Steven Spielberg chases his musical dreams with a gorgeously faithful West Side Story
It may not eclipse the '61 version, but this is a terrific production of the Broadway classic
Film Reviews West Side Story
With West Side Story, a lavish and dynamically orchestrated new adaptation of the timeless musical, Steven Spielberg finally unleashes his inner theater kid—the song and dance enthusiast who’s been there from the start, tapping his toes behind the scenes of a whole line of extravagant blockbusters. Hasn’t there always been something rather musical about Spielberg’s camera? Even in a dry newspaper procedural, it glides and pirouettes. And only Hollywood’s eternal Peter Pan could give rampaging reptiles an almost balletic grace. To watch his nimble event movies is to see the hint—the glorious shadow play—of an MGM spectacle he’s had in him all this time. It’s thrilling to watch him finally realize that ambition.
On the one hand, West Side Story seems like a safe choice for the director’s first official foray into the genre. Jerome Robbins’ rousing stage show, first performed in 1957, remains a towering popular classic of the medium; the songs, courtesy of Leonard Bernstein and the late lyricist Stephen Sondheim, are so beloved by so many that it would be almost impossible not to wring joy from them. Yet in offering his own take on this Broadway staple, Spielberg is also competing with our memories of a quintessential screen version: the epically mounted 1961 adaptation, which swept the Oscars and has conquered hearts for decades. Even for Hollywood’s premier dreamweaver, the man behind E.T. and Jaws and Jurassic Park, that’s a tall order.
Spielberg knows better than to reinvent the show. His West Side Story boasts no new songs and only a couple small tweaks to the blueprint of its mythic romance, which transports Romeo & Juliet to the streets of Upper West Side New York circa the 1950s. Here, reformed teenage hoodlum Tony (Ansel Elgort), one-time leader of The Jets, falls in love at first sight with Maria (Rachel Zegler), the younger sister of sworn rival Bernardo (David Alvarez), who’s head of the Puerto Rican gang The Sharks. Those who know the tragic trajectory of the story will nod along to every beat.
Yet Spielberg grabs us immediately; even if you’ve memorized West Side Story, you’ve never seen it through his eyes. The film opens with a sweeping overhead survey of the NYC neighborhood where its plot unfolds, as construction crews tear down old buildings to make room for new ones. Elegantly, persuasively, he foregrounds the forces of gentrification that loom over both sides of a pointless adolescent turf war. The Jets and Sharks are at each other’s throats for territory, but they can’t see that they’re both being muscled out of a city—and maybe a country—that views all of them as basically vermin. Later, Spielberg will underline the shared lot of these warring factions with a striking overhead shot of their shadows converging during a confrontation, merging into one amorphous silhouette of impending calamity.
Working from a new adaptation by playwright Tony Kushner, who punches up the dialogue between the big numbers, Spielberg revels in the opportunity to revive the glamour of a bygone era of Hollywood musicals, all while making some crucial, thoughtful upgrades. Gone, of course, is the whitewashing of the ’61 version. Here, the Puerto Rican characters are all portrayed by Latinx actors. The film goes further in its stabs at cultural authenticity by handing them a flowing mix of English and Spanish dialogue; Spielberg declines to subtitle the latter, reasoning perhaps that audiences who don’t speak both languages will be able to follow the emotional logic of any scene. It’s a bold and pointed choice for a big Hollywood movie—the kind only a filmmaker with Spielberg’s unlimited clout and industry capital could insist upon.
The elephant in the room is West Side Story’s leading man. Last summer, Elgort was accused of sexually assaulting a minor—a scandal that casts an uncomfortable shadow over the puppy-love courtship of the film, which finished shooting before the accusations broke. Looking beyond that controversy, Elgort may be the movie-star weak link in a cast of mostly upstarts and unknowns. He does bring a certain appropriately moody, simmering attitude to the role; this is the rare incarnation of Tony that actually convinces as someone with a violent past. But he never conveys the full breadth of the character’s blooming infatuation. From his lips, “Maria” is merely a gorgeous earworm, not the expressive Broadway ballad to beat them all.
The rest of the cast picks up the slack, though. Zegler, a YouTube celebrity making her big-screen debut, is radiantly innocent—in her starry-eyed naivete, we can see glimmers of the show’s tragic upshot, a vision of children rushing too fast out of childhood. Ariana DeBose offers a rainbow of conflicting emotions as Sharks moll Anita, her brassy confidence shattering into heartbreak. The performance suffers only in comparison to the turn of her predecessor in the same role, Rita Moreno, who brings a wearied wisdom to this new version in the newly created part of Tony’s shopkeeper boss and mentor. Best in show might be Broadway star Mike Faist as Jets honcho Riff—an electrifying rendition of sarcastic teenage bravado masking desperation.
Of course, the real star here is the staging, a balm for an age of lead-footed Broadway translations. Spielberg races around his dancers, mirroring the physicality of Justin Peck’s choreography through the ecstatic slide and swing of his craft. Some numbers use signature virtuosic long takes to privilege a clear vantage on the spectacle, while others miraculously crosscut across time and space without slicing the action into ribbons. He films portions of “Tonight” through the bars of a fire escape, emphasizing the barriers between Tony and Maria. “Cool,” maybe the most radically reconceived set piece, becomes a game of keep away with a loaded gun. Not every choice tops the original’s: Moving the central lovers’ first meeting behind the gym bleachers is no patch on how Robert Wise eccentrically stopped time on the dancefloor. But even here, you can admire the sparkle of Janusz Kamiński’s typically luminous lensing—the brilliant glimmers of light cutting through the cracks in the bleachers.
Spielberg knows, too, not to mess with the songs. There is no improving upon this soundtrack—the undiminished chills provoked by some of Broadway’s greatest showtunes. Is there a bum note among them? Just to hear these rousing anthems on the big screen again is a pleasure that doesn’t need complicating. Still, you can hear how they might resonate with Spielberg. Doesn’t the ambivalence of “America,” a hilarious duet on the promise and the lie of the Land Of Opportunity, align rather neatly with his ongoing investigation of national values and virtues? For all its dreamy night-out escapism, West Side Story is a perfect choice for an artist whose status as “America’s hitmaker” has always been more complicated than the twinkly surfaces of his crowd-pleasers might suggest.
What he’s ultimately delivered is a reverently faithful production, putting on West Side Story with panache and a sensibility that teeters, impressively, between classical and modern. He’s made the show his own while staying true to its rich emotional palette, its joy and melancholy; this is still the story, big as legend, of bright young dreamers caught in a preordained spiral of prejudice and loss. Can it compete with the last screen version? Maybe not—that adaptation, for all its outdated qualities, has earned its eternal grip on the imaginations of moviegoers. But there’s room for another, especially one so respectful of what makes the material sing, and so useful as a platform for a great director looking to finally go full Minnelli.
272 Comments
Ok, just don’t let that dude’s hair near any open flame!
I’m sure this is well made because it’s Spielberg doing something he’s passionate about but I can’t imagine a less interesting project than a remake of West Side Story. Hopefully whoever the target audience is enjoys it, but I’ll definitely pass.
Watching the trailer, all I could think was “but why?”
I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s due for a remake, but I can say that if I ever saw the original, it was in like third grade (They showed us either Grease or West Side Story for some reason) I’ve never been big into musicals, even genre defining ones, so I never saw it at any time in my life when I might remember any of it. But this looks like a good production, so I’ll probably watch it instead of just watching the original because it feels more accessible.
Same. I wasn’t as young, but the last time I watched the original was senior year of highschool as part of a Humanities project and I wound up out with the flu for 3 of the 5 days of class discussion. Wound up with a D on the paper, so my appreciation of it was poorly influenced. A Spielberg helmed remake sounds good to me.
I’m in the same boat because I don’t particularly care for musicals (I think I saw this in school too, and that would be the last time I saw it). I usually don’t like remakes either, but this one looks like it can be really good, so why not give it a try? I thought that Mary Poppins sequel a couple of years ago would be shit and somehow they managed to make it really, really fun. So I can’t write off needless sequel / remakes out of hand anymore.
