’s not a great song, and it didn’t surprise me to learn that it was left out, mostly because it seems out of step with the times, but I think I would miss it.
4
Every time I've seen the movie, I've cried my eyes out at the end. Saw the play in previews and wasn't even moved to shed a tear. My emotional connection to this production was nil. Screens? Actors? Who knows. Didn't work for me.
27
MTV comes to Broadway. What joy!
16
Ivan destroyed The Crucible. I saw the 60 minutes feature on West side story and was alarmed by the gargantuan rear screen where the cast looked like ants. This is a hatred of live theatre gone wild. An ego trip I will surely miss. Thanks Ben.
34
Thanks for 30 likes too.
Ivry Gitlis, a great French violinist once said about great music, “To say the music can only be played one way is an insult to the music!”
That observation can be applied to great literature and great plays. The 1957 production of West Side Story was, as we all know, a brilliant adaption of Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet. Although great works can be presented in many marvelous ways, there are limits. Adaption, yet staying true to the basic theme of the original, is one thing. Altering the main premise of the work is quite another.
R&J and WSS were centered around family and ethnic rivalry and outright hate. Obvious and distinct class warfare! Qualities in the modern age considered “political incorrectness!” INCORRECTNESS!! I understand in the current Broadway production the gangs are “ homogenized” and you can’t tell who is a member of what gang!! All in the name of today’s PC!! MADNESS! The basis of the entire work is about those very differences!
If you want to gut the main theme and premise from a work then just stop! Write your own show and give it a different name!!
23
@SAH
Thank you. This play actually cost me a friend last night who so vehemently objected to my not sharing his over-the-top adulation for it that he began to insult with invective.
The Babadook literally called it, "the BEST play he's EVER seen" - I imagine he was well into his whiskey when he challenged me to a duel at sunrise.
4
@SAH It would be better if you actually saw the show before you criticized it.
@Avery
And what precisely made you think I haven''t?
Were you that obnoxious couple taking selfies, photographing the set and your programs in the front row just in front of me on opening night who snapped into a standing ovation at curtain call screaming Bravo! Bravo! like two mendicants at a bullfight?
If so, sir, you reeked of so much alcohol I was afraid it was a fire hazard, as was your wife's mass of steel wool scouring brush hair.
I guess we can thank the MTV generation for the need to have media overload to assault the senses. But sometimes in art, less is more. Certainly seems to be the case here in this revival of a beloved classic.
I saw the original West Side Story on Broadway when I was 12 years old with the original cast. That production is forever imprinted in my memory. It was more than a play, it was a theatrical event.
I will pass on seeing this revival for the same reason I do not see films that employ jump-cutting and the jiggly subjective camera in a vain attempt to promote excitement. For me it promotes nausea.
Less is definitely more.
25
@Len
Precisely why the only play on Broadway I ever walked out of was RENT, which wasn't sung but rather screamed in jarring dissonance and felt like an assault on my senses, both visually and sonorously.
There has been a steady and precipitous decline in musical theatre since the millennial NYU crowd funded by deep pocketed mommies and daddies that insisted to their children the delusion that they had talent, and that productions and fame could be bought, if not earned by the God-given gifts of those born with genuine ability and genius.
Some post-modernists like to say the theatre "has evolved" and like so much of the underwhelming or downright insufferable garbage that makes it to the commercial Broadway stage, we are expected to join in the mass delusion that it has substance and earth shattering originality. I felt the same about Hamilton which I think reached a fever pitch psychotic adulation due to its being an obligatory "cultural phenomena" that met all the check marks for political correctness, that has a lockstep totalitarian demand for being recognized as a work of genius, only because it aligns with the dismal properties of this tragic age's dearth of real works of genius.
Someday the new Bernsteins, and Mozarts, and other truly gifted prodigies will arrive on the scene, if they aren't pushed out of the way by the bloated, arrogant, narcissists who feel themselves entitled to rave reviews and applause whenever they pass wind.
17
@Lenny Burnstein The musical began its long, slow decline when Sondheim decided he could compose music, and the theater community and NYT crowned him as the second coming.
@sonofzeppo If you don't think Sondheim can composer music, you have a very tin ear.
4
So sad that what has been a beloved classic groundbreaking in its time has now become fodder for a new age.
This review reminds me of the old saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.
15
Kinda like Romeo and Juliet. No relevance beyond the 16th Century.
As a baby step towards understanding that timeless stories are, well, timeless, try the Claire Danes-Leonardo DiCaprio film version of Romeo & Juliet.
1
@K Jane
You are correct. BUT that doesn't mean it is a slam dunk just because you had the "stroke of genius" to think your novel approach and choices would fly and work.
In this case, it just didn't. And you are also correct in that the theatre, and plays are meant to be forever recreated, that is the very nature of a play, it doesn't exist imprisoned within the confines of a single production.
I am most excited to be seeing the new take on Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? And as brilliant as the original was, and as perfect as the classic film remains, I have no doubt the outsized talents of Laurie Metclaf and Rupert Everett will deliver wholly new incarnations of these characters.
I would hate to see a carbon copy of the film, and I have no doubts they will rise to the occasion. But we must also accept that sometimes, if the director wavers too far afield in his narcissism that anything he or she touches is Midas gold, miscreant folly ensues, and it simply doesn't work. Like this dismal incarnation of a train wreck.
4
The “60 Minutes” coverage of the show last Sunday was sufficient to dissuade me from wanting to see it. Chaos on a stage. Those distracting video backdrops were overwhelming to the eye.
21
I also saw the 60 Minutes coverage. I simply felt sad to see such iconic theater destroyed.
16
@Hmmm I saw the 60 Minures interview as well, and upon seeing the use of video, regret that I have tickets for this show next week. Nothing could be more distracting than super-sized video dwarfing and diminishing the actors. I already have a headache.
10
Totally agree, the director kind of threw me off and that video screen seems totally pointless. Pictured myself getting lost and confused on what to focus on
3
Bernstein succeeded in taking operatic ensemble scenes and having them realized by his actor/singers throughout WSS. This whole review, barely even mentioning that the actors SING in mighty and challenging ways does a disservice to Bernstein’s genius.
8
Actors in a musical SING? Boy, that Bernstein WAS a genius! This is without precedent!
9
I saw this last week with my parents and my children. There was a clear generational gradient in how we perceived the effect of video. My parents thought it made the performers "look like ants". My children really appreciated being able to see the performance at multiple scales simultaneously. My wife and I both felt that it was occasionally disorienting, but I thought there was real value in being able to contrast the perception of live performers with the mediated and directed view of the action that the screens provide.
