Spielberg's WEST SIDE STORY is NOT a remake- Page 2

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 7/15/19 at 9:30pm

"Having an opinion about adaptions of his own works makes him psychotic???"

I think we're just poking fun at the fact that creators often can't see the forest for the trees in relation to their work, as articulated in Sondheim's opinion that the film version of West Side Story is worse than those of A Little Night Music, Forum, or his beloved Sweeney. It also is illuminated by (most of) his recent revisions to past shows.

Updated On: 7/15/19 at 09:30 PM

[AADA81]

Posted: 7/15/19 at 9:41pm

Sally Durant Plummer said: "I think we're just poking fun at the fact that creators often can't see the forest for the trees in relation to their work, as articulated in Sondheim's opinion thatthe film version ofWest Side Storyis worse than those ofA Little Night Music,Forum, or his belovedSweeney. It also is illuminated by (most of) his recent revisions to past shows."

That is a very good point.  And who knows what his working experiences were on any of those shows or adaptations that could colr his perceptions.  It's only human.

[Hot Pants]

Posted: 7/15/19 at 9:42pm

Tom5 said: "I'm fairly certain that in a few years time Spielberg's redo of West Side Story will be thought of in the same way as Glenn Close in South Pacific and Mathew Broderick in The Music Man."

None of us can know for certain how the film’s gonna turn out. I personally think it’s gonna be wonderful. However, even if you’re not looking forward to it, there is literally no possible way on earth that it’s going to be thought of in the same vein as those two. This is Steven Spielberg we’re talking about. The only other living filmmaker that could be considered as beloved as him is Martin Scorsese. Whether his adaptation is seen as good or bad, it will be remembered. I highly doubt it’s going to upstage the original film, but Spielberg’s direction, the beloved nature of the show, the cast, and Tony Kushner adapting the screenplay certainly indicates that this movie has the potential to not only be be excellent, but also be fondly remembered in a similar vein to the original.

Updated On: 7/16/19 at 09:42 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/15/19 at 9:44pm

ljay889 said: "Having an opinion about adaptions of his own works makes him psychotic???"

I am pretty certain the person was being sarcastic, but let's take a step back for a bit...

First, we need to stop thinking that just because someone created something, their opinion of how it is exploited is entitled to heightened respect. You have an opinion of the film, I have one, and he has one. They are all on the same plain, and none are right or wrong. 

Second, we need to stop judging a film by some standard that doesn't apply to their evaluation. We judge art by intention: what did the creator set out to do and did they achieve that? Burton's intention was to make a great film, not a film with the best singing voices he could find. I think he succeeded, I gather Sondheim did too, perhaps you didn't. it's ok. We also don't expect the Met to cast the best actors in their operas. 

[AADA81]

Posted: 7/15/19 at 10:01pm

HogansHero said: "ljay889 said: "Having an opinion about adaptions of his own works makes him psychotic???"

I am pretty certain the person was being sarcastic, but let's take a step back for a bit...

First, we need to stop thinking that just because someone created something, their opinion of how it is exploited is entitled to heightened respect. You have an opinion of the film, I have one, and he has one. They are all on the same plain, and none are right or wrong.

Second, we need to stop judging a film by some standard that doesn't apply to their evaluation. We judge art by intention: what did the creator set out to do and did they achieve that? Burton's intention was to make a great film, not a film with the best singing voices he could find. I think he succeeded, I gather Sondheim did too, perhaps you didn't. it's ok. We also don't expect the Met to cast the best actors in their operas."

I WAS only joking, and I like the points you make here.  I was terribly disappointed with the 'Sweeney Todd' film (though I thought Depp was terrific) because I love the original so much, but I still watch it occasionally and get enjoyment out f it.  For someone who might be unfamiliar with the source material, there could be a whole range of reactions.  Who am I to judge?

I still think Sondheim's psychosis deserves immediate medical intervention, but that's just me.

Updated On: 7/15/19 at 10:01 PM

[Hot Pants]

Posted: 7/15/19 at 10:02pm

ljay889 said: "I’m one of the few who prefers the stage version of America, I feel adding the men diminishes Anita’s presence in the number. If they are basing this more on the original stage show, I cant imagine they’d use the 1961 film version of the number."