Because he wanted to and has the career clout to do it. Next dumb ass question?
Because it’s been 60 years since the first screen adaptation? Do you say “but why” every time there’s a West Side Story Broadway revival too? If you do, I must ask, “but why?”
Hi-def films and sound. and money. And that’s ok. I’m going to enjoy this when its out, and maybe get into a movie theater for the first time in 18+ months.
Tbh, I was wondering the same thing since I’m not really a fan of West Side Story, but that trailer was by far the best trailer that I saw.
I can’t ignore the universal praise. It certainly sounds like he’s made a picture interesting enough to check out.
I am not made of stone, and am open to being delighted.
Genuine question: is the original version any good? I remember reading a review in an old Time Out film reviews book and they slated it as boring (or words to that effect).Even though I’ve come to appreciate the songs that have hung around in pop culture, I can’t get that review out of my head that the ‘61 version “isn’t all that”.
The least you can say is that it has great scenes. Robert Wise knew where to place a camera to make it super dramatic and he also was an editor before a director, which makes even his longest movies feel like a lot is happening. He also takes advantage of a glorious decaying urban landscape, and Jerome Robbins puts a hellish, incredibly difficult and fascinating choreography behind it all.But when characters are not singing much of the magic is gone, as there a lot of overtold clichés. Also the main guy is… Not good.But it’s worth a watch. Like everything from Wise I would say.
I’ll try and give it a watch the next time it pops up on a BBC channel, who usually show it over here in UK.
I watched it for the first time a few years ago and it didn’t quite live up to the hype for me, but it’s still worth a watch. It dragged in parts but also has great dance numbers and tackles serious themes fairly well.
“a glorious decaying urban landscape”Robert Moses has dropped in to insist you rephrase that as “glorious urban renewal landscapes.” The film sites were actually using the demolished areas of San Juan Hill/Lincoln Square that would become Lincoln Center. Construction was delayed to finish shooting.
aye, Robert Moses!
The main guy and Riff are both in TWIN PEAKS.
Russ Tamblyn was also in The Haunting and it is one of the few things that takes an effort from me to get inside the movie, because I expect him to jump all over the house at any moment.
I think the movie’s appeal now comes from it being a perfect representation of mid-century America. It’s something that you could put in a time capsule as a way of showing just how that era looked, felt, and sounded like. Since that era still looms large in this country, it’s important that way.Whatever the verdict if this movie is, it will never be seen as defining something
It depends on your tolerance for old movie pacing, and whether or not your sound system lets you hear the dialogue properly. There’s a lotta fun lines in the show and a lotta goofy stuff for modern viewers to notice. I think it’s held in contrast against other movie musicals around that time and that’s what’s solidified its classic status, the dance sequences aren’t as intricate as the ones a decade before but they actual serve a story purpose so you don’t get bored watching people move just because they can. The songs are fun but it’s weird whenever Maria sings since she’s dubbed by Marni Nixon, and I think the direction they take is because of how Natalie Wood sang it and them going over her in the bud. (Natalie Wood didn’t know she was gonna be dubbed) which translates her pitchy tone for something more operatic which kinda clashes with the song style of the rest of the show. But ehhh its okay.
At one point, TCM did a weekend/evening of all the big musicals of the ( late 50s to early 60s) time period, in chronological order. I’ve always really liked it, but in that comparative setting, you realize how innovative and forward-thinking the ‘61 version actually is, compared to how stodgy musicals on that era are.It’s sort of the Moulin Rouge of that era.
I’d say WSS had a far greater impact on movies and movie musicals than Moulin Rouge did. I love Moulin Rouge, I even own a copy of it (which is saying a lot because I just don’t buy movies), but Moulin Rouge fit with its time and isn’t the groundbreaker that WSS was.
No I agree with that, I was just remarking that the world was pretty much old Stagey Musicals, then WSS showed another way to reconceptulize how a filmed musical could be done, than we kind of went back to Stagey Musicals until Moulin Rouge came out and everyone went “what the hell did i just watch”.
Aren’t you kind of forgetting about Cabaret?
I’d second the reply below that emphasized the truly amazing choreography. It’s a beautiful movie, though there are aspects that haven’t aged well. Your best bet might be to just watch clips of all the most famous scenes.
Parts of it are iconic but for long stretches it is a boring mess. Natalie Wood as a Puerto Rican? (With her singing voice dubbed by Marni Nixon.) George Chakiris (Greek) as a Puerto Rican? Richard Beymer as a romantic lead? The guy is capital-B boring.The choreography by Jerome Robbins is fantastic but when the story slows down and characters are talking…. Zzzzzz.This my favorite scene. Begins slowly but when the Mambo starts – world class quality.
God yes that Mambo (!) scene is the epitome of dance/choreography/musical storytelling. It should be mandatory to study that scene in film school.
Great scene, cheers for posting.
the original stands up, its soooo goood. You can get the blue-ray for pretty cheap and watch on your big-screen at home.
Richard Beymer and Natalie Wood bring it down for me. He is so “golly gee” and her forced Latin accent training stands out like a sore thumb, and of course thry didnt sing a damned thing.
It is one of my all time favorite films, but I see it through nearly the same eyes my 6-year-old self did many years ago. It’s problematic in it’s depiction of race, like most movies at the time, and the dialogue is borderline silly (like most movies at the time). But then again, the idea of singing and dancing street gangs (that kill each other) is inherently silly all the way around. IF you can get past that, the staging of musical numbers is utterly fantastic, and the music is among the best of any musical ever. And Rita Moreno cements herself as a force of nature and truly epic star with her performance in this film (dubbed singing or no). I’m watching it again tonight before I check out the remake tomorrow night.
But then again, the idea of singing and dancing street gangs (that kill
each other) is inherently silly all the way around. IF you can get past
that, the staging of musical numbers is utterly fantastic, and the music
is among the best of any musical ever.My suspension of disbelief for musicals is vast and nigh-omnipotent – except for this film. Watched it in high school during the Crack Wars of South Central L.A. and I just could not lose myself in the film. As much as I love Romeo and Juliet, singing and dancing gangmembers was a bridge way too far for me.
[Before any of you @ me, I’m not saying that WSS shouldn’t exist, or that it’s inherently bad or that people shouldn’t enjoy it – I’m just explaining why I could not simply sit back and enjoy the film – it’s a me thing.]
The best version of West Side Story is Norm MacDonald as the leader of the Cobra’s (sssssss) and Tim Meadows as the Panthers (rawwr) head.
Do you have any idea how few people under a certain age have heard of, much less seen the original? That alone is a reason for it to be made. You might forget that this forum is loaded with people with far greater film vocabularies than the general population. And retelling stories in any medium is as old as storytelling itself.
I was in that camp, too. Never much liked the musical. (Never much liked Romeo & Juliet either, for that matter.) But the positive reviews had me curious, so I went to a discounted screening.I still don’t love the musical itself, but the movie blew me the fuck away. I think it is an amazing piece of filmmaking. I agree with pretty much everything in this review. Tony is the weak link in the cast; though, that’s really just to say he’s merely good while everyone around him ranges from very good to stellar. Dowd is absolutely right about Riff, Anita, and Maria being the standouts. My friend and I were gushing about them on our way out. Spielberg somehow pulls off the trick of making a classic movie musical, completely lacking in irony about itself, and it absolutely works. It is epic. It is lush. It is emotional. I am very impressed.
It’s interesting to see how many people are down on the entire concept of a remake of West Side Story considering how inherent adaption is to the stage musical. It sounds like Spielberg succeeded in finding a reason for the production to exist, which is exciting.
I just can’t imagine being so against the idea of Spielberg remaking West Side Story that your ears and totally closed to the chorus of praise ringing out.Just like Joel Coen’s MacBeth, it’s a project that’s been done before, but we’re watching an absolute MASTER at the helm. You can’t help but be excited by it.
I value Coen’s original work so highly I’d much rather he spend his time and energy giving us more of that than yet another version of MacBeth.
I value Coen’s work so highly that I literally want to see anything and everything that gets him excited. Seriously, lead the way. He clearly knows what he’s doing.