I am not a frequent theater-goer, and my experience of the Jerome Robbins choreography is through the film. I watched the film with my children in preparation for the musical, and they didn't connect with the original at all but loved this production. This choreography felt true to the story and the characters. Overall, I was much more emotionally connected to these characters and the idea that these kids are playing with emotions and actions that they don't understand and aren't equipped to handle.
I am grateful for a production that is a reimagination of this material. For those reader and commenters who haven't seen this yet, approach it on its own terms rather than despairing that it is different than what you already know.
69
@Ben Great comments and great advice. I'd love to see this production. Even the stills that accompany this review would inspire me to see it. Ditto the choreographer, whose "Rain" I found enthralling.
2
@Ben Appreciate your comments and agree that one should make up their own mind.
For what it's worth, I went to see this with my kids (pre-teens/teens and frequent theater-goers) and they absolutely hated every minute of it. My youngest (11), kept asking if it was almost over. They couldn't connect at all with the characters (neither could I). They have all seen the original movie and loved it.
In particular, they thought the attempted assault on Anita was way too graphic, with it being on the large screen.
I also saw Network, which van Hove directed with similar use of the screen. That show was spectacular, with the screen adding to the movement of the plot. But, in that show, there was a natural reason to have the screen (it is a TV studio, after all). The large screen for WSS seems misplaced.
20
@Chris Did your 11 really loved the movie? And didn’t ask when it was going to be over? I find both things hard to believe.
1
If Mr. van Hove has a "different vision" for "West Side Story" he should write his own play. I don't understand how the arts community constantly embraces remakes. It's pure artistic laziness and should be shunned every time it is proposed.
Ivo van Hove thinks that he's on an artistic level that gives him the right now eliminate work by Jerome Robbins and most of all, Leonard Bernstein? Leonard Bernstein?
Stay home, save your hard-earned money to embrace new works of art or the classics performed the way their creators intended.
30
@b d'amico Would you say the same about any production of a Shakespeare play that doesn't abide by the performance conventions of Shakespeare's own day?
7
@nw2 Yes. It's done. It's a finished work. No legitimate artist would have any desire to remake someone else's work. It makes no sense.
6
@b
Should singers only sing their own songs?
What about literature being turned into films? Illegitimate? There have been some pretty good ones.
New versions of things do not eliminate the originals. They are still there to enjoy.
2
Eeek! Well I guess Mr. Brantley didn’t like it. One thing really stood out in his review. The misplaced attempt at inclusiveness by blurring the ethnic differences between the Sharks and the Jets resulted in a visual and artistic muddle, completely obviating the point of the original work. In other words, like so many of the conversations we have about race and ethnicity today, it substituted feel-good political correctness for the impact and power of honesty.
20
@DM Williams " feel-good political correctness" Since this is entirely subjective on your part, and a complete simplification, then I respectfully disagree. You have issues.
2
I’ll be in New York from Wisconsin in March for just a couple days.
Oh, to pick what to see! I debated about “West Side Story” - then I saw 60 minutes and not only watched the sets but listened to the two people in charge of the huge screens and the choreography.
As a young girl I saw and heard Natalie Wood. Oh! To be like her! Soft, quiet, elegant, perfect! Oh, to be pretty!
The Milwaukee Rep did “West Side Story” last fall. The play brought in more audience numbers and dollars than any other in the Rep’s history. It was a beautiful production. That is the production I will let my heart and mind be calmed with.
Sorry, New York “updated West Side Story” - some productions just cannot be tampered with to this degree. It just wouldn’t make us “feel pretty” enough.
Not going.
37
@MIMA Some people want to hear the same song over and over and over. Others like to hear other interpretations of it - some of which are terrible, but all of which try to enlarge on the original interpretation.
That said, it is *an interpretation*. The original involved many director’s choices as well as Bernstein‘s and Sondheim‘s work. This is a new director with different choices. You may not like them, but that is a different thing than insisting that the first is the only version to be allowed and thereby codified into the canon of Broadway.
The beloved 1939 ‘Wizard of Oz’, for example is a remake of a 1925 film. Aren’t you glad somebody thought to try a new version?
10
@Rick Starr
Some things beg to be redone. Not “West Side Story” however in my opinion. That’s what these comments are for, right?
But everyone is entitled to their opinion and taste.
New York has so many other options but with limited time and dollars, some of us need to again, turn to heart whatever that may be. Glad to have made other choices.
Kudos to the Milwaukee Rep! A Midwest gem.
MIMA
7
Oh dear. We have tickets for April, bought six months ago. I've hated the intrusion of video screens in other theater productions I've seen, and this review makes WSS sound more like Cirque du Soleil's "Paramour": a character and plot free jumbotron monstrosity designed for the attention deficit auditory processing disorder generation. I hope BB is wrong!
12
@Country Life Unfortunately, BB is totally correct. We saw it on January 30th. I left feeling angry instead of merely disappointed. The voices, other than Pimentel's Maria, weren't strong enough to fill the room. The choreography really did seem like martial arts rather than dancing). Yes, it was impossible to tell the gangs apart, but worst of all were the video images that completely overwhelmed the play and the performers. Maybe these "avant-garde" folks should have just turned it into a film since it became nearly impossible to pay attention to the tiny, little actors arm-slashing their way across the stage. Maybe they should have used Jackie Chan.We drove over two hours to get there and spent a considerable amount of money. A complete waste of time and dollars. You might consider selling your tickets.
21
Saw it in February with a twenty something - we both found it a profound, moving production. The combination of stage and video added to the experience even when it took a few minutes to focus our attention.
Not all new is good and not all old must be sanctified. This WSS is brilliant. Go see it and experience it for what it is. Don't dismiss it for what it is not.
14
@MarMcN
Was it as profound and moving as when you read Fun with Dick and Jane aloud to each other by a fire with megaphones?
We saw it in previews and have to admit that when the video screens came to life we were uncertain as to what was expected of us as the viewer. However, we had to make a decision to embrace the technological enhancements and go with them or let them gnaw on us for not respecting a "classic." So glad, unlike Ben, that we embraced Ivo van Hoe's artistic vision and let it embrace us. However, I can respect the purist view. I mean what's next, a rap version of the life of Alexander Hamilton?
20
@Im Just Sayin I embraced the videos too, at first. After all, we went looking for a new take on WSS. But by the end, I have to agree that they were distancing, distracting, and death to any emotional response the audience might have had to the story. After seeing von Hove on 60 Minutes, I have to assume that the emotional disconnection is what the director was after. So, fine. Moving on.
