West Side Story Revival will cut I Feel Pretty and Somewhere Ballet

[IAMREADING]

ok now cut the guy who was dismissed from NYCB

[JBC3]

Some of you better check your insurance plan as I don't think you're likely to be covered for heart attack because of van Hove fixation.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Jarethan said: "Since you haven’t seen it, how do you know it can’t accomplish both?"

Because he's PalJoey, goddammit.

[ljay889]

Exactly, lol. It’s amusing how many of the newbies probably don’t know about PalJoey and his history with the show and its creators.

[Highland Guy]

 

[After Eight]

“I feel Pretty and the Somewhere ballet both stop the show dead in it's tracks. They definitely won't be missed.”

 

They might very well be missed by those who like them.

Or is that now not allowed?

I know that it's not allowed to like any show presented in the way its creators intended, or, heaven forbid, to wish to see shows presented in future productions in accordance with their creators' intentions.

That's a given.

Those hoary “museum pieces,” you know.

But could someone now please compile a list of what songs in classic musicals we are allowed to a) like; b) wish to see performed again; and c) be unhappy about not seeing performed?

It would be so helpful a guide for us, and prevent us all from making terrible faux pas on this board.

 

[joevitus]

keen on kean said: "Which begs the question why Sondheim hasn't changed the PRETTY lyrics since he complains about them every chance he gets.

It sounds like the estates of the deceased creators would rather have any Broadway production over one that reflects the original intent."

He tried when the original production was still in rehearsals, and the creative team wouldn't allow him to. He probably figures it would a pointless effort at this late stage. 

[joevitus]

MollyJeanneMusic said: "joevitus said: "I'm amused by the people who think they know the quality of a Sondheim song and whether it should be retainedbetter than Sondheim. He's all for cutting it. So one ballet will also be cut (not the song)? This is something to freak out about?

It's really still about one thing, as far as I can tell: the casting of Amar. Considering thekudosfor "making it relevant to a new generation" that the recent Oklahoma! revival got (which radically recreated its dream ballet to such an extent that one can say the "LaureyMakes Up her Mind" ballet was cut), and My Fair Lady got for literally changing the ending to the show, there's just no way this production would have received somuch nay-saying--sight unseen--as it currently has. On this board, anyway."

But the thing with the Oklahoma and My Fair Lady revivals is that they were able to make those shows "relevant" without changing a word of the script. They didn't cut songs, they didn't change lines, and they got a good reception. To cut two of the most iconic songs (to the point where they were, at least in my case, the two songs from the show I'd heard in public that drew me to listen to the show in the first place) is a very clear case of changing the script. There are ways that Ivo van Hove could still give the show that "race against time" feel without cutting those two songs. Obviously, we all have to wait to see the show before we make any final judgments, but the first impressions aren't great, to say the least. If the show ends up being as disastrous as many on this board have predicted, it'll really be a shame - besides the casting of Amar and the gender disparities, this did have a lot of potential."

Two iconic songs aren't being cut. One song and one piece of ballet music is being cut. And Oklahoma! did cut the ballet music to the dream ballet, as the number was completely re-conceptualized, so there is some precedent. 

[joevitus]

PalJoey said: "

WHAT IS THIS CRAP ABOUT "RACING AGAINST TIME"?

RACING AGAINST TIME IS NOT THE GODDAMN MOTHERFUGGING POINT.

RACISM IS THE POINT. FORGIVENESS AND REDEMPTION ARE THE POINTS.

"RACING AGAINST TIME" IS JUST AN IDIOTIC THING TO SAY.

Arthur used to rail against "directors with notions." This is a director with maybethe stupidest notion ever.

"

I'd say it's also pretty idiotic to claim racing against time isn't an essential component of the work--it clearly is. 

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Someone may have said this earlier in this feed but “I Feel Pretty” and “America” in the stage show are solidly female perspective....so totally let’s take that away and make this a more male dominated story. Please it’s what we need

[joevitus]

What's with comments this? One revival is some great threat to the contribution women are allowed to make in the Broadway musical community? WSS was always a heavily male driven show, and remove one song by a female character hardly upsets the balance, anyway. 