I’d rather he spend his time on things that he’s passionate about, but I’m built different.
The chad artist respecter
That’s cool, I’m kind of envious tbh; I can’t get excited about something just because someone else was passionate about making it. I’ve met people passionate about grammar rules and tax law but I sure as shit can’t get excited about books they’ve written on the subject.
I don’t know. When someone is fired up and excited about something, sometimes they can share some of that enthusiasm. Like, reading A River Runs Through It gave me a brief moment where I wanted to fly fish.
Reading A River Runs Through It made me give the book away.
Tax law? Grammar rules? Buddy, what the fuck are you talking about?Terrible analogy. We’re not just talking about passions. We’re talking about MASTERS pursuing those passions.No disrespect to your friends who are passionate about tax law, but they’re probably no Stephen Spielberg or Joel Coen. You should be envious. Your dumb ass is gonna miss out on two of the best movies of the year.
They may very well be for tax law and grammar, Belly Button Lint Connoisseur.This just feels like Spielberg backpedaling, and proving he’s exactly the kind of dinosaur who’d crab about Netflix…then try and get work from them!
It’s OK, not everyone can get away with wearing bike shorts. Just wear pants.
Oh I know I can’t wear bike shorts.
Balls too big.
No Country for Old Men? O Brother Where Art Thou?
Yeah but it’s HIS work, we’re not entitled to more of it. If he wants to remake MacBeth he can remake MacBeth.
Far as I’m concerned the 1606 Globe Theatre performance of “Macbeth” is the definitive version and anything else is a superfluous waste of time.
Clearly, you never saw Professor Sean Garrity’s production. It was set in gangland Chicago!
Wow. Fresh take.
hmmmm, fresh take
I think I (platonically) love you for saying that.
Now, now. Shakespeare always said he was rushed into that staging, and that the effects technology just wasn’t able to capture his vision.It wasn’t until the 20th anviersary “Special Edition” restaging when he could add in CGI Dewbacks that he felt he had caputred it the way he always intended.
No one even throws rotten veggies or yells at the actors to show their genitals while they perform anymore. Now everyone is required to behave and tickets cost more than a farthing. It’s a travesty!
And if you missed that, well, too bad.
Except for Scotland, PA (2001). Truly the definitive Macbeth needs to be set in a hamburger restaurant in Pennsylvania (Seriously, it actually is pretty good).
Agreed. The 1623 staging where the recast Macduff with Will Smith felt like a cheap money-grab.
Spielberg also made Ready Player One, though.
Can’t I just be bitter that Disney really fucked up Into The Woods and not want any other adaptions to succeed? No? Ok. I guess I’ll stop.Fucking never going to forgive Disney for that one though. They put fucking James fucking Corden in it, that nonce. Then they cut half the songs including several good ones. That’s terrorism. And I actually liked Into The Woods whereas West Side Story is a true bore (having seen various versions of it many times). Why does this get a good movie version? Dammit.
I don’t even like musicals and I’m excited about this. Even if he did nothing but dust off a copy of the 1961 script and directed that, I’m interested to see what Speilberg’s vision of a classic musical looks like. I suspect that even for those who don’t like musicals it will be, at the very least, entertaining.
It’s the same people who make liberal use of the phrase “raped my childhood.”
Like this?
Boo, can’t see it. Chrome thinks it’s an ad. lol
Geez, I’m not going that far by any means! I just feel the Sixties version, problematic casting and all, is as close to perfect as you can get — and I’d really rather Spielberg tried something new.
I have no issue with a remake myself (particularly since it’s been 6 decades), but translating the stage to an entirely different medium is dramatically different than remaking a movie.And that’s not even considering the fact that access to a Broadway show is extremely restricted by wealth and geography.
“A reason for the production to exist”
I fucking hate it here.
Let me answer this for you. It exists because he WANTED it to exist and he got FUNDING for it to exist. Your job is to judge whether it is good or not, not pass judgement on its existential eligibility.
You’re an angry moron.
I mean, you could say the same about The Emoji Movie. I’m not sure if that helps or hurts your argument, though.
Rachel Zegler seems really promising- Maria’s weird opera voice is my biggest pet peeve with the original movie. It’s nice that Maria’s songs go with the other Sharks songs better here instead of setting her apart. I can definitely see why Ansel Eggowaffles is probably a drag, but Tony in the original was kind of a drag too in a different way
Marni Nixon, who sang for Natalie Wood in West Side Story, was the go-to female singer back then for actress who couldn’t sing. She also sang for Deborah Kerr in the King and I, and Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady. Although she did have opera training, I never considered her voice particularly operatic in movie musicals. Rather she had a full, rich voice, but so did Carol Lawrence, who originated the role of Maria on Broadway. And Carol had no operatic training at all. I saw the original version at the movie theater when I was a kid, and I’m really looking forward to seeing this version. It’s probably my favorite musical.
Marni Nixon also sings a number for Rita Moreno, don’t forget!
The last version had white actors in brown face playing Puerto Ricans. Not hard to find a reason for a new version.
It also had a Puerto Rican actor in brownface, for that extra level of WTFery.
I still gotta see it for myself. I think the big beef isn’t that they’ve remade the musical I think it’s at least from the trailers that I’ve seen that it’s borrowing the exact same film language and scene blocking shots as the 60’s movie so it’s kinda like well whats the point of that?Are we just updating the exact same movie in 4k or are we gonna do something else? Honestly I kinda feel like the way the most musicals are shot is kinda lazy and the filmmakers just forget everything they know about film to make a mock theater show, you’re allowed to movie the camera and do more than medium shots I swear to god! Nobody is really singing here you can cut to reaction shots for emphasis on your lyrical lines!I’m gonna watch it either way and I look forward to seeing what else can be done with the show. Feels like casting Ansel Elgort was a big misstep accusations aside, that’s not the kinda boy a girl throws her culture under the bus for at any age. You need a cuter more charming boy for that in general. That aside I’ll push past it and enjoy the music.
I get that concern, but it sounds like from this review and others that that isn’t what this is.
And what’s up with 2D movies? Don’t filmmakers know they can have 3D? And beyond! They can do 4D movies like in some amusement parks where wind blows and water drops on the audience! Every production should use all available filmmaking techniques whether or not they actually help the storytelling!
You don’t have to use every technique in the book, but you also don’t have to shoot a musical like a very expensive proshot either. You’re allowed to actually use what’s best about film when adapting a musical. Very often with recent movie musicals the visual language is very very dull in terms of shot composition or establishing a mood or character connection outside of just miming the exact thing that was done in the play. I don’t need all the bells and whistles in the world, but since its not a live show you can take advantage of making things less dull and establishing an atmosphere.
The blocking, location and scenes are very, very different. Have you seen the Robert Wise film? The amount of camera movement alone is clearly drastically different in the trailers.
I mean, honestly I’m just psyched to watch a version of it where I don’t have to cringe at the (less than stellar) attempts to make Natalie Wood and a couple of other non-Hispanic actors look and sound like they’re Puerto Rican, fake accents and all. Feels like I’m committing a hate crime just by taking any of it seriously.I mean, I do love the songs. Bernstein was an incredible melodist. I’m looking forward to this.
The movie’s already been made — why do we need Spielberg pissing all over it a second time?Pass.
Stephen Sondheim spoke highly of this new adaptation before he died. I would also imagine as the sole surviving creator of the original he likely had to give some type of approval before this could get made. And in general Sondheim was a huge proponent of his works being reinterpreted for new audiences and eras – the current Broadway revival of Company, which he saw the week or so before his death and which he contributed updates to, gender swaps the lead and half the cast.That’s pretty much all the reasons I need for this production to exist. Can’t wait to see it.
He did more than that! He worked closely with the new director about her vision and helped with lyric changes.
Im in the older generation, and had seen the original in the theater as a kid, and numerous times on TV. I own the blue ray. But I am very glad of this remake. If only to encourage this generation to see such a wonderful film. Many of my nieces and nephews just don’t like to watch old movies, no matter how great they are. The message of this is timeless and needs to be repeated.