1
@Im Just Sayin
Not the same thing here.
I saw it in previews in December. I walked out within 20 minutes. In fact the producer, Barry Diller, was sitting on the edge of the aisle scribbling notes. Mr. Diller had to stand up and allow me and my girlfriend to exit to the aisle. What did his notes ever tell him?
25
I’d be interested to know whence those who object to the video in this production viewed it. I was in the Mezzanine and it truly worked for me, enhancing the experience.
2
Saw this a few weeks back as did others writing here - Besides never knowing quite where to look - at the performers or at the screens - What was most disappointing (despite the loss of the legendary dancing) was that several times in the production, the performers disappear from the stage altogether, and key parts of the musical appear only on screen...We expected to see a true live performance and not a film. The effects added nothing really, and we left feeling pretty uninspired.
58
The video is a catastrophic idea for live theater. The person who dreamed up the "idea" should be banned on Broadway for life ---and eternity.
46
I wish I could strenuously disagree with this review. Having seen it, however, it is spot on. Its multi- media, overly produced, social updating lacks a center and hence, little emotional impact.
60
I saw this production a few weeks back and generally enjoyed the show. That said, I found the over-reliance on video to be distracting and disappointing. When I go to the theatre I want to see HUMANS. I can watch a screen at home. And I found “Officer Krupke” to be tone deaf and dated, despite the politically charged videos.
18
I am a traditionalist and looked forward to seeing the latest version of WSS when in NY this June. A well written review that makes it clear that this latest iteration of an American classic will not work for me. A small fortune saved. It is simply a matter of waiting for the Hollywood film that I expect will preserve and celebrate an American musical icon.
13
All considerable talent involved considered, I will likely not see this, disappointed as I was in the overwhelming, seasickness-inducing effect of the video screens in Network, Bryan Cranston's terrific performance notwithstanding. (If I didn't already know what it was about, I would have had no idea what it as about, too distracted as I was).
Personally, I go to the theater to NOT watch a computer, movie, or TV screen, to give my eyeballs a rest from the digital. Ditto for the opera. I remain critical even of the subtitled texts offered at the MET. Read the script, know the dialogue ahead of time. Then sit back and absorb the beauty, sight and sound, and really SEE the performances.
Can't believe my young bohemian rogue self is starting to sound like a cranky old-timer.
44
@harry gonzo
While reading the review, I too thought of the recent production of Network and Cranston's outstanding performance. i Wasn't always impressed with the use of video in Network, but after all, the story was about television and an anchor, so it was appropriate. And Cranston's performance was so powerful that no amount of video and graphics could obstruct my attention.
3
@harry gonzo At least at the Met you can turn your subtitles off, and the visibility of others' screens is extremely limited. In productions such as this you have no choice but to view all the apparently many superfluous projected images.
1
@harry gonzo Amen re: the Met. Actually all of what you wrote. Just leave it all out. (Or off when given an option.)
“Artistic detonators to sacred classics.”
It’s more than a great line.
I didn’t see the “new” Oklahoma and I won’t see this.
I hope this genre dies.
How about trying something original - like Hamilton achieved?
26
@Steven Roth
Too bad you didn't give the new "Oklahoma!" a chance. I saw it three times--it was brilliantly performed and sung; video, in that production, was used to deepen our understanding of characters' shadow sides. But I think that worked because of the theater's scale--Circle in the Square was much smaller than the Broadway, where West Side Story's playing.
I saw the van Hove production twice in previews, and found the video projections distracting, too. The scale of the video images distort the live action rather than clarify it; the scale doesn't plumb interiority the way "Oklahoma!'s" image-scale achieved.
What's regrettable in Brantley's review: he's so distracted by the video that he fails to give richer attention to the lead actors' singing--Isaac Powell as Tony and Shireen Pimentel as Maria, when I saw the production in December, sung gloriously, not just "pleasantly," as Brantley reports.
10
@Steven Roth
Not to contradict Jackie, but I also saw the updated Oklahoma! and absolutely hated it.
Wrongheaded in just about every way, the production was saddled with a politically “woke” (I guess) story arc that seemed forced, misapplied, and most unwelcome, at least by me. Performances, not bad, I particularly enjoyed Ado Annie, but then I always do.
The fact that this misfire was well received at all is, I think, testament to the staying power of the Oklahoma! score and the optimism that still shone through despite attempts to darken the story. There is bloodshed. The video sequence with Jud … the best I can say about that is that they FINALLY turned the house lights down, which are left completely up through much of the production. So uncomfortable. An utterly baffling dance solo opens the second act. Still haven’t figured that out.
Hopefully audiences will still enjoy the musicianship of what is surely a bungled reimagining of West Side Story. I don’t intend to find out.
4
@Brian
Wow, I couldn't disagree more! Especially as to your reason the show was well received. I would never have been interested in seeing a traditional Oklahoma. The fact that it was different and darker was what made it so enthralling. My favorite show of the year! Very bummed that I waited until the end of the run to see it because I would have gone back. I'll give you one thing - the dance solo, while an interesting, exciting choice, was way too long.
1
I just want to thank Ben Brantley for mentioning the "anonymous, lissome figure, barely detectable as he or she dances at the end of a long, dark street." For a while I expected "Mr. Bojangles" to begin playing. Then I thought that this must be the ghost of Jerome Robbins haunting the production, and I'd hoped to see "it" cheekily snap its fingers -- just once! Needless to say, this was one of the distractions that the pervasive, occasionally nauseating (in that I felt seasick), screen images that kept taking me out of the story.
30
I am so tired of hearing that if I don’t like something that professes to be innovative, it’s because I’m out of touch with today’s young people. Sometimes attempts to create art just don’t work. While young people may be more accepting of things like actors being stuck in cubbies while their performances are projected via video screen, it doesn’t mean they like the fact that the intimacy of live theater has been removed.
74
Ivo van Hove delights in not delighting. I prefer the standard of playwright Conor McPherson: "Put the audience in first class." It's not the we don't want to be challenged, but the shows are for us--not for the director or other creatives. This show was advertised for MONTHS as "the groundwater of the modern musical" falsely promising to deliver on a classic that done well has plenty to say to our times.
39
@Andy Humm I always feel that van Hove is more in love with himself and his "vision" of others' great works, than those great works themselves. If you didn't see last Sunday's puff segment on "60 Minutes" do check it out.