While Anita’s not as prominent in the movie version as she is in the staged one, she’s still the biggest soloist in the number. Also, Anita has plenty of other moments where she gets to show off, so I don’t think it’s too big a deal that she shares the spotlight with Bernardo. One thing that I love about the movie version is how it feels like a battle of equals. In the stage version, I always thought it felt like Anita and the others are just bullying Rosalia. I sadly agree that the new movie is likely going to do the original version. While I believe that’s a huge mistake, I will say that trying to do the first movie’s version would certainly be a tall order, as Rita Moreno and George Chakiris’ rendition set the by far too high.

[AADA81]

Posted: 7/15/19 at 10:12pm

Hot Pants said: "Tom5 said: "I'm fairly certain that in a few years time Spielberg's redo of West Side Story will be thought of in the same way as Glenn Close in South Pacific and Mathew Broderick in The Music Man."

None of us can know for certain how the film’s gonna turn out. I personally think it’s gonna be wonderful. However, even if you’re not looking forward to it, there is literally no possible way on earth that is going to be thought of in the same vein as those two. This is Steven Spielberg we’re talking about. The only other living filmmaker that could be considered as beloved as him is Martin Scorsese. Whether his adaptation is seen as good or bad, it will be remembered. I highly doubt it’s going to upstage the original film, but Spielberg’s direction, the beloved nature of the show, the cast, and Tony Kushner adapting the screenplay certainly indicates that this movie has the potential to not only be be excellent, but also be fondly remembered in a similar vein to the original."

I like what you said here.  There are several harbingers of positivity with this film: Tony Kushner is writing the screenplay; Steven Spielberg loves the original film; the cast has some up-and-comers (Elgort and Dubose) and two legit B'way talents (Faist and Alvarez).  I'd say that's a good start and I'm looking forward to the film.  (The 'so-far' photos look great, too.)

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 8:01am

Are we still getting the songs or at least the score?

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 8:24am

Dancingthrulife2 said: "Are we still getting the songs or at least the score?"

No.  It’s an all-new score including incorporating several late 50s rock n’ roll standards, like “Rock Around the Clock.”  I did hear there’s a dream sequence with Maria and the Shark girls singing “Mr. Sandman” prior to the the dance at the gym.   

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 11:36am

ggersten said: "AADA81 said: "That's all Hollywood PR bull**** and nothing more. The 1961 WSS was adapted from the 1957 stage show, as will be the 2020 WSS, which means the 2020 version is a remake, period. The makers of the REMAKE want to avoid comparisons to the 1961 classic as much as possible, so the PR machinery is now in full Spin mode. Sondheim is cooperating with Spielberg as well, and he hates the 1961 film (he thinks Tim Burton's take on 'Sweeney Todd' is a far superior film.....yeah, right). Saying the new version is not a remake could also be an appeasement to Sondheim. Spin, spin, spin."

It was my impression that Spielberg thinks the 1961 film does not work as a film - not that he "hates" it. He thinks it is too much like a stage presentation and not a film. "I don’t thinkWest Side Story’s a good movie at all because it’s not a movie. It’s a photograph of a stage. When I see a gang of juvenile delinquents dancing down a real street, Broadway, in color coordinated sneakers, with color coordinated wash on the line behind them, I’m not scared." Sondheim on WSS filmAccording to that article, Sondheim thinks Burton's Sweeney Todd is a better a film, because Burton treated it as a film, and not a presentation of a stage show."

I think Sondheim was so on target.  I have never really like the movie and that is the reason, though I have never been able to articulate it.  It is too stage bound and, TO ME, the opening number has always come across as silly.  

Of course, Spielberg has never been known for displaying real grit.  Off the top of my head, I can think of two movies — both of which I admit to loving — which received major criticism for prettying things up too much...Empire of the Sun and The Color Purple (and those criticisms were valid, even though I still loved the movies).  Let’s hope he doesn’t pretty this up where it shouldn’t be.