I was definitely a little curious about how it’d go down but nearly every big concern I have is alleviated by the review, so I’m really looking forward to it. The songs are so amazing, it’s hard not to love West Side Story.
I would have preferred a Spielberg ‘Fiddler On The Roof.’
Why not “Spiderman: Turn Off The Dark” or “Escape to Margaritaville” for a real challenge?
I would absolutely LOVE for the MCU to incorporate the cursed Turn of the Dark production now that ROGERS the Musical is a thing.
If this is a hit and he’s broken his cherry on musicals, you might get it. I’d be thrilled.
It seems like he actually shot scenes so you could see the dancing so it sounds better than a lot of recent movie musicals
starring Seth Rogen as Tevye?I’m in!
Grease next. Age appropriate actors and stronger critique of the sexism of the era.
Grease with actual high school aged actors would be a trip and probably would make the sexism sting less because they’re obviously all children. Could work.
Yeah, and more saxophone!
He might be better suited to “Man of La Mancha” or “Pippin”Maybe just because nobody hits Tevye like Topal does for me. But maybe there is somebody who can.
Let’s hope this walks so that can run. Oh good god I need this movie in my life.
I am very excited that the reviews have been positive all around. As expected, Elgort is turning out to be the weakness here, but apparently not enough to badly damage the movie. I’m now more excited and less wary. With Spielberg directing and Kaminski handling the camera, this movie is the spectacle I’m now looking forward to the most this winter.
Interestingly, the lead actor’s surname is pronounced “El-guwAAa.”
The Tony character and actor sucked in the original as well.
He and Maria were always the least interesting things about WSS. For me it was all about the Sharks, Jets and Anita.
I don’t hugely care for West Side Story even though I was in the musical in high school. But its Spielberg, after somewhat doubting him before I saw Ready Player One I’m convinced on anything.
I’m glad to hear this is decent. Some of the dialogue from the trailers of this remake sounded pretty corny to me and I was ready to be let down, but I love the original so I was going to see it anyway. Now you’ve got my hopes up!
A whole new generation of disinterested middle schoolers can enjoy the cringe factor of a musical in 4K now.
Everybody knows you never go full Minelli.
The last man who tried was named Martin Scorsese, and we know what happened to him.
He’s beloved by all except comic book fans?
exACTLY.
you bounce back from your coked-up overproduced flop and make a few more decades of movies that generally bounce back and forth between “flat-out masterpiece” and “not-fantastic-but-totally-worth-seeing”?
preCISELY.
unless you’re trying to turn off a lamp!
Can we please begin campaigning for Spielberg to direct an adaptation of Ragtime? The musical might be even more of a perfect fit for the director.
Controversy alert: Any Ragtime film will need to cut out about half of the songs, because they’re just not that good. There are a couple gems, a handful of good, but forgettable songs, and then a lot of filler.
Ragtime is a musical that peaks with it’s opening number. It’s a banger of an opening number, don’t get me wrong, but it’s all downhill from there.
It’s cool Spielberg is giving this a shot but his update can’t hold a candle to the Jacobs/Drucker version:
I just gained a new appreciation for vintage Mad Magazine song and movie parodies. Think about it, they couldn’t Google the original song lyrics, or watch a clip on Youtube, or even rent the movie at a video store. They either needed to buy a soundtrack album or watch the movie enough times in a theater so that they basically knew the original songs well enough to parody them.
Pretty sure they could just have gone and purchased a score/sheet music… It’s not like school productions of plays required the theatre teacher memorizing the entire thing
Street vendors with photocopied scriptbooks is still a thing around theater district in NYC.
ah the old days, eh, with no books or writing implements or memories or sheet music or magazines or records
I fell in live with WSS when I saw it in the early 90’s and my dorky ass went to the library to look up lyrics
Dude, they went down to the music store and bought the sheet music.
Frank Jacobs is the guy who wrote nearly all of these and he was brilliant. MAD put out a book of his stuff a little while back and Weird Al wrote the forward, very much acknowledging his debt.
Everybody had the Broadway album back then. By which I mean, my parents, but I think I’m right.
Not my bag, but looks like it’ll be a solid screen musical.
So this is good after all! That’s good to hear.
Wow, was not expecting that grade, from Dowd no less. Great news, I hope it does okay at the box office.
My sincere hope is that Rob Marshall sees this movie and then travels to Spielberg’s home where he commits seppuku in shame for all of his failures.
Maria: “Bernardo, mi hermano, I don’t get why you hate Tony so much! What’s your problem with him?”Bernardo: (gestures broadly at Ansel Elgort’s immensely punchable face)
Is “America” sung only by the women (stage) or between the women and men (‘61 film)? This nerd needs to know.Glad that A.A. described the opening shot and frequent sense of gentrification tightening all around. It may seem insane, but there are ways to make this movie hit hard in our times.
As in the film. But it sounds like “Cool” is back to its place in the stage musical (so…”Gee Officer Krupke” well?)
Is it? Putting Cool back in the first half on film doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But the gender mixed America does (it was intended to be that way originally, but Robbins wanted a showcase just for the women–of course he didn’t even choreograph it, as he assigned the actual choreography of the Sharks numbers to Peter Gennaro to differentiate it–)
Apparently Cool has a new context between Tony and Riff that sounds very dramatic and at first glance seems to match the music, but we’ll see how it works.And it sounds like “Gee Officer Krupke” is back to its second act placing, which I would complain about, but after listening to it…frankly, there’s nothing funny about that song in 2021. It’s fucking terrifying.
Absolutely agreed. I have tried to stay relatively free of spoilers to the major changes for the movie but…
C
O
O
L
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
What I heard is BOTH Cool and Krupke now take place before the Rumble and Riff’s death.
Stop pretending Latinx is a thing. It isn’t.We’re done with that foolishness now.
I didn’t care for Elgort *before* his allegations hit, so having him as one of the leads is my main reason for being down on it. BUT, I love the ‘61 version, so I’ll probably watch this when it streams and have a blast despite him.
I do not understand how he keeps getting lead roles. He’s not the worst thing ever, but literally every other contemporary actor in his group type is better. It’s like when they were trying to make Garrett Hedlund and Alex Pettyfer happen. Scratch that, I just googled his parents.
His parents are a fashion photographer and an opera director. That’s not bad, but I don’t see how it gets you much in Hollywood.
I love that you phrase that like they’re just some scrubs, and not like a famous photographer who works exclusively for Vogue…the premiere fashion magazine that literally every major celeb and designer has been on and then some.And the other one has worked with every major Opera company and is the director for new projects in American Opera, like…talking about his proximity to nepotism keeping his career in the green is not gonna hurt him, hell even that accusation isn’t gonna put a dent in him if the right people like him enough.
And it’s clear that they do, we’re gonna keep seeing that face. Don’t worry!
I’ll admit to ignorance about the specific of his parents, but I also continue to believe that Steven Fucking Spielberg did not cast the lead in his movie because of the guy’s parents. That gets you someone noticing you the first time, and absolutely, having an in at first gives you a leg up. But it doesn’t give you repeat work, let alone this.
Why not? Mediocre people succeed all the time. If they can show up, be likable and be like-minded enough to blend in, why not? I know we like to think that only the quality cream of hard won effort rises to the top, but that’s not true. Do I think Steven “Stick my girlfriend in an Indiana Jones Movie” Spielberg participates in nepotism. Yeah, so does everybody in the entertainment business, sometime you get good actors that way.Like: Jeff Bridges, and Robert Downey Jr, Mira Sorvino, Jennifer Jason Leigh and arguably Nicholas Cage every other movie he’s inAnd then you get mediocre yet passable actors: Lily Collins, Bryce Dallas Howard, Charlie Sheen, John David Washington, Kiefer Sutherland, who just kinda persist despite ya know…And it’s cool too.If you see an actor who keeps popping up despite audiences and critics not getting their appeal that usually the answer.
I want to see a clip of their “Easy, Action!” I wonder how it compares to the classic “Easy, Action!”