31
@Andy Humm I absolutely loved The Damned. It was difficult and challenging, but that doesn't mean not delightful. It presented a riveting night of theater in a setting that could not be duplicated in any other medium. That's what theater is for, and I thank van Hove for giving us that. Haven't seen WSS, but probably won't based on this review and comments from my friends.
I will see it, but I'm concerned. All the artistic arguments (as valid as they are) aside, I'm old enough to have gone to NYC parochial schools in the 1950s when Italian, Irish and Polish kids were joined by Puerto Ricans. My mother taught at St. Claire's in Hell's Kitchen and watched them film some of it. It didn't happen 250 years ago which gave Hamilton and even Carousel a freedom. It happened to me and my friends. I very much support the changing of race and sex and ability in current musicals, as seen in Oklahoma, but the real people of this story are still here. And what musical reflects the Hispanic immigration problems of our country better than this one? I fear that to turn it into what sounds like a music video, while not boring and maybe exciting, misses a chance to address a problem that existed in 1954 and still does now. It sounds like a fascinating show, but I will miss my personal connection to it. Having said that, I hope it succeeds.
11
Hundreds of dollars to watch dizzying video projected on the back wall, upstaging the performers. More video projection of live action being filmed in tiny cubbyhole sets built into the back wall. There was zero connection to the action. West Side Story is a proven thing. How could it be messed up so badly? The one good thing out of the night was Alexander Gemignani and that gorgeous music.
49
Saw the show--I agree 100% with this review.
34
I'm sure this article seemed much more eloquent in the original German. This kind of racially ignorant, gate-keeping elitism is exactly why there is such a ridiculous lack of diversity in the theatre community as a whole. I saw the show on Tuesday. It was a nuanced and necessary re-interpretation of the text. Ivo van Hove recognizes that theatre and film are fundamentally the same thing; the only people who are offended by that statement are the wine-sipping Park avenue crowd and their art school protégés who are terrified of losing their status as detached tastemakers.
8
@JH Do you really think theatre and film are the same. They have such grand differences that make them both exciting to see. Why should creative people lessen the specifics of an experience?
38
@JH If you are going to rip off Molly Ivins, at least give her credit. There are many differences between theatre and film. Sorry to get all critical on you, but theatre is an open art form; film is not. Your comment about lack of diversity in the theatre does not apply to this production of West Side Story. The musical is about two different gangs. There is a problem if the viewer has trouble knowing which character belongs to which gang.
41
@JH
Theater and film may be fundamentally the same thing, but the superstructures are very different.
4
I thought the production was awful. There were times when not a single actor was visible on-stage, they were hidden inside the shoebox sets, which had been constructed as boxes invisible to the audience that the actors disapeared into. Great. Go to the theatre to see no actors, but only a movie. For that, I could just watch the original at home. The choreography often seemed reduced to kicking, karate style. And my mind kept wandering from actors to movie screen, not knowing where to pay attention. All too many pretty boy male models on stage, and TERRIBLE acting all around, although a couple of the actors could also sing. My sister left shaking her head, "what happened to the legendary triple threats of NYC? Don't they exist anymore? And why cut out "I Feel Pretty?" Pointless. Not moving. Irritating to toggle back and forth from movie screen to stage. The only good choreography was for the sexualized fantasy of "there's a place for us".
111
@Le
Spot on. So disappointing and really wanted to like this revival which was confusing at best. At least there was a live orchestra which is ironic.
8
I enjoyed van Hove’s dynamic “A View From the Bridge,” laughing out loud at it’s ridiculous rain of blood finale which I nonetheless appreciated for its sheer boldness.
But adding “witchcraft effects” to “The Crucible” was a pathologically stupid idea which removed the play from its historical context.
Worse, I despised last season’s van Hove spectacle “Network” for no other reason than he seemed to not understand the context of the script and words AT ALL, completely misinterpreting Chayefsky’s famous “Primal Forces” among other things.
I was curious about his “West Side Story” but after the last two duds I’ve decided to pass.
Fool me me three times...
32
One of the goofiest updates in this production is gang members carrying cell phones, which is incidentally introduced only toward the end. When Tony is wrongly told that Maria is dead, I half-expected him to say, “What do you mean? She just texted me!”
134
I’ll take a Pasadena on this—sounds like yet another gratuitous PC gloss on a classic. Zzzzzz.
25
Anita is a wow, but the actress playing Maria has an odd operatic voice and no chemistry with her co-star. The videos were distracting. Chosing to set scenes so far back on the stage rpbbed them of their power, even though we were close to the front. Interesting but disapointing.
30
Some classics just shouldn't be touched. What next - To Kill A Mockingbird in the same ridiculous fashion?
10
@B. Granat The current production is going to be performed "in the round" at MSG. Not kidding. I hope this works for the 16,000 young people who are going to attend. I wish the Shubert would share tickets to the theatre instead.
1
@B. Granat This is the age of the out-of-control director's ego. In opera now, the very first thing they do when designing a new show is, "where can we relocate it, other than what the original libretto specifies?" Rigoletto in Las Vegas. Marriage of Figaro in Trump Tower, Falstaff in 1950's Britain. It's really tiresome.
1
Mr. B. we agree. Spot on.
10
Amen. It was like watching an overly art directed music video instead of a compelling musical drama. Lots of cool young people up there begging me to care about their ... tattoos. Boring. The director was reaching desperately into his bag of well worn tricks and the choreographer was doing Jerome Robbins lite. Ultimately, the pointless supersized video nonsense crushed the live bodies. But the musical itself, apart from some cringe inducing dialogue, eclipsed this stagy nonsense. Pity. I had equally high hopes after the first few minutes.
42
Van Hoe said in an interview that he wants young folks to see his WSS. Perhaps NYT should hire a millennial who hasn't been influenced by the movie or previous shows to write a critique with a fresh perspective.
10
If you think millennials haven’t seen the original WWS you are so very mistaken. We love the movie version and any deviation from that is only a disappointment. Give us more credit please. We are not the tasteless, out of touch, unappreciative 30 somethings you think we are. Bernstein, Robbins, and Sondheim created a classic that our parents made sure we know and love.
None of us will go see this production. Period.
10
@Millennial Musical Lover
But how do you know any deviation is a disappointment if you refuse to see it? I give more credit to people who have open minds and form their own opinions. I have learned from some surprising experiences not to say: this idea sounds terrible so I'm not even going to give it a chance. My favorite theatrical experiences are those which have surprised me when I had a preconceived opinion. Maybe I won't like this production, but at least I haven't decided in advance.
@Millennial Musical Lover Well said!
