Just reading the play scriptit is so full of awkward and rushed dialogue, inconsistencies with characters and situations
-
StrongRex — 12 years ago(August 05, 2013 11:38 PM)
Being in Staten Island, my shows are always in danger of being checked up on by the agency Powers That Be, who are all located in NYC. As such, we pretty much toe the line as far as sticking to the script. If we were in the Midwest, we could probably get away with making little changes. I do know of a NJ group that did WSS, and it was practically a dupe of the film, placed onstage. How they got away with THAT, I dont know. I doubt they had permission, because I called MTI (the licensing agent for WSS) and asked (begged really) permission to use the boys in AMERICA, and the rep on the phone was adamant cant do it. As I stated earlier, the one area where I didnt back down was on making little modifications to some of the references in the lines, given the venue in which we were playing.
I know that sometimes when "Cool" and "Gee, Officer Krupke" are switched in the show like they are in the movie, they don't add Ice to the script; in fact they don't make Diesel the one to sing "Cool" even though he is supposedly Ice in the play. Instead, Diesel is the one out of control and Action is still the one taking charge and he is the one telling Diesel and the rest of the Jets to "play it cool." Guys, do you not realize that this is STILL out of character for Action? Get it right, why don't you! -
Sophitia36 — 14 years ago(September 24, 2011 03:38 AM)
I completely agree with the OP.
I haven't seen the play, but every change the movie has made makes perfect sense.
The fact that Bernstein and Laurent did not agree only shows that writers are often not the best judges of the quality of what they're doing
I also heard that Tchaikovsky wasn't happy with The Nutcracker, and yet I really think it's his best work, much better than some of the very pompous stuff he's written.
I understand also that some people don't like to see their creations altered, but it's strange to think that they were unable to see how superior the new structure was. Even without having seen the play, I just feel that it would make no sense to have "I Feel Pretty" after the rumble (sheer torture as you said), or "Cool" before the rumble and "Officer Krupke" after. -
StrongRex — 14 years ago(November 10, 2011 10:35 AM)
Seeing it last night, I stand by what I said about the stage version. Everything they did for the movie worked perfectly well and made sense. I cannot see it any other way, and I don't know how anyone else can either.
-
stevenackerman69 — 14 years ago(November 19, 2011 02:33 PM)
Well, on stage more focus was on the song and dance material. When they did it for film, which is another medium, they could open it up and have more dialogue and characters who appear only once, like the angry guy in the alley that Action wants to fight.
-
StrongRex — 14 years ago(December 31, 2011 12:12 PM)
That's all well and good, but in my opinion the key to having a great show is having a great, solid story to tell. You can make the songs and dance numbers as good as you want them to be, but without great storytelling the show falls flat.
Now the movie had great songs and dance numbers AS WELL AS great storytelling. The music and dance in the stage show were amazing (most of the time), but there were many weak points in the story, as I mentioned before. -
dmnemaine — 14 years ago(March 29, 2012 10:44 AM)
I think one of the main reasons for "Krupke" being performed by the Jets after the rumble is that it was felt there would be a need for a comic number as a tension reliever after the rumble scene. I happen to like the placement of "I Feel Pretty" after the rumble as well. It's a whole lot more poignant because the audience knows that Maria hasn't been awakened to reality yet. And that's the whole crux of "West Side Story" people not living in the reality that's happening around them. Tony and Maria fantasize about a happy life together that we know will never take place. The Puerto Ricans fantasize about a utopian America where all their dreams will come true. The Jets & Sharks fantasize about owning the streets, and don't realize the real ramifications of what the street war they're playing at (people die). Even the cops fantasize that they actually have some control over these street kids. The only one who can see things clearly is Doc, and nobody listens to him. Going back to "Krupke", even after the rumble, the Jets still haven't woken up to the reality of people being dead, and not coming back, and they're still playing their street war game. I think "Krupke" illustrates that perfectly. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "Krupke" is a purposeful denying of reality by the Jets.
-
StrongRex — 13 years ago(May 06, 2012 07:25 AM)
You do raise some good points; in fact that's probably the best argument I've heard against my case. I do remember a friend of mine telling me that he was in a production of West Side Story, and the way they portrayed the "Officer Krupke" scene was showing them influenced on drugs. I suppose that works in a way.
A couple things though: Yes, the Shark GIRLS fantasize about a utopian America in both the play and the movie, but the Shark boys have already experienced America and woken up to its reality there, knowing their dreams are not likely to come true. Also, I think Lt. Schrank is aware that he doesn't have control over the gangs. He certainly tries to, and he succeeds with the Sharks, but he openly expressed anger and frustration when failing to find out from the Jets where the rumble was supposed to take place. And right after that, he says to Doc, "You try keeping hoodlums in line and see what it does to you."