[bk]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 12:10pm

I'm just mind-boggled that anyone could think (and that includes Mr. Sondheim) that the film of West Side Story was treated as a presentation of a stage show.  I understand some might not like it, especially those (practically everyone here) who never saw it when it was released.  You think Robert Wise didn't treat West Side Story as a FILM?  Do you think he was a stage director?  He came from film.  He edited Citizen Kane, for God's sake.  He made great movies throughout the 40s and 50s and continued making them for a long time thereafter, and they, of course, include the film of The Sound of Music - think that one's not a film?  You think the opening of West Side Story, shot on location, is not filmic?  And all I can tell you is that in 1961 no audience member I know thought the opening number was silly.  They were riveted.  I saw the film about twenty times during its initial roadshow engagement.  I understand that people who didn't, who came to it much later, might think it dated and stodgy in the same way I hear these same people tell my Hitchcock's Psycho isn't scary in the least and that it's boring to them.  As I said elsewhere, Spielberg loved Robert Wise's work on FILM.

[SisterGeorge]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 12:48pm

AADA81 said: Sondheim stated in an interview that he thought WSS was the worst film adaptation of any of his shows (including Liz Taylor's 'A Little Night Music'!!!) and that 'Sweeney Todd' was the best. Delusional? Why, the man's psychotic."

Geniuses say the darndest things.

[AADA81]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 1:15pm

bk said: "I'm just mind-boggled that anyone could think (and that includes Mr. Sondheim) that the film of West Side Story was treated as a presentation of a stage show. I understand some might not like it, especially those (practically everyone here) who never saw it when it was released. You think Robert Wise didn't treat West Side Story as a FILM? Do you think he was a stage director? He came from film. He edited Citizen Kane, for God's sake. He made great movies throughout the 40s and 50s and continued making them for a long time thereafter, and they, of course, include the film of The Sound of Music - think that one's not a film? You think the opening of West Side Story, shot on location, is not filmic? And all I can tell you is that in 1961 no audience member I know thought the opening number was silly. They were riveted. I saw the film about twenty times during its initial roadshow engagement. I understand that people who didn't, who came to it much later, might think it dated and stodgy in the same way I hear these same people tell my Hitchcock's Psycho isn't scary in the least and that it's boring to them. As I said elsewhere, Spielberg loved Robert Wise's work on FILM."

I agree with your point of view.  The original WSS is a very cinematic movie that was primarily filmed on sound stages for logistical reasons, as were most film musicals of that time.  And, like any film, it's of its time so there are dated things about it.  So what.  I love films of the 1930s that look prehistoric compared to today's film.  It's an acquired taste that I'm glad I acquired.  Even before I did, I didn't dismiss those films because they weren't like modern films.  That's nearsighted, blindsighted and ignores a lot of artistic achievements.

As for Sondheim, he's never stopped taking swipes at WSS (show or film) and it's become tiresome, whatever axes he must grind.  Still, he's always around to support any new iteration.  I'll gladly watch the shows and appreciate what I think is a work of art.

[Hot Pants]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 3:41pm

Jarethan said: "ggersten said: "AADA81 said: "That's all Hollywood PR bull**** and nothing more. The 1961 WSS was adapted from the 1957 stage show, as will be the 2020 WSS, which means the 2020 version is a remake, period. The makers of the REMAKE want to avoid comparisons to the 1961 classic as much as possible, so the PR machinery is now in full Spin mode. Sondheim is cooperating with Spielberg as well, and he hates the 1961 film (he thinks Tim Burton's take on 'Sweeney Todd' is a far superior film.....yeah, right). Saying the new version is not a remake could also be an appeasement to Sondheim. Spin, spin, spin."

It was my impression that Spielberg thinks the 1961 film does not work as a film - not that he "hates" it. He thinks it is too much like a stage presentation and not a film. "I don’t thinkWest Side Story’s a good movie at all because it’s not a movie. It’s a photograph of a stage. When I see a gang of juvenile delinquents dancing down a real street, Broadway, in color coordinated sneakers, with color coordinated wash on the line behind them, I’m not scared." Sondheim on WSS filmAccording to that article, Sondheim thinks Burton's Sweeney Todd is a better a film, because Burton treated it as a film, and not a presentation of a stage show."

I think Sondheim was so on target. I have never really like the movie and that is the reason, though I have never been able to articulate it. It is too stage bound and, TO ME, the opening number has always come across as silly.

Of course, Spielberg has never been known for displaying real grit. Off the top of my head, I can think of two movies — both of which I admit to loving — which received major criticism for prettying things up too much...Empire of the Sun and The Color Purple (and those criticisms were valid, even though I still loved the movies). Let’s hope he doesn’t pretty this up where it shouldn’t be."