1
Saw an early preview and on the walk to the subway station kept hearing “the video was so distracting”. Brantley basically said that too.
Ruin is when u paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Nothing was ruined here. It’s simply different but very interesting. Loosen up and go judge for yourself.
10
Too bad Jerome Robbins is dead; if Robbins were alive, Ivo Heave-ho could take a de Keersmaeker dance and let Jerome Robbins completely eviscerate it. That might begin to redress the imbalance.
I would not go see this production even if I were given free tickets. Some things are classics, and this one should have been left alone, full stop!
If Ivo Heave-ho wants to do something Trump-y and topical, why didn't he start from scratch, instead of creating havoc with this story?
And, FWIW, I am NOT paying any money -not now, not ever, to see Amar Ramasar dance anything, anywhere.
28
@L If the legendary (and legendarily cantankerous) genius Jerome Robbins was still with us, "Ivo Heave-ho" would be torn to SHREDS!
2
@Bella Wilfer: Yes, indeed Robbins would! And then we'd be free of any further depredations imposed on us by Mr. Heave-ho!
Oh boy.
6
I note that the show's running time is a mere 105 minutes. If so, a good deal more than "I Feel Pretty" must have been shorn from this celebrated musical for the purpose of making it more "effective" (!!). Seriously, what is the point of tampering with greatness? I would much prefer that an innovative director try to rework a failed theater piece that had the potential for greatness and tweak it just enough as to realize its possibilities. "Follies" was such a musical. "West Side Story" required no such assistance.
27
@stu freeman At least when they mess with opera, re-setting it in different time and place than the original, they don't reduce the orchestra to 3 synths and a drum set, and they don't cut and rewrite the score.
1
There are some iconic classics that should not be remade and this is one of them. I have no interest in seeing this.
22
Yes West Side Story is a classic, but lets see first how the 15-30 year olds respond to this staged version before we condemn. Maybe the rest of us aged theater goers can't let go of the past. (We are still trying to figure out how the tv remote works.) Those kids were raised since birth on a barrage of imagery and technology. I'm sure they'll love it.
13
@Frank: Who cares how the 15-30 year olds respond? They're not paying full price for these tickets. And they have no useful attention span, IMO.
10
@Frank Good point but once again only peope whatever their age with some $$$will see it. The problem with any large production is that it is so unavailable to most people. ( I am talking economics, not logistics)
1
@Frank Much as I dislike getting older, I'm thankful that my early theatre-going (as a teen) included Maggie Smith in Private Lives (ticket price: $10) and Die Zauberflöte at the Met with costumes and sets by Marc Chagall. I guess it ruined me.
1
I attended Wednesday with family and agree: the huge live-action videos were off-putting. The close-ups also clearly showed the thin fiber cameras and microphones wrapped around the performers’ heads and faces.
Carol Lawrence, the original Maria, was in the house. She stood, waved, and smiled graciously at the end—the true emotional high point of the night. I wish that they’d put her face on the Jumbotron during the show so we all could have watched her reactions.
35
@Dave I’m so glad I’m not the only one who has a hard time adjusting to the cameras and microphones on display. When the Jets and Sharks lined up at the beginning and were projected on the video screen, I was totally distracted by the taped-on hardware. For better or worse, one of the benefits of seeing people on a stage from a distance is that the microphones are unobtrusive. I feel a bit petty, but these were just a couple things in a litany that were amplified by use of the video screens—and not in a good way.
18
I enjoyed the show but the microphones attached to the actors’ hair drove me crazy!!!!!
@Dave Wow. One can only imagine what Carol Lawrence must have felt. Gasp. Here was a true triple-threat performer who was first and foremost a dancer, but capable of singing near operatic music when required AND a good actress, plausibly cast as a Puerto Rican. In 1957, the most astonishing thing, and often talked about, was the difficulty of casting a large number of roles where everyone had to be first... a dancer, but also plausibly cast for looks, and vocal appropriateness, and acting ability. Most musicals before that, didn't expect people to be singer/actor/dancer in more or less equal ability.
It was a stunningly modern, shocking, beautifully sung and danced production. I went with hope, skepticism, and curiosity. I left incredibly moved thinking about America. Whatever bona fide quibbles there may be, this review is inaccurate in many takes. It is incredibly moving. The dancers. Their youth, their power, their passion - has never been better because it's skill and acumen and young PASSION. Very moved by this production.
13
C’mon, Ben! You’re showing your age. I saw WSS in previews in January. This is a 2020 show. I was stunned by the visuals, the choreography, the incredible cast. The show was highly relatable, considering the era we live in today.
Did I miss the clicks? Not at all. I can’t wait to see this production again. By the way, I saw the original production in 1960.
Irene Smith
29
@Irene Smith stunned by the incredible cast? you must have a very low bar for measuring this. This was the worst group of actors i have seen on a stage in a long time. No chemistry, no presence and some of them couldn't even sing well. The visuals were completely distracting and made it feel like you were watching a television show which is not why people go to the theater. Based on the comments i heard a lot of people making on the way out of the theater this show will be closed in 6 months!
4
I respect but generally disagree with Brantley's review. This WSS hurls forward into the 21st century with a uniformly strong cast. I saw an early (the 9th) preview & returned 8 weeks later to the final preview last night. (1) For me, the initial "weak link" early on was the videography for the outdoor locations. They have since been extensively re-shot, are brilliantly integrated & work superbly in anchoring this riveting production.The INTERIOR video scenes greatly enhance the viewer's ability TO SEE the acting up close from any location in this enormous theatre,& adds to the characters' development. The videos overall have an almost cinematic quality in the way they are used, blending into theatrical form.(2) De Keersmaeker's athletic & occasionally violent choreography propels the show with great force. Ironically, I don't think Jerome Robbins' structurally balletic & gorgeous dances--used in 2 earlier B'way revivals (1980 + 2009) --would work in this kind of production. (3) Since the show is played without an intermission, "I Feel Pretty" might seem awkward here, as it traditionally opens the second act after a break; here it would immediately follow "The Rumble" & not make sense--even as much as we all love this song. (4) However, Van Hove's dropping the Dream Ballet which accompanies "Somewhere" was a mistake. That dance reflects the alternate reality of joy, love & harmony which these characters will never know. (5) But see this WSS: it's stunning & moving.
15
@robert "I feel pretty" - followed by "One Hand One Heart" - happens before the rumble.
