Washington Post Article on Laurents and "West Side Story"

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 5:08pm

Pretty interesting and revealing article about the coming WSS revival (anyone else realize it was premiering TOMORROW?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121200918.html

It seems that they're trying to shift the perspective to that of the Sharks, doing away with the final "procession" tableau, translating "I Feel Pretty" into Spanish among others, and drastically reducing the "Officer Krupke" staging. Good on him for trying to reshape what has kind have become a museum piece. It seems like they're really trying to shake it up and make it a little more surprising and relevant, rather than "recreating" it.

[matty159]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 5:24pm

Is anyone going tomorrow? I am so curious to hear what it is like...especially since I am not seeing it until next month!

I don't know why, but something about this production is making me nervous. I really hope inserting the Spanish works and doesn't seem stilted.

But back to the point, that is indeed a good article and it definitely is making me more excited to see Laurents' changes.

[HometownGlory]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 5:28pm

Thanks for the link! I'm still not convinced about this revival but I can't wait to see it. There's just a huge part of me that is thinking, "If it ain't broke..."

(and it makes me nervous that Laurents "abhors" the movie...)

[EnWashingtonHeights]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 5:31pm

Ok, I went from I'll see it to I'm so excited I have to see this now! It seems like a fresh take on it! I may see it on the 23rd.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 6:46pm

Ah, so the Spanish was Tom Hatcher's idea, just like finally allowing Patti to play Rose was Tom's idea.

That man was a saint, to put up with Arthur for 52 years.

Updated On: 12/14/08 at 06:46 PM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 6:51pm

There's just a huge part of me that is thinking, "If it ain't broke..."

Some people thought it was broke, Arthur Laurents being one of them.

(and it makes me nervous that Laurents "abhors" the movie...)

Again, Laurents is not the only person involved with the musical or the film who “abhors” it. There are plenty of interviews from back then where they discussed it. Some of them are online if you’d care to look.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 7:02pm

I'll be there tomorrow night. I'm excited- I got tickets months ago and it was only last week that it occurred to me how soon it was.

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 7:23pm

Yay, hoorah, bravo to Arthur Laurents for making every change possible except the one everyone wants to see...just switch "Cool" and "Krupke" already!! He can "abhor" the movie all he wants, but I don't see how he can call it overly sanitized while refusing to acknowledge that the revised placement of those songs for the film is far more effective dramatically. Doesn't he want to make this production darker? Doesn't the ridiculous placement of "Krupke" after the rumble kind of undercut that? I understand comic relief, but that song does not work there. Bah. He's just being stubborn.

And yes, I understand he's toning "Krupke" down...but really, "Cool" is just such a terrific song for the post-rumble scene, I don't see why he can't just suck it up and make the switch already.

Updated On: 12/14/08 at 07:23 PM

[bethnor]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 7:30pm

I will also be there tomorrow night.

I don't think that, if the production has a problem, the Spanish will be it (though financially I can see why that might be, as you may limit the audience). The whole "age appropriate" thing may come back to bite them in the ass, but that situation is way overblown, IMHO (though, in fairness, that is Laurents' own doing).

In fact, I frankly don't understand the trepidation over the Spanish (other things I could). Forty years later, the forced Spanish accents and painted skin are extremely distracting. It was what it was for the time, but in modern times it brings attention to itself in a way that's not quite right.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 7:43pm

And yes, I understand he's toning "Krupke" down...but really, "Cool" is just such a terrific song for the post-rumble scene, I don't see why he can't just suck it up and make the switch already.

As it was explained to me, those changes were made for the film. Therefore, they belong to MGM. If anyone, even Laurents, were to stage the musical and swap those two songs, that would be illegal. The sequence in which "Krupke" comes first is now and forever the "movie version," owned by MGM. If Laurents were to make those changes, MGM could sue him for a whole lot of money.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 9:45pm

Really? Because it was my understanding that there's been no ruling on whether or not directorial decisions can be copyrighted.