[Itonlytakesajourney]

West Side Story is and always will be a majority male-driven story, HOWEVER, cutting one of the only songs the female lead has without male involvement just makes it worse. It doesn’t matter if it’s a minuscule choice in the bigger picture, it is cutting a piece of the narrative and therefore a piece of Maria’s character. Without I Feel Pretty- no matter how silly or trite the song is- there is even less insight to Maria then there is originally, which is not a whole lot. It’s not entirely about golden age purism, but genuine narrative intent; something Van Hove has interpreted for all the wrong reasons. Like Pal Joey said, “racing against time” has never been one of the thematic messages of WSS; intolerance and forgiveness have. If you’re cutting two of the scenes that most illustrate the difficulties between that conflict (yes, I Feel Pretty juxtaposes Maria’s idealism against the reality of her situation; Somewhere’s significance should be obvious), then you’re most likely misunderstanding the material.

[joevitus]

I don't agree that racing against time has never been one of the thematic messages of the work. It certainly hasn't received the attention that the other themes have gotten, but it's an important element of the narrative, all the same.

I don't think, if Maria is still singing all her other songs, that cutting "I Feel Pretty" (which does the least to convey her personality; certainly much less than "I Have a Love"--also a song without male involvement--does) damages our comprehension of her character. Pretty sure even with it missing, Maria does more singing than Tony.

And, as many have said: they aren't obliterating the song from all other revivals and everyone's memory. It's one take, one production. There will be other productions. There will be plenty more opportunities to encounter "I Feel Pretty" and the Somewhere ballet onstage.

The changes in this production are minuscule compared to, say, the recent Broadway production of Porgy and Bess. I believe that incarnation was quite well-received around here.

[devonian.t]

Thank goodness we have a director who is specializing in shows for the attention deficit.

[After Eight]

Joevitus wrote: 

“There will be plenty more opportunities to encounter "I Feel Pretty" and the Somewhere ballet onstage.”

You're sure?

 

[poisonivy2]

And I bet the number of people who will actually see this show before having a meltdown on this board will be in the single digits. Because bitching about something you havent seen is one of the board's biggest  past times.

[HogansHero]

joevitus said: "PalJoey said: "

WHAT IS THIS CRAP ABOUT "RACING AGAINST TIME"?

RACING AGAINST TIME IS NOT THE GODDAMN MOTHERFUGGING POINT.

RACISM IS THE POINT. FORGIVENESS AND REDEMPTION ARE THE POINTS.

"RACING AGAINST TIME" IS JUST AN IDIOTIC THING TO SAY.

Arthur used to rail against "directors with notions." This is a director with maybethe stupidest notion ever.

"

I'd say it's also pretty idiotic to claimracing against time isn't an essential component of the work--it clearly is."

And I would say it is equally idiotic to quote Laurents manifesting one of his many pathologies as if it were some truism. Directors are not the natural enemy of writers but there is a decent argument that writers who want to direct their own work are the natural enemy of theatre.

But there is a clique here that thinks playwright worship is a religion. 

[ljay889]

LOL, if you think PalJoey worships Arthur Laurents, you have a lot of research to do in previous threads from years ago.

[Up In One]

devonian.t said: "So there's no way to make it feel like a juggernaut without cutting a text that has been remarkably successful all this time?

Thank goodness this director knows better than all those fools who went before."

Has it though? I think everyone who likes and needs that 50’s/60’s mixed vibe has seen the show already. No reason to stage another re-do so close to the last rethread. Give him a chance. 

[HogansHero]

ljay889 said: "LOL, if you think PalJoey worships Arthur Laurents, you have a lot of research to do in previous threads from years ago."

No interest in that here. Or in why an LOL would obtain. The fact remains the entire brouhaha in this thread is about a form of worship.

 

[MemorableUserName]

joevitus said: "I'm amused by the people who think they know the quality of a Sondheim song and whether it should be retainedbetter than Sondheim. He's all for cutting it. So one ballet will also be cut (not the song)? This is something to freak out about?

It's really still about one thing, as far as I can tell: the casting of Amar. Considering thekudosfor "making it relevant to a new generation" that the recent Oklahoma! revival got (which radically recreated its dream ballet to such an extent that one can say the "LaureyMakes Up her Mind" ballet was cut), and My Fair Lady got for literally changing the ending to the show, there's just no way this production would have received somuch nay-saying--sight unseen--as it currently has. On this board, anyway."

I'm amused that you joined this site on the day Ramasar's casting was announced solely to defend him, spent your first week doing so while slut-shaming his victims, and no matter what else, you keep showing you're really here about one thing.