With that said, I still think the "out for revenge" approach after the rumble works perfectly. And there's still the question of Action being out of character in the second act; I do not buy that radical of a change if there was nothing initially in his character leading up to it. He's just not the cool-headed leader type that the play said he was when they needed him to be. -
redavdp — 13 years ago(June 05, 2012 02:08 PM)
I Like the movie version really much.
I saw it in theaters a couple of times (Broadway, Amsterdam, local)
The theater versions were in both the movie and the original layout/lyrics of songs. I like the movie version of the play.
But strange you couldn't perform the movie version, a saw it on stage!
Could be Who knows -
bradford-1 — 13 years ago(June 19, 2012 08:18 AM)
I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that the song placements in the stage version were dictated by scene/costume changes. Obviously, a film doesn't have to worry about moving furniture, props and changing dresses or shoes. Maybe someone who has the playscript can see what precedes and follows "Cool" and "Officer Krupke."
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?" -
cada123 — 13 years ago(July 29, 2012 07:00 PM)
I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that the song placements in the stage version were dictated by scene/costume changes.
I read something similar; not only that, but because there Were those changes, there would be "down time" in which the audience would sit there, between Acts and their conflicting emotions needed to be addressed - so that changes in emotions on stage would do that. (Something I do not understand, at All!) Whereas in the movie, which has but one intermission and no "down time" between Scenes and Acts, the tension builds and builds. And the songs therefore also need to build tension. (Which makes a lot more sense.) -
StrongRex — 13 years ago(July 30, 2012 08:49 PM)
Actually, without "I Feel Pretty" in the bridal shop scene, I can't see how there would be enough time for Tony to change out of his dance clothes into regular clothes!
I don't buy the changes in emotions for audiences either. The building of tension in stage shows was not a new thing; it has been going on for THOUSANDS of years worth of theatre. So that excuse for having Cool and Officer Krupke be where they are in the play is stupid. -
Agamemnon7 — 13 years ago(August 15, 2012 03:53 PM)
Oddly enough, the sequencing of COOL and GEE, OFFICER KRUPKE! works either way, but I do prefer it in the film. (AMERICA and TONIGHT are also reversed on screen, probably because the Sharks are now involved in AMERICA but need to be gone in time for Tony and Maria to be alone on the fire escape.)
The one glaring problem that Lehman truly cleaned up with his screenplay is almost never commented on. In the play, Tony promises Maria he will stop the rumble, joins Riff a few minutes later in the Quintet to sing about how he'll be there supporting the Jets in their fight against the Sharks, and then of course shows up to try to stop it. It's illogical sequencing in every way. In the film, Ice and Riff sing about the oncoming rumble without Tony. He makes his promise to Maria, sings only about Maria in the Quintet, and then shows up as planned to stop the fight. It makes a lot more sense. -
StrongRex — 13 years ago(August 28, 2012 06:48 PM)
The one glaring problem that Lehman truly cleaned up with his screenplay is almost never commented on. In the play, Tony promises Maria he will stop the rumble, joins Riff a few minutes later in the Quintet to sing about how he'll be there supporting the Jets in their fight against the Sharks, and then of course shows up to try to stop it. It's illogical sequencing in every way. In the film, Ice and Riff sing about the oncoming rumble without Tony. He makes his promise to Maria, sings only about Maria in the Quintet, and then shows up as planned to stop the fight. It makes a lot more sense.
Hmmm.
hmmmm
.
You know, you are absolutely right! I never thought of that. Of course, I always preferred the movie's interpretation of that scene anyway, but before you said that I didn't really care either way. -
johnlenonomusic — 13 years ago(September 06, 2012 09:37 AM)
And now, some fun facts about decisions made in the movie from Stephen Sondheim's book of lyrics,
Finishing the Hat
:
On "America" with boys
:
"'America' was intended to be an argument between Bernardo and Anita, partly to enrich their relationship by adding some contention to it, since Arthur
[Laurents]
had no time in the libretto to explore it, but Jerry
[Robbins]
insisted that the song be for girls only, as it was his only chance for a full-out all-female dance number in the show. The character of Rosalia was invented to take Bernardo's point of view. When the movie was made four years later, Jerry agreed to have the number danced by both the men and the women and to revert to the original lyric, which went like this:
[movie lyrics here]
This lyric is sharper and easier to understand than the version I came up with for Jerry, maybe because I resented having to change it, but more likely because it's rooted in real character conflict rather than in an artificial argument consisting of punch lines set up by an ad hoc straight man (woman, in this case). In fact, because Rosalia is a nonentity, the stage version makes Anita something of a smartass."