Spielberg made Schindler’s List. He can display real grit. 

[AADA81]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 3:51pm

Hot Pants said: Jarethan said: Of course, Spielberg has never been known for displaying real grit. Off the top of my head, I can think of two movies — both of which I admit to loving — which received major criticism for prettying things up too much...Empire of the Sun and The Color Purple (and those criticisms were valid, even though I still loved the movies). Let’s hope he doesn’t pretty this up where it shouldn’t be."

Spielberg made Schindler’s List. He can display real grit."

'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Munich' are rather gritty, as well, but to be fair, Spielberg does have a reputation for slick, homogenized fare.  I actually think his films have become far too Hollywood-ized and glossy.  I'm not sure his sensibilities are going to work with WSS.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 5:40pm

I think Sondheim was so on target. I have never really like the movie and that is the reason, though I have never been able to articulate it. It is too stage bound and, TO ME, the opening number has always come across as silly.

Of course, Spielberg has never been known for displaying real grit. ."

As  BK and others have pointed out already, the film of WEST SIDE STORY works brilliantly because it is both cinematic AND stylized.  If the opening number of the film comes across as silly to you, I might partly suggest it is the very 'silly' notion of the entire art form of musical theatre that you might be objecting too. And it IS a silly art form: in real life people don't break into dance and song to express story or the way they feel, and it takes a great director, especially when the art form is put on film to make it work for an audience not experiencing it live. 

I don't think WEST SIDE STORY would be enhanced by becoming 'grittier' on film. If anything it might make it come across as more ridiculous.  But it does need a director with a strong sense of style to create a world (of singing and dancing) that an audience will buy into.  Spielberg has never directed a musical film before so we have no idea what this will end up being like. All we can do is look at his body of work and hope that his track record for creating great, successful films will carry over to this endeavor.

[AADA81]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 6:36pm

QueenAlice said: As BK and others have pointed out already, the film of WEST SIDE STORY works brilliantly because it is both cinematic AND stylized. If the opening number of the film comes across as silly to you, I might partly suggest it is the very 'silly' notion of the entire art form of musical theatre that you might be objecting too. And it IS a silly art form: in real life people don't break into dance and song to express story or the way they feel, and it takes a great director, especially when the art form is put on film to make it work for an audience not experiencing it live.

I don't think WEST SIDE STORY would be enhanced by becoming 'grittier' on film. If anything it might make it come across as more ridiculous. But it does need a director with a strong sense of style to create a world (of singing and dancing) that an audience will buy into. Spielberg has never directed a musical film before so we have no idea what this will end up being like. All we can do is look at his body of work and hope that his track record for creating great, successful films will carry over to this endeavor."

What an articulate, well-written post!  You make excellent points here.  Thanks!

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 6:52pm

Film is a literal art form while theare is a poetic one. Often times, the best theatrical adaptations into the film medium are those that stylize the art form - therefore blurring the "realism" that film is so known for. For example, Kazan's film adaption of A Streetcar Named Desire kept the poetic nature of Jo Mielziner's sets which heightened the drama of the story. Vivian Leigh's blazing performance - a completely different acting world from Marlon Brando's - mixed with William's prose created a very stylized film that was just as vivid (I assume) as the fabled original production. Ayn Rand delved into the genre of melodrama in adapting her novel The Fountainhead to film, and it mostly succeeded in transforming a piece of ideas and ideals into a palatable narrative story. I found Les Miserables to be underwhelming because it relied so much on realism and "grit" that it no longer held the magic of the work. Funnily enough, if a work is so starkly done in "realism" it is no longer realistic that characters - especially gangs - break out into song and dance. Stylization is necessary. 

