A Chorus Line

If you read most of the reviews here you can notice how negative they arfe, and even those that are nicer always have a slightly negative comment. I know that most of the time comparison is not good and when you are talking about one of the greatest shows ever created, the screen version gets the worst part. To be fair and if we forget about the original show the movies is very good. The music, the dancing and the cast are totally believable. I know they cut some songs, others were modified (not for worst - Dance for me it 's brilliant) and others send a completely different message to viewers (What I did for Love). We know that has happened before when a musical goes from stage to screen. but what we have to bear in mind is....is the final product a good movie? Yes, it is. The only downbeat I notice in the movie is that I notice a few edits strange...for example when you can hear some lines from HELLO TWELVE and suddenly one of the boys starts singing a different song. it looks very abrupt in that moment. To sum up A CHORUS LINE is a very good movie made in a decade when musical was not only dead but buried six feet under. So I was really impressed to see that in that decade this movie and Little shop of horrors were made and time just shows everybody that both movies deserved a better audience and better reviews.

Why all the bad reviews? Is it dated? Yes. But the music, the dancing, the really skimpy costumes all makes it magical.

I recently saw the documentary following the Broadway revival and felt the tug of nostalgia pulling to watch the original. I was watching mainly for the music and the dancing. They did not disappoint.

Of course THEATRE is best live and in person - that goes without saying. But I enjoyed my viewing of A Chorus Line.

A strange picture, as it peels the outer rims of human feelings and aims straight for the raw. Auditioning for a Broadway stage musical are hundreds of youngsters who dream with a place in the limelight. The plot, you can imagine, is basically an audition, with all its highs and lows. And when I say it has raw feelings, i'm talking about the cold process of selection, which is encarnated by the obscure character of Michael Douglas, who, in the obscurity of the audience, with only a little light next to him, says who stays and who goes, even if he has to be brutal sometimes ("Then don't dance!!!", he says shouting to a girl who didn't have any dance classes). The result is a film sustained by the different phases of selection and the suspense of who is going to be a star and who has to leave, which, altogether, will charm only dance-addicts and everyone who would like to be in one of these shows one day.

If you've never seen a stage production of "A Chorus Line" (no small feat, since it was not only once the longest running show on Broadway but has had extensive touring and regional exposure), then the movie version is perhaps better than nothing. However, an acquaintance with the source material makes one realize how much the film falls short of the power of the original.

Michael Bennett's magnum opus was conceived as a tribute to "gypsies"--Broadway chorus dancers--and in a way, to the every bodies and nobodies from all walks of life. The characters in "Chorus Line" are not rich or famous, nor are they likely to be, and over the course of the story they bare legs, heart and soul just for the chance to be one body in a unified, faceless corps. Bennett brought out each dancer's individuality, making each a loving, well-defined portrait of a human being with all the hopes and dreams, problems and shames that everyone has but nobody ever sees. But director Richard Attenborough undermines this essential concept in two very distinct ways.

First, there is the presence of Michael Douglas as Zach, the choreographer who puts the auditioning dancers through the paces. Granted, if one must have a "name" actor in "A Chorus Line" then this is the place for it--Zach neither sings nor dances, and exists mostly as a God-like voice issuing from the dark of the auditorium. But Douglas' very presence overshadows the dancers, who should be the heart and soul of the show. True, his name is listed in the credits alphabetically with everyone else's, but every time the camera's on him we go "Hey, that's Michael Douglas," pulling our focus from where it should be.

Also pulling focus is the undue emphasis Attenborough puts on Cassie, the veteran dancer who was once Zach's lover. Although Zach and Cassie's relationship is a part of the stage show, it is but once facet among the many stories told over the evening. Attenborough makes Cassie the central part of the film, shortchanging several other characters in order to provide flashbacks of her life with Zach and her former glory days as a featured dancer. She's even given the eleven o'clock number "What I Did For Love," a song that originally was written as the dancers' anthem to pursuing the dream of Broadway without regret but is here employed as just another torch ballad. (Composer Marvin Hamlish and lyricist Edward Kleban have expressed dissatisfaction with this song, claiming the lyrics were too generalized; its misuse here unfortunately proves their point.) Near the end of the film, when Cassie tells Zach that all the dancers on stage are special, the words ring hollow, not only because of all the screen time she's gotten but because (unlike the stage version) she's been backstage and away from the audition for the majority of the proceedings.

Now and then, one gets a glimpse of what "A Chorus Line" should be. The dancing is good and photographed well, and the music (though over synthesized for the film and sung by mostly mediocre voices) still has impact. But this landmark musical deserved a far more memorable and worthy screen incarnation than it has been given.

Richard Attenborough's totally ordinary and exasperating screen version of Michael Bennett's brilliant stage musical "A Chorus Line" is a classic example of how to do everything wrong in a stage-to-film adaptation.

First off, hire a director who has absolutely no idea how to stage a musical or judge musical talent. Allow him to hire a cast based on looks and youth as opposed to actual talent, update the setting from 1975 to 1985, then let him throw out the original production's ground-breaking choreography as being "dated" and hire the "Flashdance" choreographer to create '80's style dance routines that will look ridiculously dated 20 years later. And don't worry if the director doesn't even understand the meaning and purpose of the original show; after all, the show really isn't about aging dancers hoping for one more show so they can cling onto their dreams for a while longer. No, no, no. As he said at the time, the show is about "kids trying to break into show business." As a result, he doesn't have to even think about hiring the original cast as they are "now in their thirties and forties." (Note: all this is recounted in the book "On the Line" by Thommie Walsh and Baayork Lee.)

Then, to top it off, allow him to change the focus from the dancers themselves to a corny backstage love story between Zach the choreographer and Cassie, the fallen "star," who has come back to beg her old flame for a job. Finally, take the show's showstopper, the beautiful and unforgettable "What I did for Love" away from Diana, give it to Cassie, and turn it from an anthem about giving up your life for your dreams into a love song to a jerk. And make sure you cast a star like Michael Douglas as Zach and then cut to a reaction shot of him a dozen times during the dance numbers even if it is incredibly distracting. After all, people came to see him and not the dancing.

I could go on and on, but why bother? The truth is, with a couple of exceptions, nobody in this cast sings or dances convincingly on a Broadway level, and my bet is most wouldn't make it on the dinner theater circuit either. The exceptions? Vicki Frederick is a hoot as Sheila, the senior (and most cynical) of the dancers. Gregg Burge has a fun dance solo in the original tune "Surprise, Surprise," but then they ruin it by having him joined by the rest of the cast. And Alyson Reed is very good and convincing as Cassie, the star. But why, oh why did they replace Cassie's brilliant solo "The Music and the Mirrors" with the terrible original tune "Let Me Dance With You?" This and the bowdlerization of "What I Did For Love" alone sink the film. Not to mention that the show's other showstopper "Dance Ten Looks Three" is ruined by the terrible performance of Audrey Landers, who was obviously hired due to her gorgeous looks rather than her obvious lack of talent.

Any way, "A Chorus Line" is an major disappointment, especially now that Rob Marshall and company have shown us how to adapt a musical with his marvelous film version of "Chicago" which seems headed for a Best Picture Oscar. Ironically, both musicals debuted on Broadway the same year (1975) and while "A Chorus Line" was the bigger hit, because they got the film version of "Chicago" right and this one so wrong, "Chicago" seems destined to go down in history as the better production. Maybe if they'd waited for a more appropriate director with a real vision for this film, things would be different. Oh, the possibilities--- ** (out of *****)