@Nina the order of numbers in the movie is different from the order in the original stage version
3
Agree 100% with Mr. Brantley's review. The enormous scale of the video overwhelmed the actors on the stage and instead of adding to the performance was a distraction. I felt I was watching the video version of "West Side Story."
19
I attended a preview in Jan. While I sympathize with the points the critic made, I enjoyed the show thoroughly. Listening to the crowd, it seemed very divided generationally on the response from patrons, with older patrons panning the staging and younger appreciating the experimental setting.
My biggest beef was thatI felt like the show was missing the female perspective and Maria in the margins. In the age of Lizzo, why cut I feel pretty? Why not just modernize it?
9
@Christina Several of the songs that were kept would have benefited from modernization. One of the things that didn’t work for me in the show was the juxtaposition of the 21st Century NYC setting with the lyrics of songs like “Gee, Officer Krupke”: “My sister wears a mustache / My brother wears a dress / Goodness gracious / That’s why I’m a mess.”
Shows written in the mid-20th Century may have dated lines and song lyrics, but a re-consideration of them might be advisable when a new production is trying to make a major statement about the country today (see the “America” number with video screen presentations of Puerto Rico after hurricanes have decimated it or miles of border wall).
4
Agreed. If you’re gonna go for it, go big!
I saw the show in January and I have to say Ben Brantley’s review was spot-on. I thought the performances were great, thanks to a young, talented cast. I’m a die-hard fan of the movie but thought the updated choreography and costumes, while unnecessary, brought a renewed and fresh perspective. That said, I think the constant reliance on videos almost destroyed the production. I was able to get on pretty well by focusing mainly on the stage action and ignoring the Jumbotron (which I could do from my perch in the mezzanine). I think that would be virtually impossible in an orchestra seat.
Moreover, there were certain scenes that were staged in sort-of interior sets that could only be seen on the video screen. And that really ruined it for me. For example, “One Hand, One Heart,” which is one of show’s most beautiful and poignant songs, is done a great disservice by hiding the live action on a tiny “sound stage” and forcing us to watch it on video. Instead of wrenching, I merely found the scene chilly and austere (and rushed, almost as if the cast wasn’t happy about the set up either). This isn’t why I go to see live theater or pay the premium prices!
39
A total train wreck. The grit, the grime, the tattoos. Welcome to New York 2020. West Side for the video generation. Those with the bucks to pay for it, anyway. Won't run long. Won't tour either. Fortunately, there will always be the 10 time Oscar winning film for the adults who want classic entertainment.
94
I thought the re-orchestration and the dumbing down of the orchestra with synths was revolting. You simply didn't hear the complexity of the counterpoint and simultaneous contrasting rhythms that make the Bernstein score unforgettable. Though von Hove has staged opera, I think that his musicality is primitive. He's all about the visuals. Let's say it was West Side Story with an emphasis on story and acting, projections and words (the Sondheim libretto was retained.)
44
@RM "Dumbing down of the orchestra with synths?"
Not sure to what you refer.
That does not happen in this production.
Maybe what you heard was a result of the amplification, not the orchestration.
The real pity is that "irrepressible iconoclast van Hove" can't seem to come up with a contemporary artist of any real talent to use as his TNT as an "artistic detonator". Leave masterpieces alone instead of exploding your post modern twenty-first century redux on the world.
Some things are better left untouched, if one truly doesn't have the arsenal of talent necessary to reinterpret - a worthy ambition, after all it is theatre and meant to be revived and reviewed and rekindled - or revisit the source material.
It seems to me, like so much contemporary "celebrity" hype and publicist-manufactured lavish praise heaped on these darling upstarts like Mr. van Hove, that the reality, after all the confetti settles, is that there isn't as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, California, "any there, there."
What Ivo darling apparently lacks is any truly substantive gift for unearthing original material. Perhaps if he sifts through the feeble embers of his generation's lackluster theatre makers, for anything truly original and "explosive" to set the world on fire with, he might have something real to contribute to modern culture.
Instead the trend is all too often compulsory, adulatory standing ovations, and applause for what are truly, in the end, non-events.
And let the dogs of war come claim me, but I would say Hamilton was the last obligatory bring down the house clap fest for what was nothing more than obligatory, politically correct adulation.
Keep trying kids.
27
@Lenny Burnstein I'll be seeing WSS in April, so I'll reserve comment on that. However, I'll gladly be the first dog to pounce on your Hamilton invective. I've been attending Broadway musicals for 55 years. Hamilton was one of the most original, creative and captivating productions I've ever seen, well deserving of every second of its standing o.
12
@Amy R.
Do try to remain composed when not everyone on Earth is lockstep in agreement with your perception or reaction to a play.
I think it (Hamilton) had some strong points, but wasn't, forgive my opposing opinion, the earth-shattering, box-office-busting, mass-obsession, that ensued.
I personally, found it contrived, lacking in any real substantive storyline, nor did I feel it offered any worthy and valuable revelations as to race relations during the time of our founding fathers.
It was a facile trope, in my opinion, that was hatched by rap (an "art form" that I think has about as much musical depth as a tone deaf broken record) enthusiasts who I reiterate, demand we must genuflect before ANYTHING the collective PC thought police puts its stamp of approval on.
But not all of us feel compelled to leap to our feet in fevered applause to works of theatre that leave us cold, unmoved, and uninspired.
We have to accept your opinion, and ardor for whatsoever you deem tome original and overwhelming, so you'll simply have to swallow we dissenters too. You see, that's what we are losing every day in this country, the right and freedom to object and disagree with whatever the zeitgeist wants to force feed us like paté producing geese.
I, for one, will not be silenced when criticizing contemporary culture and appreciate The NY Times ability to allow in this forum, the wide range of opinions it publishes daily, that affords us our freedom of expression and dissent.
6
@Lenny Burnstein When Gertrude Stein said, "“There is no there, there," she wasn't describing Oakland. She was referring to the fact that her childhood home in Oakland had been torn down and wasn't "there" anymore.
3
Can’t disagree more with Mr. Brantley’s review. I think he saw another show... The WSS my husband and I saw yesterday was a must see show of interracial love in NYC in 2020.
13
@Stefano Larosa
I saw this production last Tuesday night and was enthralled.The se,t the choreography, having to move where the eyes and ears focused. Everyone on stage was in character as if they owned it, near breaking. Loved it.
7
You missed the boat Mr. Bradley. The time is clearly the present. The innocence of the lovers is exactly what is needed for their impetuous actions. The video and live action sequences are exactly trying to capture a current ADD public, but besides that add an urgency that is undeniable. Moving Broadway into the 21st century is possible, but not with critics that miss the boat. Personally, I was extremely moved by this production. Everyone with me was as well. Kleenex tissues were needed. I would call that a great night at the theater.