As a proud Puerto Rican, I am greatly looking forward to version because I love the original songs and staging but cannot in good conscious enjoy it with all the brown face and racism. People who don’t think this version has a reason to exist are literally saying they are okay with brown face and racism
Isn’t it a bit like items made of ivory, though? You can be against the modern ivory trade and think making new things of ivory is unacceptable, but you don’t have to go out and replace every pair of antique ivory dice with new plastic ones.
For all those in the comments asking why a new version of the classic is needed, don’t forget that the famous version had white actors in brown face playing Puerto Ricans. Not exactly something I want to show my kids.
I don’t understand why so many people keep missing that point. I’m someone who loves the original movie but as soon as I heard it was being remade by Spielberg and Kushner I was all in.
“I don’t understand why so many people keep missing that point.”Because they “don’t see color”. Because they went to schools that teach about “Northern aggression”. Because they don’t care and mainly because they know it’s offensive and like that they can watch it anytime they want.
I’m sure your children would be MORTIFIED!
But couldn’t you show it to your kids and also explain that back then that was more than common in films from the time for a variety of reasons (in 1957 with the Broadway original Robbins tried hard to cast all the Sharks with latinx characters but couldn’t completely just because at the time there weren’t enough performers who could handle the roles–one of the first times the actors had to be the dance chorus as well). Teaching moment and all that. But I guess it depends on the age of your kids.
Are we sure Tony wasn’t in a little bronzer as well?
One thing the original touches on is how the Jets themselves were only a generation away from being immigrants and those immigrant groups were still on the fringes of whiteness (even the Sharks call them wops and micks, and I think the cops do at some point, too). You can see how Maria might accidentally fall for a swarthy Italian Tony without realizing the problem, whereas Elgort is so far over on the Nordic side of the whiteness scale it’s harder to believe:
Small note: Tony is Polish-American.
Tony is Polish, tho.
According to the text, he’s also sandy -haired…
Good points. I read the interesting roundtable NYT articles about whether WSS should be, for lack of a better word, canceled and if it’s inherently racist (actually a good read with most of the participants having pretty balanced and nuanced views). What interested me is when I was looking up articles about reaction to the Broadway original, years back for a school project, (and famously it wasn’t a runaway hit–with a number of important reviews horrified that such things would be on their Broadway musical stage and few people understanding the music–), and there were a number of op-ed type articles about the depiction of youth gangs (which, of course, in the 1950s was a “big scary” issue that the media really played up). And, probably due to few of the writers being Latino, when people were upset about the depiction of the gangs, it was the depiction of the *jets* they objected to. A number of pieces felt that it painted all Italian/Polish immigrant male youth as dangerous threats and unfairly represented a whole group. The discussion now (and I get why) never even touches on that *at all*–they’re seen as the white group (and it’s true they’re the ones written with an “American” vernacular) and it’s the Sharks who are the concern.
Yup, that’s almost exactly what I told them, but knowing the new new version was coming I didn’t feel the need to show them as well If you haven’t seen the old one in a while, it really is pretty cringe-worthy
I did watch it several times last year for an essay I had to write, but I focused almost completely on the choreography and the differences between the numbers Robbins directed before he was fired due to time and budget, and the dance numbers Wise helmed. So… I admit I really wasn’t paying attention to how modern/new audiences would see the drama.
(And I totally get why you’d just show your kids the new one.)
Iguess I have to ask now, do you find the original cast video recordings that they play on PBS of Les Mis cringe worthy, or Hamilton?Or is this more a response to “brown em up” makeup job?
Entirely to the “brown ‘em up” makeup job. Not entirely sure which Les Mis you’re referring to…seen a bunch of concert videos, but never a filming of the original cast actually doing the show. In general, I really like original cast recording videos…movies of musicals, more of a mixed bag. If you happen to have Apple +, the production of “Come From Away” they’re showing now is quite good.
I wish people would get over that brown-face stuff. It was 60+ years ago, and times change. Tell your kids that we live in more enlightened times and let that be a learning opportunity.
You’re trying to protect your kids from a historical film that has (gasp!) people in makeup? Jesus, thank the gods I was raised by normal fucking adults.
So I honestly don’t care that much either way. I like some of the songs, but it never really grabbed me as a production.
That said, what I DO find odd is remaking this. The 60’s version is not a new thing. It is a modern take on Romeo and Juliette. So it is a remake of someone else’s take on a remake of R&J. Why remake someone else’s remake of something. Especially when you are staying pretty faithful and not really adding anything. Just do your OWN unusual take on R&J.It would be like instead of remaking Shakespeare’s “Titus Andronicus”, you decide to remake Julie Taymor’s take on it.
It’s not a remake of the 1961 film. It’s a new adaptation of one of the great Broadway musicals, which Spielberg was a fan of as a child (via the best-selling soundtrack) before the Wise film was even made.
It’s based on R&J but it’s NOT a remake of R&J. There’s a difference.
So it is a remake of someone else’s take on a remake of R&J. Why remake someone else’s remake of something?Wait until you hear about Luigi da Porto, Matteo Bandello, and Arthur Brooke…
And has everybody forgotten about the *other* 1960s modern R&J take, The Fantasticks? The Broadway production ran for 42 years! A record! And featured Jerry Orbach at the start!
Wow, I had completely forgotten that one!
I was also suspect of yet another musical remake (the trailer from “Cats” still haunts me…okay “Cats” has always haunted me). But when I saw Spielberg attached to it, I figured it would be worth it. But, I’m actually more happy about this because we get to see the brown characters played by actual brown people. It was only 6 years ago when they gave has Emma Stone as an Asian woman.
I want this movie to bomb, and bomb big. I don’t want the idea of redoing Hollywood classics becomes a thing, as if old Hollywood movies are just another IP to drain all the fun out of.I think I live in fear that this will work and somebody will go for the Holy of Holies and do a remake of Casablanca starring Timothy Chalamet as Rick, Zendaya as Ilsa and Bruno Mars as Sam.
I don’t see any reason that Robert Wise should be the only director who ever gets a shot at adapting West Side Story.
And WSS itself is a remake of an older classic tragic love story.
Musicals fall into a couple categories. West Side Story and Music Man get remade and remade on stage with famous revival cast members and new generations. I can’t see anyone remaking Singin in the Rain as it’s completely built around its singular talents. Grease … can’t really see it getting remade (other than on TV) even though there is more material & songs that never got used on film and a different structure to play with. Travolta and OJN are still too iconic. These live TV adaptations seem like the way to go here. With regular dramas, like Casablanca, the studio (WB) would have to at least match the charisma of the leads – but who would that be? Nobody working now would want to risk the career hit they would take getting compared to Humphrey Bogart. Yes, they almost did it with Ben Affleck. But the WB honchos woke up from whatever coke pile they were snorting. It’s like remaking Hitchcock movies. Psycho was tried and Bombed. Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart are still too singular. (Okay… maybe Tom Hanks and idk … Pink, maybe, in a remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much might work.) Seven Year Itch almost got remade with Jim Carrey and Catherine Zeta Jones (right?). That might have worked. The movie really is only a showcase for the comedy of the male lead. Plus, I think it was a play first. Focus shift is really the only way to make a good remake. True Grit worked because they shifted focus to the girl.Spielberg’s own movies might get remade in 20 years. I could see someone taking a swing at Jaws – and it would have better sfx – but still probably would suck otherwise. They caught lightning in a bottle first time out. It’s 50 times harder to recreate the conditions. Riff and Anita stole the original West Side Story out from under the leads. If Spielberg gets those two right and adds a great Maria back into the mix, then it’s worth a look, I suppose.
Those are all good points but I think the original movie version is iconic in its own right (see my comment below about it being a definitive work for it’s time.) I don’t think you can do it in the same way you can’t do Sound of Music anymore. Fiddler or Carousel or even My Fair Lady, go for it, but I think this one is untouchable
While I don’t fully agree with you, I will say one key aspect of WSS (and yeah, I guess my love of and background with dance is showing here) has always been Jerome Robbins. It was his concept, he directed and choreographed (with Peter Gennaro doing America and the “latin” parts of Dance at the Gym to differentiate them), he choreographed and co-directed the movie and as far as I’m concerned, because of how the musical was made, his choreography is as much a part of the original text as the songs are. But… His choreography has been well preserved on film and through the majority of major revivals, so…
The one argument I think you could make in the remake’s favor is that the original film version is very stage-y (to it’s benefit, I think), and a version that’s more properly cinematic is interesting.