Updated On: 7/16/19 at 06:52 PM

[AADA81]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 7:18pm

Sally Durant Plummer said: "Film is a literal art form while theare is a poetic one. Often times, the best theatrical adaptations into the film medium are those that stylize the art form - therefore blurring the "realism" that film is so known for. For example, Kazan's film adaption of A Streetcar Named Desire kept the poetic nature of Jo Mielziner's sets which heightened the drama of the story. Vivian Leigh's blazing performance - a completely different acting world from Marlon Brando's - mixed with William's prose created a very stylized film that was just as vivid (I assume) as the fabled original production.Ayn Rand delved into the genre of melodrama i n adapting her novel The Fountainhead to film, and it mostly succeeded in transforming a piece of ideas and ideals into a palatable narrative story. I found Les Miserables to be underwhelming because it relied so much on realism and "grit" that it no longer held the magic of the work. Funnily enough, if a work is so starkly done in "realism" it is no longer realistic that characters - especially gangs - break out into song and dance. Stylization is necessary."

If you're not a writer, you should be.  I've never heard that point be so eloquently made before and the examples you gave were vivid and spot-on.  Great post!

[OrchardAndRivington]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 7:19pm

I find the Valentina/Doc switch to be most intriguing.

Having just seen a major regional houses' production of WSS, if Valentina is filling the same role as Doc, Tony's protector and the owner of the Drug Store where the Jets are allowed but the Sharks are not, the new angle of the scenes surrounding Anita's assault should be VERY compelling. Really excited to see how this movie ends up playing.

 

[bk]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 9:06pm

Going back to the Prologue in the film - every shot of that is designed to work on film - every carefully planned edit - the entire thing is designed for film and could never have been done that way onstage.  And Robbins was there for all of that, WITH Wise.  Whereas today, if you had a director like Rob Marshall, he'd put twelve cameras on it, hand it to the editor and hope for the best.  Wise was a brilliant director - he and Ernest Lehman and the wonderful cast of Sound of Music MADE that film work as a film.  Watch I Want to Live sometime.  Watch The Haunting sometime.  After Sound of Music he never really made a great film again, but they're all worth watching.  STAR was especially bad, but it was a bad script.  The Andromeda Strain certainly has some wonderful moments, and even Audrey Rose has a few.

[AADA81]

Posted: 7/16/19 at 9:18pm

bk said: "Going back to the Prologue in the film - every shot of that is designed to work on film - every carefully planned edit - the entire thing is designed for film and could never have been done that way onstage. And Robbins was there for all of that, WITH Wise. Whereas today, if you had a director like Rob Marshall, he'd put twelve cameras on it, hand it to the editor and hope for the best. Wise was a brilliant director - he and Ernest Lehman and the wonderful cast of Sound of Music MADE that film work as a film. Watch I Want to Live sometime. Watch The Haunting sometime. After Sound of Music he never really made a great film again, but they're all worth watching. STAR was especially bad, but it was a bad script. The Andromeda Strain certainly has some wonderful moments, and even Audrey Rose has a few."

Jerome Robbins actively directed the Prologue, America and Cool before he was fired.  He also staged and did prep work for the Dance at the Gym sequence, all of which are film highlights.  Wise said that he added a cinematic angle but was so impressed with Robbins' work he filmed Dance at the Gym unchanged.  Both were at the top of their game, but Robbins could never have pulled off the entire film.  Wise has touches in the dramatic scenes of the film, especially with Natalie Wood and Rita Moreno, that are exquisite.

[bk]

Posted: 7/17/19 at 2:21am

Completely agree.  

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/17/19 at 11:59am

Where movies and high-concept productions have been concerned, Sondheim has always been a "go for it" idea guy. He's not especially a purist of any kind, but the Sweeney movie love surely has to do with an anecdote he shares in "Finishing the Hat."

He discusses at length the way Sweeney's whole composition and aesthetic comes from musicalizing the aesthetics of the proto-Hammer-horror British horror films, which were baroque and grandiose and extremely stylized. In this sense, though it's far from the most exquisitely sung version of his show, the film Sweeney probably DOES come the closest to his personal vision for the piece, stripped of both the chamber-musical trendiness of most contemporary productions, and the Marxist-agitprop layer of the original production. It's Sweeney as Hammer horror for better and for worse.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 7/17/19 at 12:25pm

I really will never understand people including Sondheim who hate on the film. The film is so effective emotionally. The surreal poetic nature of West Side Story comes through.

As well as the switching of Krupke and Cool is ingenious tonally.

Cool in the film feels like this trippy reaction they all have to this traumatizing event they’ve just witnessed.

likewise Krupke as a comedic relief to the dark turn the story takes has never worked for me.