Jose Fong
17
I have been watching the publicity for the revival of "West Side Story" for more than a year, and all that time I've wondered - where are the female characters? There are at least five key women's roles in "West Side Story," plus a dozen or more dancers. They were never featured in the publicity, which was centered on photography of the young male cast. It was all about their bodies. No nod to story, to character, to music, to the heart of the musical. I no longer live in NYC so I may not have an opportunity to see it, and I would see it, to see if my hunch is true. From Brantley's description of the use of video and the homogeneous grouping of the men, I fear the production is not a revival of "West Side Story," but rather a director's "vision" that has little to do with the musical. Publications that did major previews of the show, including The New York Times Magazine and The New Yorker, also focused on photography of the men, again ignoring the women in the cast. Musicals CAN be reimagined. Promotion is intended to tell us what a show, movie, book is about. The promotion for this show communicated that it is an off-putting, macho, misogynistic mess.
91
@Rebecca - your notice of the misogyny surrounding this production is in addition to those of us not willing to see a cast which includes Amar Ramasar. The real grit suggested in the production is ironic.
10
@Rebecca
I saw the show twice in previews. I agree that the production and the publicity for it has stressed the male characters to the expense of the women. I'd not say it's "misogynist," though; the focus on men--both in the publicity and show--is homoerotic.
3
@Jenny
Ramasar plays a gang leader not a saint. According to you he ought to bear the mark of Cain forever.
2
Please read Charles McNulty in the LA times --
"I adore this production for making me feel so deeply the tragic waste of innocent love in a society still festering in hate."
I saw the show, was jolted, transfixed, and came away deeply moved.
20
Totally agree with this review. I was underwhelmed and the videography was too distracting. At times I just closed my eyes to listen to that fabulous score. Hearing it live was the highlight of the show.
78
The absolutely best production of WSS that I ever saw was performed by high school students in the cafeteria of a vocational high school in the south village. No sets. No lighting. No costumes. Just tables and chairs and a piano. But boy did those kids act and sing and dance! It was spectacular and memorable and very moving. They knew what that show was about. I think I shall pass on this 2020 Broadway version.
87
If you want a Romeo and Juliet for today, you really have to start with a different book.
And you really shouldn't neglect the love story at the center.
The tribal conflicts of today are fueled by parents, not children. The racial divide is more rural, not urban. Maybe rural v. urban.
Today's inclusive New York City is the perhaps least likely setting for this conflict I can think of.
Today's youth is much more accepting of differences, and is the least homogenous in our history.
The point of the original West Side Story was a re-telling that fit the moment. This production is neither true to the original, nor true to its time.
It's a messed up mash-up, like one of those early-days "new" loops-of-the-60's songs. The music industry quickly realized they needed original loops to tell a different story. Theater should pay heed.
62
This director seems too focused on form over function. Too much video for the sake of video, and too much changing and ditching original elements of the source material for the sake of doing so.
47
I saw a fairly early preview and while the video detracted in some scenes, the show was thrilling. America was fabulous. The last scene, chilling. Can’t wait to se it again.
15
@Ellen Guest Friend of a cast member....wink wink
;)
6
Best, by far, recent West Side Story was the up-close-and-personal performance at Sondheim’s Signature Theatre in Shirlington VA near DC. The dance, the singing, the staging, and production were brilliant!
To bad this wasn’t!
8
Sounds awful. I saw some of it on "60 Minutes" this past weekend and did think the use of video didn't help anything. Too bad a beautiful, timeless story, in an effort to make it timely, has made it instead, out of time.
30
@Cynthia starks I had exactly the same response watching the 60 Minutes piece. I am not opposed to a fresh take on a classic piece, but this isn’t it. And while I welcome colorblind and color-conscious casting when it makes sense, in this case I feel it actively works against the message of the piece.
STRONGLY disagree with Ben. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. We, personally, found it to be fascinating...deeply involving, beautifully performed and directed, and above all, surprisingly... quite organic. (Jesse Green was sitting a bit behind us and we saw him on the way out. He, too, looked as though he may have enjoyed it.) Very much enjoyed van Hove's visual approach as well, and how he played with perspectives. It was angry, it was sexy, it was New York NOW. It drew you in. (Anita's assault scene hits you right in the heart in ways it never has before.) Also, it was the first time that I saw the final scene played so honestly, and its repercussions ripple through/affect the survivors. (As expected, given the piece's notoriety, it has sold extremely well for the next few months.) In either case, my partner and I felt privileged to experience it, and are going to catch it again in late March. Whether or not you enjoyed this particular production, we all can agree that WSS is, indeed, an incendiary work of art.
39
It was time they interpreted this for a new youth. And why not try something very fresh? I found the immediacy wonderful.
13
Saw it a few weeks ago and found it to be both mesmerizing and moving. Yes there were times when you didn’t know where to look - screen vs stage - but isn’t that often how we feel in NYC with so much going on around us day after day? America song was brilliant and moving, Somewhere beautiful and haunting as the women came to collect their warriors ala Greek tragedy, Officer Krupke relevant. Maybe not for purists but creative, original, and meaningful.
And check out the TOTALLY OPPOSITE review in The Washington Post. This show will have people seeing it from both sides. Interesting.
16
I don’t know if the show changed much since the preview I saw well over a month before tonight’s opening. I found it more powerful than the 2009 Broadway revival, but agree with Ben Brantley’s statement of failing “to detect a natural rhyme or reason for the way video is used here.” I found the use of video in this “West Side Story” distracting. One good thing is that this reimagined version may stimulate people to view the likely more timeless 1961 movie version. Here, the camera enhanced the story. Just check out that opening sequence: the aerial zooming in to the Manhattan location and the magnificent filming of the Prologue.
18
I agree. The production fell flat, starting with the first scene: however, i disagree that the opening number worked. The cliched let's stand in a row and stare at the audience enmaase underlined the struggles of de Keersmaeker to come up with an alternative to the perfectly calibrated original, which pairs music and choreography to dynamically drive plot as well as focus our attention from one individual gang member to another as each is introduced through gesture.
De Keersmaeker is brilliant elsewhere, but, as a postmodernist, she eschews things like narrative and character, which is essential to storytelling here.