That said, from the trailer, I feel like this goes a little overboard as a period-piece (where poverty is always composed, just so) and one of the definite strengths of the original was the sense of empty desolation gotten from filming in the Lincoln Square demolition grounds:
Compared to the rebuilt sets:
That looks like the Bronx in the 60’s.
Actually, the live televised version of Grease was/is pretty amazing. For my money, unlike most of the live musicals we get on a yearly basis which are pretty much just “let’s stage the play and shoot it with cameras”, it created a blueprint of how to create a brand new hybrid live/television production of using the camera to hide quick changes while still admitting a bit to the fakery of being on soundstages but still moving the camera in for closeups and what not, and incorporating a small live audience within the production itself.Too bad that all that all of the logistics and effort is insanely expensive to do it that way, and probably only Grease is the kind of show with name brand appeal that you could pull it off with because of the cost.
I’m with Ms. LaBonz we’re not doing Grease again, give Work Hard or Die Trying Girl it’s time to shine.
The live Grease also happens to feature — through sad coincidence — the tension of Vanessa Hudgens doing her big song the day after her father passed away, which is honestly the main thing I remember. And you don’t get that from a film.
Psycho is an odd comparison, though, since (IIRC) the director remade it shot-for-shot. I think if you wanted to ‘reboot’ Psycho you go full slasher and just retell the story in an updated setting. No reason why that wouldn’t be a decent little suspense/gore film. Hell, even screw with the ending a little bit in a Friday the 13th style (Norman’s mother isn’t dead, AND she’s the actual killer this time!) and you have yourself a stew…er, movie that kids will be talking about!
You’re probably right. The rights to it, I’m assuming, are a little higher up the food chain – and these guys look at spreadsheets first, so idk. Make it with an all-black cast and giddy-up!
“Nobody working now would want to risk the career hit they would take getting compared to Humphrey Bogart.”Pffft. Have you seen the egos on these Hollywood types? Not to mention the paychecks they get?
He did all three in my opinion, and it’s terrific. I don’t know why the box office has been ‘disappointing’, but nowadays if you don’t score big on opening weekend, you’re gone and don’t get a chance to develop ‘legs’. If this business model had been in use in the nineties, “Ghost” would never have found its audience and become a big Oscar-winning hit.I saw a production of the play many years ago and loved it, saw the Wise/Robbins film and loved it and, yes, I loved Spielberg’s take as well.
I think this will still do ok. It’ll get a Christmas Break bump. And then an Oscar season bump. Spider-Man and Matrix are going to be #1 & #2 for a while but West Side should still be in the mix.I had forgotten how Ghost opened slow and then built & built. Napoleon Dynamite did the same thing 15 years later.
Riff and Anita stole the original West Side Story out from under the leads. If Spielberg gets those two right and adds a great Maria back into the mix, then it’s worth a look, I suppose.Having just come from seeing it, I can definitely say that it’s worth the look. This adaptation’s Riff, Anita, and Maria were absolutely the standouts. When Riff gets killed, I was partly sad because I knew it meant we wouldn’t have any more of him on screen.
Counterpoint: More big budget musicals.
I would love that. I lived for the musical numbers in Hail, Caesar!
I don’t want the idea of redoing Hollywood classics becomes a thingIt’s kind of always been a thing, though.
Heck, even Shakespeare mostly adapted existing, well-known stories.
Ben-Hur would like to have a word with you, @Snagglepuss.
I live in fear that this will work and somebody will go for the Holy of Holies and do a remake of Casablanca starring Timothy Chalamet as Rick, Zendaya as Ilsa and Bruno Mars as Sam.Philistines! How can they remake Casablanca? The one starring Peter Beardsley and Moira Dinglebat was definitive! [/Red Dwarf reference]As to the remakes issue. I see the point, but even leaving aside the fact that Hollywood’s gonna Hollywood (and always has — IIRC they made The Maltese Falcon at least twice before Bogart had his turn, and his wasn’t the first Big Sleep either if memory serves me right), honestly, I think I’m getting to the age where Stockholm Syndrome has settled in and the fear of remakes is overblown. Worst case scenario, the remake doesn’t live up to the original — in which case, the original’s still going to be around and the remake will, like most bad movies, just get forgotten. And best case scenario… hey, someone’s made a good movie, in which case I can’t find it in myself to really begrudge the situation.
The Cary Grant-Deborah Kerr vehicle, An Affair to Remember, is the third movie version, yet it’s the definitive one. Apologies to Charles Boyer (who I love) and Irene Dunne, but that’s just how it goes sometimes. Also will someone pass a law forbidding any more remakes of A Star is Born?
I’ll co-sign, as long as we can attach my rider of $30 million in taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
I get your comment about having Stockholm Syndrome in response to current Hollywood shenanigans and am almost there with you. I guess my hackles are raised because I’m not quite ready to give up yet
I agree–it’s the ‘Watchmen’ or Stephen King conundrum all over again. When someone says it hurts the original the counter-argument is (and should be) “no–it doesn’t affect it all, and you can still watch/read the original version any time you like”.
Go watch “Barb Wire”.
Jesus Defenestrating Christ, dude. What is wrong with you?
to be fair, is CASABLANCA really that good of a movie, or did *gunshot*
It seems bizarre to me to draw any kind of connection between this and a potential remake of Casablanca (or any other classic film). Musicals are their own genre, with a long history of frequent revivals and adaptations. Also, they did remake Casablanca, two years after it came out, with Bogart again, in the form of To Have and Have Not. Plus the countless novels, radio plays, TV shows, and parodies/homages. There were rumors back in the early 00’s that J.Lo and Ben Affleck wanted to star in a remake. No one needed to wait for this film to get ideas in their head about remaking the classics.
You’re probably one of those people who points to The Wizard of Oz as a shining beacon of Olde Timey Hollywoodland and its authentic originality, never mind that the 1939 version was like the third or 4th adaptation of that story.
Boooooo! There is whole generation of folks that never saw the original, and probably won’t, as its ’old’. How many times was King Kong remade? And another Lord of the Rings is coming out on Amazon. A great story should be retold over and over. And from what I heard so far, this new WSS is pretty faithful to the original, so just chill.
Honestly, if somebody wanted to take a stab at Casablanca as some sort of prestige anthology series a la Fargo, I could be into that.
I’m sorry, this is just pants on head stupid. Great stories always get retold. This isn’t a new thing with movies. Stories get retold and adapted to different media. Quit worrying about whether or not they get made and hope that they are good.
I’ll paraphrase Stephen King here: You don’t have to see it. It doesn’t ruin the original. The original is still there and you can still watch it.
Wish granted!
For me, the original film version of West Side Story falls into the same category as the original Ocean’s 11 — not good enough to worry about, and therefore 100% fair game for a remake. The musical’s brilliant, and the movie just doesn’t do it justice — beyond the whitewashing, there’s a grating phoniness to it. (I’m now imagining an alt-history where Stanley Donen & Gene Kelley got their hands on it, because they would’ve known how to make a film version great.) TLDR: Totally fine to remake bc the original film isn’t that good.
“the songs, courtesy of Leonard Bernstein and the late lyricist Stephen Sondheim…”Leonard is dead too and Sondheim was more than just a lyricist.
“Late” is obviously a reference to the fact thta he literally died a week ago, which would be odd not to mention. I suppose they could have said “recently late,” to be more specific.And in the context of this film, Sondheim is the lyricist because he only wrote the lyrics.
No late means he’s dead, there isn’t a time limit. And it seems awkward to only point out that only one was dead. I’m sure it could have been less clumsily written.