Given your sneering contempt toward the women affected by his behavior, your lack of concern about the treatment of female characters isn't really a surprise, is it?

Perhaps one of van Hove's changes will be to have Bernardo constantly demanding nude pics from the women characters, and you can gleefully applaud and shout out, "They have it coming! Harlots!"

[joevitus]

After Eight said: "Joevitus wrote:

“There will be plenty more opportunities to encounter "I Feel Pretty" and the Somewhere ballet onstage.”

You're sure?

"

Everyone's sure. 

[joevitus]

MemorableUserName said: "joevitus said: "I'm amused by the people who think they know the quality of a Sondheim song and whether it should be retainedbetter than Sondheim. He's all for cutting it. So one ballet will also be cut (not the song)? This is something to freak out about?

It's really still about one thing, as far as I can tell: the casting of Amar. Considering thekudosfor "making it relevant to a new generation" that the recent Oklahoma! revival got (which radically recreated its dream ballet to such an extent that one can say the "LaureyMakes Up her Mind" ballet was cut), and My Fair Lady got for literally changing the ending to the show, there's just no way this production would have received somuch nay-saying--sight unseen--as it currently has. On this board, anyway."

I'm amused that you joined this site on the day Ramasar's casting was announced solely to defend him, spent your first week doing so while slut-shaming his victims, and no matter what else, you keep showing you're really here about one thing.

Given your sneering contempt toward the women affected by his behavior, your lack of concern about the treatment of female characters isn't really a surprise, is it?

Perhaps one of van Hove's changes will be to have Bernardo constantly demanding nude pics from the women characters, and you can gleefully applaud and shout out, "They have it coming! Harlots!""

I've flagged this. We'll see if it stands. That I happened to join the day this was discussed is meaningless. I've said the guy's a creep everyone should stay away from. It's all irrelevant to aesthetic criticisms of the production itself. But it demonstrates that, as I said, this is indeed all about Amar, and the changes in the show are just a convenient excuse to attack the show. If he left, everyone's position on the changes would likely "evolve." 

[After Eight]

Joevitus wrote: “Everyone's sure.”

 

Mmm, I'd say it's best to refrain speaking for everyone.

[joevitus]

Impossible2 said: "joevitus said: "MemorableUserName said: "joevitus said: "I'm amused by the people who think they know the quality of a Sondheim song and whether it should be retainedbetter than Sondheim. He's all for cutting it. So one ballet will also be cut (not the song)? This is something to freak out about?

It's really still about one thing, as far as I can tell: the casting of Amar. Considering thekudosfor "making it relevant to a new generation" that the recent Oklahoma! revival got (which radically recreated its dream ballet to such an extent that one can say the "LaureyMakes Up her Mind" ballet was cut), and My Fair Lady got for literally changing the ending to the show, there's just no way this production would have received somuch nay-saying--sight unseen--as it currently has. On this board, anyway."

I'm amused that you joined this site on the day Ramasar's casting was announced solely to defend him, spent your first week doing so while slut-shaming his victims, and no matter what else, you keep showing you're really here about one thing.

Given your sneering contempt toward the women affected by his behavior, your lack of concern about the treatment of female characters isn't really a surprise, is it?

Perhaps one of van Hove's changes will be to have Bernardo constantly demanding nude pics from the women characters, and you can gleefully applaud and shout out, "They have it coming! Harlots!""

I've flagged this. We'll see if it stands. That I happened to join the day this was discussed is meaningless. I've said the guy's a creep everyone should stay away from. It's all irrelevant to aestheticcriticisms of the production itself. But it demonstrates that, as I said, this is indeed all about Amar, and the changes in the show are just a convenient excuse to attack the show. If he left, everyone's position on the changes would likely "evolve.""

I cannot believe people are still throwing this at you...unbelievable!

You said absolutely nothing wrong, just ignore the freaks."

Thank you. It turns out it was the first topic I ever commented on (I didn't even remember that, which tells you how relevant it was to me--I thought I'd joined a few weeks earlier). But some people have branded me a person who hates women and worse from that point on. And I was told from day one no one would tolerate me here because of it. This kind of thing goes on to often here, and doesn't actually do anything to really stand up against abuse or to make sure women have a place of equal strength on Broadway.

I'm sure I'll be accused of highjacking the thread. That happens every time I defend myself from attacks like that (the attacks aren't instances of highjacking, somehow). So no need to respond to this and keep this part of the conversation going. Just know I appreciate your comment.