I've seen many van Hove productions - starting with his debut at NY theatre workshop - and have never been impressed. His dislike of theater and its conventions - namely that the audience is allowed to establish a connection with the characters - is overt in this production through his reliance on video. He distances the characters, literally, by shoving them upstage and behind walls so neither we, nor the other actors, can connect. I commend the actor playing Tony, the saving grace in this production, who somehow freed himself from Hove direction (as far as I can tell, Hove directs subplot only. I think Hove's partner and scenic designer deserves credit for carrying most of his shows, giving us a through line Hove seems eager to ditch.) As for the video that stood out -it looked like it was stolen directly from the Joker.
36
I liked the production a lot. I was excited by the youthful energy. The dancing was surprising and moving. The 'Romeo and Juliet' reference, though never stated, is clearly experienced and the tragedy of what is happening TODAY in the streets and between countries and cultures comes across with heartbreaking clarity. The company is terrific, an ensemble that plays with passion and with love. Congratulations to everyone involved for taking this great musical to another level.
12
So.......a Broadway ticket costs what, nowadays? And for that, it sounds like fully half or more of the audience's attention is demanded by.......a video screen?? No thank you. There are reasons why things are audience pleasing masterpieces. From the sound of this review, the whole enterprise just seems needless and depressing.
105
I saw the play a few weeks ago in previews. I agree, the orchestra was fantastic! However, the play was not ... some very talented cast members that were sometimes “over shadowed” by the the large screen in the background. Should I watch what was going on in front of me on stage or the large screen? Why detract with such a large screen versus what was taking place in front of the audience? I was really looking forward to see “Westside Story”, however I was disappointed in the new version.
16
Sunday afternoon I experienced the wonderment of the newly envisioned West Side Story which was a dynamically choreographed musical infused with the strength and energy of youth . It is the musical for today's youth, and for those not so young. It may just be the show of the year!
Obviously, I disagree with the review written by Ben Brantley. As former high school theatre arts teacher who has directed several high school productions of West Side Story and with very positive results, I found this production was more emotionaly gripping and exciting of any I have ever experienced.
13
@Victoria Francis
Well the review certainly makes it sound high-schoolish.
When the actors hide in the little cubbies at the back and the audience has to watch them on the television projection, that seems like cheating. Having the cameramen dance with the performers and projecting was ok, but if you can’t see the actors live, it ain’t theater. Also dropping I feel pretty was a disappointment. The Officer Krupke song is meant to be comic relief, not a comment on Ferguson. It seemed right that they mentioned that Puerto Rico was part of America before singing that song.
37
I agree, generally, with Ben Brantley's review. I would expand on his description of the singing by Tony (Issac Powell) and Maria (Shereen Pimentel) as "pleasant": I think if their singing of those beautiful ballads had been of higher quality the show would have been much, much stronger and the imperfections described in this review would have been far less noticeable.
29
Mr. Brantley is too kind. Aside from the ridiculous one-foot-in-2019 and one-foot-in-1957 (the dialogue), what insight has Mr. von Hove provided that the original four creators missed? The real tragedy of this production is how it prevents the audience from experiencing the organic development of the characters that allows the songs to seamlessly blend into the action. Maybe there should be a Tony Award for directorial arrogance.
219
@EdNY
Insight? You want insight How about this?
"He (van Hove) would emphasize how much the show was about an environment 'where people don’t listen to each other’s arguments, but just react to each other.'
Hmmmm. Seems to me that was the "original" idea 62 years ago.
8
This sounds ghastly.
Combined with the Ramasar ugliness, I hope it closes quickly.
71
@Hmmm Not gonna happen given how well it is selling. Some may not like it, but it is anything but ghastly.
4
Well, I guess that leaves us with Spielberg.
11
@bill
Or Bernstein/Sondheim/Lawrence/Robbins. I saw a magnificent traditional production in 2018 at Barrington Stages. As true to the original as I’ve ever seen. It was glorious.
14
YEAH YEAH... hey I saw THE VERY FIRST PRODUCTION OF west side story in 1957 on Broadway... it was also my very first broadway show in America period... can’t wait to see the movie as nothing could ever top Bernstein’s music descending on stage... I WAS MESMERIZED!
12
@bill No, Bill. It leaves us with the 1961 film version, the winner of 10 Academy Awards, the best West Side Story ever. No way the Spielberg version will even come close.
8
"Curiously unaffecting?"
I really do not see how one can experience this intense and immediate production and walk away with that impression.
20
@JBC
Try spending time in the theater.
6
@EdNY
OK, that's a bit harsh. It's just that I found what the director did to be so at odds with the essence of what makes this musical so wonderful. But everyone is entitled to their judgment.
3
I was “curiously unaffected” at an early preview but cried on opening night. The production wasn’t perfect, but the singing and acting were superb; the choreography and even the use of video were were praiseworthy efforts to update a (perhaps overly-) revered classic. I think this West side Story production will appeal to young audiences and become the standard for the next 60 years.
2
This review is dead on.
93
When did creativity become defined as appropriating others’ creative and exciting musical and balletic works, mashing them up to fit the politically correct fetishes of the day, and calling them the cat’s meow?
Whatever happened to originality?
Those who can, create. Those who can’t, adapt (or, most likely, mangle), someone else’s work.
Let’s hear it for the creators, down with the misappropriators.
170
@Mon Ray
I most certainly agree. What is so bad about doing the work in its original form? Great art doesn't need gimmicks. It stands on its own; a reflection of its time without resorting to diminishing the work like video. Music is the highest art form and deleting key works just desecrates Bernstein's creation. Sadly, our philistine age glorifies quirkiness and boring repetition as excuses for the lack of good ideas. Just look at an unabashed sleight of hand by the Met to sell tickets by casting Cosi fan Tutte in 20th Century Coney Island.
27
@Mon Ray What a naive perspective. The history of all the arts is filled with reinterpretations and revisions of previous work. WSS itself is not original, but an iteration of Romeo and Juliet.
23
@AlanB
West Side Story was loosely based on the plot of Romeo and Juliet; however, it had an original libretto, music, lyrics and choreography. What this new production has done is lifted the libretto, music and lyrics from the original and overlaid a concept markedly different from the original director's. That's a totally different kind of appropriation. I doubt many people who saw the original were focused on comparing it to the Shakespeare, because it was totally original in all respects except for the loose outline of the story. What von Hove has done is taken other's creative output and spun it his own way. That invites intense comparison with the original (which is the 1957 creation). That most of the current audience never saw that production is extremely unfortunate, because they will come away thinking that THIS is "West Side Story." Those of us who saw either the original or a suitable revival will probably be critical of this new one because we understand how it has destroyed the magnificence of the original.
38