Seriously, if anything's been written on the exact legal reasons why a stage production of West Side Story couldn't switch the order of the songs, too, I'd be fascinated to see it, because I'm writing a paper on a related topic.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 9:53pm

I don't know, that's what I was told. I guess it's that the play script you purchase the rights for is in one order and can't be altered. You'd think Laurents would be able to get around that, but he's not the sole owner of the rights, so maybe not.

I do think, though, that switching the order of those two songs is more than a directorial choice. Maybe it's not copyrighted on paper, but I bet MGM would still try a lawsuit, and even if they don't succeed, they have a lot more money than Laurents does to drag it out.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 10:06pm

Do we know if this production is having the men of the Sharks join in on "America"?

I do think, though, that switching the order of those two songs is more than a directorial choice.

Then what is it? Because you can only copyright certain things, and direction isn't one of them so far as I've seen. Which is why movies rip off and pay tribute to each other's scenes by using identical camera angles, etc. all the time.

I suppose there's an argument to be made that switching the scenes would be violating copyright on Ernest Lehman's screenplay somehow, but I'm not sure even that holds much water. But I can't say much there because I'm not totally up on the copyright aspects of adaptations or derivative works. (Still researching that paper, after all.)

I guess that since the legal trend on copyright has been towards massive overreach and overly broad protections, MGM might go for it for ****s and giggles, but it's tough for me to see how a stage production that switches the order of those scenes takes any more or less money from their DVD sales than a stage production that doesn't switch the order of the scenes. It's still West Side Story. Updated On: 12/14/08 at 10:06 PM

[jewishboy]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 10:23pm

I think its darker to have Krupke in its original placement anyway.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 10:57pm

There's also Arthur's pride. He HATES the movie version (mostly because he didn't write it) and refuses to believe that the changes Ernest Lehman and Robert Wise made actually improved his script.

And he also refuses to admit that the biggest thing wrong with West Side Story is his godawful Jets dialogue.

[Brick]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 10:58pm

PalJoey, I thought the saaaame thing.

And I couldn't be more excited for this revival. I pray Laurents pulls through. This piece not only deserves a revival, but it deserves a production that isn't merely a celebration of the original production.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 11:21pm

You people writing in this thread about how Arthur "should" use the structure of the movie really need to read Arthur's (unreadable) memoir, "Original Story By," so you can understand exactly the gargantuan dimensions of his ego.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 11:21pm

Ah, PJ; now there's an explanation I find satisfying.

[Brick]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 11:27pm

Oh, I found it readable for that reason alone!

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 11:33pm

Switching scenes around is NOT a director's choice, at all, in theatre at least. In film the studio can do whatever they want to a script because they own it. In theatre you only have the rights to perform a play AS WRITTEN. Now, Laurents is involved, and he does own a portion of the rights, but, as mentioned, he is not the sole owner and the decision is not up to only him.

[A Director]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 12:06am

It's a good not to treat West Side Story as a museum piece. I guess Laurents is being Laurents when he plays down the contributions his collaborators made when the show was first written. I wonder if the Bernstein and Robbins estates have any say in the changes Laurents is planning to make. The music is the best part of the show. The gang slang makes me cringe.

When you get right down to it, Arthur Laurents is a third rate playwright. His plays are seldom done anymore. His screenplays are dated. His reputation will rest on the books for West Side Story and Gypsy. It must kill him that Bernstein, Sondheim and Robbins are more famous.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 12:09am

^ With a username like that, I am sure you would do a much bbetter job at directing WSS.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 12:14am

Well, one thing that makes me very, very excited about the revival and less nervous is that apparently during rehearsals, the Bernstein estate has taken special care to ensure that not one note of the brilliant score is changed -- every flat, every sharp. Thank goodness. That's one aspect of WSS that should never be changed.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 12:41am

It must kill him that Bernstein, Sondheim and Robbins are more famous.

Nothing kills Arthur, because he is one of the Undead. In Arthur's mind, it is simply that he is equally famous.

[bethnor]

Posted: 12/15/08 at 1:00am

well, in all fairness, he is not the first writer to fail at emulating what he perceives to be modern "teenspakk," nor will he be the last.