“Late” does indeed refer to someone who has died recently (or had died recently in relation to another event being discussed). There’s no specific time limit, but it’s not used for people who have been dead for many years.Again, they’re not pointing out that only one of them is dead. They are acknowledging that Sondheim very recently died.
no longer alive.”her late husband’s grave” · [more]synonyms:dead · deceased · departed · lamented · passed on/away · lost · expired · gone · extinct · perished
I am a great fan of classical music, especially by the late Mozart!
Anyone who isn’t excited to see one of America’s greatest living directors adapt one of our greatest musicals can kick rocks. What’s wrong with y’all?
You mean Stephen King (famed director of “Maximum Overdrive”) is going to do a movie of “Carrie: The Musical”?
“While you were singing, I got stabbed in the head by a Puerto Rican.” Still missing Norm.
“This was clearly choreographed.”Also, honorable mention must be made to Flight of the Conchords:
Truly one of Seymour Cassel’s finest hours…
Those who know the tragic trajectory of the story will nod along to every beat.Spoiler Alert:Maria dies after Robert Wagner aledgedly pushed her off the boat.
Too soon!
While Christopher Walken claims to have seen nothing.
Is the AV Club officially using “Latinx” now? Because actual Hispanic people don’t use it and many find it straight up offensive.
I was actually created by non binary Hispanics, cis people shouldn’t opine on it regardless of ethnicity because it’s not for them it’s to be inclusive of all gender identities. I’m Puerto Rican and use it regularly.
Why not use Latin American? It means the same thing, is also gender neutral, but has the advantage of an agreed upon pronunciation.
You might like the Code Switch episodes about terms like this. The short answer is that Latin American is certainly no better than Latino or Latinx or Hispanic. And you can’t say that the people in the group have uniformly rejected any of those terms. Like anything else (the evolving LGBT+ alphabet comes to mind) there are various perspectives.The history of the grouping is the part I find most fascinating. (The sociopolitical pros and cons of uniting Mexicans with Cubans, or uniting immigrants with Puerto Rican citizens, etc.)One example: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/20/1039053932/who-you-calling-hispanic
My thing is just, is it supposed to be pronounced like Lateenks, like Latin-X, or is the x silent, so it’s pronounced like Latin?And how do you use it when speaking Spanish? Like, if someone wants to say “I’m a Latinx”, do they say “Soy un Latinx”/“Soy una Latinx”, or “Soy unx Latinx”?
I work at a university and everyone around me pronounces it “latin-x” (like the Roman language and then the letter), which I think is nuts. I pronounce it “Lateen-x” (like Latino or Latina but with “ecks” at the end), which seems more sensible.
Those questions are irrelevant because no one who actually speaks Spanish uses “Latinx”.
I’m a fan of the movie and especially the stage musical (c’mon Spielberg, was it too difficult to find a way to film the dream ballet cut for the first movie? You’re Spielberg 😛 )I will say one key aspect of WSS (and yeah, I guess my love of
and background with dance is showing here) has always been Jerome
Robbins. It was his concept, he directed and choreographed (with Peter
Gennaro doing America and the “latin” parts of Dance at the Gym to
differentiate them), he choreographed and co-directed the movie and as
far as I’m concerned, because of how the musical was made, his
choreography is as much a part of the original text as the songs are. But… His choreography has been well preserved on film and through the
majority of major revivals, so…
I don’t believe even Spielberg can convince me that Ansel Elgort is a real living boy.
So the Puerto Rican characters… are not played by Puerto Ricans?
I can’t watch that Ansel shitbag; supremely bland and way too rapey for me. He’s a roofie in human form.
Richard Beymer had a very warm, longing gaze as Tony in the original, so you can easily imagine Maria instantly being attracted to him. Ansel Elgort’s gaze has all the warmth of a corpse. I wonder if even Spielberg has the directoral talent to make us believe Maria would go against her family to be with him.
Spielberg had over a year to splice Christopher Plummer into the role of Tony.
You know how when the sportsgames people play the baseball championships and one team wins the first four games and it’s over, it’s called a sweep? But if the series goes four games to one, the champion team wins, but it’s not a sweep? Well, same for the Oscars. It’s not a sweep if the movie didn’t win all the awards. It’s a tremendous achievement for a movie to win 10 Oscars. No doubt about that! But it’s not a sweep when a different movie won adapted screenplay. It didn’t win all the categories it was nominated it. Also usually people talk about a sweep with the Oscars if a movie wins all the major categories. Since it didn’t win (wasn’t nominated in) lead actress or lead actor, not only did it not win all of its nominations, it didn’t win all the marquee categories. Sorry, not a sweep. You’re using that term wrong.
If someone refers to “the dance craze that’s sweeping the nation*” do you chastise them for misusing a sports metaphor, because there are in fact people doing other dances?*assume, for the purposes of this hypothetical, that it’s 1928 and you are listening to an old-timey radio broadcast.
How’s the singing? Autotuned and soulless or natural and expressive?
I doubt Spielberg would go in for soulless autotune. Whether he can direct his performers to “natural and expressive” singing (or hire the talent who can) is another question.
T-Pain is leading the Jets!!!
I’m genuinely interested to see if they try to make “America” a bit more, well, less cartoonishly off-base when it comes to the idea of how to depict Caribbean Latinos.I love the lyrics and ambivalence on immigration and gender dynamics that the original songs touches upon, but goddam does it flub the musical influences by incorporating flamenco rather than anything close to a Caribbean Latin American vibe (like, WTF, had Bernstein ever heard of *any* actual Puerto Rican music?) The extraneous “Olé”s are just the icing on the clueless cake for that arrangement.
The number of people in these comments failing to understand that this is not a remake of the 1961 film, but is instead a new adaption of the stage musical is really telling.
Writing/editing style note: I get that it should be “the late Stephen Sondheim” so readers know you know you’re aware he recently passed, but shouldn’t it also therefore be “the late Leonard Bernstein” so folks know you know he is also deceased?
Today I learned that Ansel Elgort is neither the guy from Kingsman nor the guy from Solo. Thank you, google.
He’s also not the dude who played Elton John. I keep getting my boring white brown haired young male actors mixed up.
But the one from Kingsman *is* the one who played Elton John (and is easily the most talented of the three).
Nor is he the guy that did the B&W photos that were made into posters that every pretentious undergraduate has (or maybe had, it’s been decades for me) on their dorm wall.
I don’t know why I have trouble telling these three apart either, other than they all have fairly unusual names. I’ve been half-heartedly defending Ansel Elgort thinking he was Taron Egerton. Boy do I have egg on my face.
…Elgort may be the movie-star weak link…Called it. Way back when the casting was announced. And thanks to that pasty black hole of charisma, I won’t be seeing this one.
This movie isn’t set in Santa Monica? I call bullshit.
I don’t get all the criticism towards the remake. Yes, Hollywood nowadays only makes Disney movies and remakes of old classics, etc, but Hollywood has ALWAYS made tons of remakes and adaptations.
One important point to me, though, is this: I’ve heard so many times from young people (younger than 30) that they hate watching old movies — they find the image too grainy, or the way pple talked back then too weird, and they just CAN’T get into the film. Do I find these objections a bit too shallow? I do, but to each their own, and so, it’s great that these amazing stories are being remade to be more appealing to younger generations. Better that than allowing these giants to be mostly forgotten.
it’s a sad song – it’s a TRAGEDY – but we’re gonna sing it anyway
No Hispanic actor would call themselves Latinx. Ever. Nunca.
I hear this talking point all the time on social media, but I personally know Hispanics here in Chicago who have embraced the term. It’s not mainstream, but to say NO HISPANICS EVER SAY IT is naive at best.
Kids, Spielberg has a new movie coming out this Christmas!Kids: Cool! Aliens? Dinosaurs? Indy?
So, if they perform “West Side Story” “Live-At Lincoln Center”, is that just bad taste? Or irony?
Fart.
I scored tickets to an early preview tomorrow night, and have been both incredibly excited and very nervous—the original film is one of my all time favorite movies and has been from a very young age (along with Star Wars—I was equally influenced by my mother and father it seems). I’m glad to read this review as it’s allayed my fears a bit. Now I just have to keep reminding myself that no, this isn’t a sing-along version of the film so I’m not asked to leave before it’s over. Can’t have yet another “Phantom of the Opera” incident or they won’t let me back in the theater.