On the Quintet happening after "One Hand"
:
"The most instructive aspect of the piece
["Quintet"]
for me was that we wrote it to occur
before
the scene in the bridal shop, since we felt that Tony would never agree to rumble after he'd "married" Maria. Jerry, however, refused to listen to that logic and insisted that the number should occur after the bridal-shop scene. Even Arthur couldn't get him to come around; Jerry just folded his arms, shut his eyes and shook his head at every argument. That was his customary manifestation of adamant stubbornness whenever he couldn't articulate his reasons; it happened frequently, as verbal articulation was Jerry's enemy, and he became a fortress of refusal whenever he glimpsed a lucid argument on the horizon. We did get him to agree to two run-throughs of the show, one with the "Quintet" before the bridal shop and one after it and, as you might guess, Jerry turned out to be right. The plot logic may not have made much sense, but the show flowed better. That was when I learned there is a significant difference between logical truth and theatrical truth."
On "Cool" and "Krupke"
:
"As for the inappropriateness of the moment, I suggested to Jerry and Arthur that we switch this song with "Cool." The playfulness of "Krupke" belonged in the first act, I argued, whereas "Cool" was precisely the kind of song that they'd sing in their second act state of tension. Jerry was persuaded to try it in Washington, but found that the way the scenery had been planned ("Krupke" on a shallow stage, "Cool" on a full one), prevented him from doing it. When the show was sold to the movies, however, he did indeed switch them. I'm no longer sure if it was for the better or not, and ever since then I've been haunted by the feeling that I shouldn't have opened my mouth."
Just some food for thought from the man.
I joined IMDB and all I got was this lame-ass signature.
-
StrongRex — 13 years ago(September 10, 2012 08:19 AM)
For the most part, Stephen Sondheim seems to have a good head on his shoulders. Butof course he did the right thing by opening his mouth about "Cool"! For the reasons I listed before, "Cool" and "Gee, Officer Krupke" don't work in the places they are in the stage show. They just don't. It was definitely for the better when they were switched in the movie; so much better that copyright policies made for West Side Story should allow directors to change them if they so desire. It really makes me mad that they don't. Same with "America" (which Sondheim was also absolutely right about).
-
johnlenonomusic — 13 years ago(September 11, 2012 09:37 AM)
I sympathize on "America," but I have different feelings about "Cool." Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing it was in the right place for the movie. It's my favorite scene in the film, and it's not for nothing that "Cool" was selected to represent
West Side
in the MGM/UA retrospective
That's Dancing!
. But "Krupke" works equally as well for different reasons.
"Krupke" on stage is an unexpected lift from the tragedy just re-enacted in the ballet (if the ballet had been kept in the film, I think it would have been harder to argue switching the songs for film). Correctly sung and acted, it is less the vaudevillian turn demonstrated in the film than a sardonic, even bitter indictment of the adult society these boys feel they are up against. In this light, the song does not come a moment too soon. (If you're ever privileged enough to find clips of the 2009 Broadway revival, an otherwise mistaken attempt at putting a new spin on the piece by the late Arthur Laurents, they nailed the Act Two setting of "Krupke" in a way that few casts match. It was funny, but also horrifying; it was the one moment in the show where the boys actually acted like gang members you'd be afraid to meet in an alley.)
Lightening the tone, playing the laughs and not the bitterness, was the only way to make it work in the earlier spot, a point in time where some empathy for, even identification with, the gangs is still required. But the "Krupke" scene in the film is too early in the scenario for us to witness the cynicism the stage-Jets get to express. The shoot-from-the-hip irreverence makes them come off as savvy and menacing, if flippantly so, and that must not happen too soon. Their fortified autonomy, their "us against the woild" philosophy, is a sentiment the audience can accept only after the grudging attempts of "mixing" and "making nice" have proven futile. While the film Jets are prepared to work around the necessary evils of adult society, an agenda that includes ridicule, the stage Jets have reached a more critical point of learning wherein adult interference is so impotent as to be meaningless.
In the play the number is disturbing and funny; in the film it is funny and vapid the point is made but in the absence of any affronts more serious than the dumping of paint or even the cutting of an ear, the message connects to nothing. The film version of
West Side
would work exactly as well, if not better, with this beloved number omitted (yeah, that's right, they should have cut the song), and the same cannot be said of the play. The comic turns serve to make Riff more likable, which is effective, and it demonstrates the talents of at least four more actors, but the story is advanced not an inch.
I joined IMDB and all I got was this lame-ass signature.