There is no way this is a good film.
By the way, Spielberg isn’t COMPLETELY foreign to musical sequences.Start that VHS of Temple of Doom if you need a reminder!
Or the USO Jitterbug contest from “1941″
Saw this last night at an early preview. Let me preface the rest of this comment by saying I am a HUGE fan of the original. Seriously, one of my all-time favorite films ever since I was a kid. I know the lyrics to most songs by heart, and can quote wholesale much of the movie. After a few drinks I’ve been known to re-enact some of the dance sequences. Mega-fan.This version simply blew me away. I knew very little of this film going into it, save that it was a remake of a film that means a lot to me by a talented (but possibly past his prime) filmmaker. I’m glad I didn’t realize Rita Moreno’s role in this is pretty major—she’s listed up there but barely mentioned in this review. I’m not sure why, but I’m glad I didn’t know more of her role beforehand.
For the most part the music isn’t changed, and the dance sequences show reverence to the first while holding their own (this is a talented cast for sure). A few sequences were (wisely) lifted wholesale from the first film—particularly “Mambo” and much of the choreography for “America” though the setting was changed for this one. The original version of “America” was so perfectly done in the first that there was simply no way this one could compare. Some of the other changes and my thoughts: “Officer Krupke” suffered a bit by not having the whole of the “Jets” involved, but is still a great, humorous sequence, and the updated setting is a better choice in this version. “Cool”—I didn’t care for the change here, as the original is the second-most stylized thing in the first film and such a great showcase for the ‘chorus’ and what those characters are going through that it’s a stand-out moment. It just doesn’t compare well here, even if the context in this version makes contextual sense. “When You’re a Jet” and the extended ‘fight’ opening are shorter in this version (which does not follow the originals lead with the extended overture). Like everything in this version involving violence or street scenes it’s better in Spielberg’s version in most ways save the choreography. The fights simply have more weight (while smartly losing some of the grace of the original) which adds a surprising amount of both surprise and emotion to the later death scenes.“I Feel Pretty”—the decision made regarding this song honestly confused me at first (again, I am very familiar with the original). Once I realized the change that was made I had to think about this one for a while—what the change did to me emotionally, and what it meant to the story. The more I thought about it the more I’ve decided it’s the second-best change in the film regarding the music. This song is a silly, weightless song designed to show us (again) that Maria is a young girl in love. It’s cute and catchy and one of the more popular songs of the entire soundtrack, but doesn’t really add anything to the story, so much so the original producers of the Broadway show almost left it out (and the 2020 revival DID omit this song)….but Spielberg makes one change here that gives the entire song a tragic feel. I don’t know if he’d seen it done that way in a revival or if it was simply his idea, but it’s a truly genius move that makes you look at the moment in a different light.The best change overall involves Moreno’s character. I won’t get into the change involving her because it was a fantastic moment that affected me in ways I wasn’t quite emotionally prepared for, and I truly feel it’s a love letter to both the first film and those of us that hold it in such high regard. It’s a brilliant change that shows exactly how much reverence Spielberg holds the original in, and his understanding one of the biggest and most complex tragedies of that movie’s history.The cast is very good—the two leads are better in this version. I really enjoyed Elgort (and honestly know nothing of the accusations save what was mentioned here) and thought his voice was lovely. He definitely brings more gravitas to Tony even if his voice doesn’t have the weight of Jimmy Bryant’s. Zegler was terrific (Wood’s performance is my least favorite of the first movie) and the two together bring emotions the original never did. No human on earth will ever be as cool as Chakiris as Bernardo, but David Alvarez brings a fantastic edge to the role and feels dangerous every time he’s on screen. Ariana DeBose gets the thankless job of portraying Anita, but holds her own nicely. I actually enjoyed both versions of “Riff”, though found the far less ‘goofy’ and much more gritty portrayal in this version to be the better choice.Thanks to anyone that actually read all this—seriously, the first movie means a lot to me on many different levels, so to be this blown away by a new version is giving me emotions I wasn’t expecting and just had to vomit out in a wordy post somewhere…
I thought the same thing about the placement of “I Feel Pretty”, coming at the point in the story where it does.
There were a couple of other minor quibbles I had, but overall, damn, that was a good version!
I’ve seen West Side Story a number of times and like it, but am not a massive fan. Spielberg’s version blew me away. The change for “I Feel Pretty” was a great move, in my opinion.
Two-plus years later I had to respond. Like you, I am a huge fan of the original—my brother and I would choreograph dances from it in our sunken living room. (We loved the “ow! ow! ow!” in America, we thought it sounded like a puppy yipping.) Sometimes I would be walking through the house and suddenly my brother would yank me into the living room, singing “MAMBO!”I did not catch this in theaters when it was out—I just caught about a half-hour of a couple of days ago. (“Maria” through “America.”) HOLY CRAP. This is excellent. What a love letter to the original! Ansel Elgort is fantastic as Tony and actually makes me want to see more of Tony (a thankless role). Are they all doing their own singing? Because his voice is incredible. Zegler is fantastic as well. It is an utter tragedy that they released this in a year when most people were still leery of going to the cinema. They should re-release it, frankly. This deserves to be a huge hit.
Haha well I love new comments like this for a film I truly loved. I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t re-enacted the ‘cool’ scene from the original a few hundred times growing up…so glad you enjoyed the parts you saw. Even on a small screen it holds up and I whole-heartedly recommend watching it all (though the beautiful direction and cinematography certainly deserve the biggest screen you can see it on). I know it was on D+ for a while but haven’t checked recently…but probably will very soon. I haven’t watched Spielberg’s version in a while and I believe you’ve inspired me to watch it again! Fun note—my (then 15-year-old) son who went to the screening with me loves this version, and it opened a discussion up for us about plays and the thrill of Broadway, live theater and adapting things like this for the screen. He has since worked ‘behind the scenes’ on set and sound design in several school and local theater productions!
My brother and I would sneak up on each other, hissing “boy…boy…crazy boy…” And my dad would come up with all sorts of inappropriate lyrics for A Boy Like That. “A boy like that, who killed your brother/I know him well, he mooned your mother…” (I was crying during A Boy Like That. Spielberg’s filmic musicality is just terrific. And where did it come from? I don’t think he’s ever directed a musical before but his instincts were perfect for this film. I was also sobbing during the last scene. Those two kids never had a chance.) It was fantastic and yes, it’s still on D+.I was a little bummed that Brian D’Arcy James wasn’t given any chance to show off his gorgeous voice, but then of course none of the grownups sing in WSS (although they changed that to have Moreno sing Somewhere at the end, an entirely appropriate change). I did love it when Spielberg borrowed from the original—one of my favorite shots in the 1961 film is when we first see the Sharks walking down the street with that lilting, relentless approach. Actual sharks (the actual animal) cannot ever stop swimming, even when they sleep, or they won’t get enough oxygen. And that’s what the Shark strut in the original (and re-used here) reminds me of—dangerous predators restlessly roaming, searching, searching.
Ah just thinking about Moreno singing that song at the end makes me tear up. In the theater I just lost it–such a huge moment for her and the one of the few true downsides to the first film -the casting choices and the fact that they dubbed Moreno’s voice….along with darkening her skin. Felt like it was a such a long time coming, and I had zero idea it was going to happen.
So……Rita Moreno’s totally winning the Oscar again, right?
She made me cry like a baby during her song, so, yeah, dammit, she better!
Ugly honk-sobbed here.
Güvenilir ve kaliteli bahis sitelerinden ekstradan yüksek kazançlar sağlamak için hemen tıklayın:
https://baysanslisitesi.com/https://baysansligirissitesi.com/https://baysanslidestek.com/https://baysansliguncelgiris1.com/
Güvenilir ve kazançlı adreslerimize giriş yapmak ve fazladan kazanmak için tıklayın:
https://baysanslisitesi.com/https://baysansligirissitesi.com/https://baysanslidestek.com/https://baysansliguncelgiris1.com/