Ivo van Hove & Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker Take On West Side Story for Broadway

[canbelto]

I've seen the production. Amar is not the problem -- he's not much of a singer but Bernardo is mostly a dance role. In fact none of the singers are the problem. I thought that Powell and Pimentel's style of singing were a bit too contemporary but that's small potatoes.

The issue is the production. There's too many ways it just doesn't work.

[nanushka]

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

There were few opportunities for Latinos in musical theatre in the 1950s,  and those with the extensive ballet training Robbins demanded were very rare,  Chita Rivera being the exception that proves the rule.  Lin-Manuel Miranda has often spoken of how he became a composer because he loved musical theatre and wanted to be a part of it,  but he was keenly aware that if he wanted decent three-dimensional roles,  he would have to write them himself.  And as much as he loved WSS,  the portrayal of young Puerto Ricans as knife-wielding gang members was painful,  especially because it was for many decades the only image of Puerto Ricans on Broadway.

So...contrary to what the critic wrote, those were good times?

I don't think a review would really be the place to recount the history you reference. The critic's point seems to have been to celebrate the fact that actors of color were cast in roles that represent the experiences of characters of color.

5 hours ago, On Pointe said:

I wonder if the New Yorker critic is aware that Amar Ramasar is one of the few performers in WSS who is actually Puerto Rican?   I guess the Indian name threw her.

I don't think his name threw her. Just before mentioning Ramasar she explicitly writes, "The Puerto Rican Sharks are played by Latino actors..."

Edited February 22, 2020 by nanushka

[Quiggin]

"Nobody in theatre thought that brown face was "miserable" when WSS debuted.  It was just the way things were."

Back in the day the makeup in West Side Story seemed phoney. almost like a simulated sun tan, at least in the movie version. I saw it when it first came out. I was going to college in Chicago and my close friend at the time was a Puerto Rican architecture student from Brooklyn. We both made jokes about the film.

Max Factor brownface always seemed artifical and affected – the most bizarre case being Marlene Dietrich (as well as Charleton Heston) in Touch of Evil. I guess George Stevens tried to address some of that by casting Sal Mineo in Giant.

Anyway the socially unjust aspects of brownface were apparent then.

Perhaps on the stage it all came off differently. 

 

[On Pointe]

2 hours ago, nanushka said:

So...contrary to what the critic wrote, those were good times?

I don't think a review would really be the place to recount the history you reference. The critic's point seems to have been to celebrate the fact that actors of color were cast in roles that represent the experiences of characters of color.

In several earlier revivals going back years,  the Sharks have been appropriately cast,  so there's nothing innovative about the current production casting Latinos as Latinos.  There was no need to bring up brown face at all,  except to indulge in a little virtue signalling about how deplorable it was in 1957.  But if she had to mention it,  she could have included at least one sentence to put it into context.  To a young person reading her review,  the use of brown face might seem like a tacky choice on the part of the producers,  instead of being emblematic of the dearth of opportunities for artists of color.

 

2 hours ago, nanushka said:

I don't think his name threw her. Just before mentioning Ramasar she explicitly writes, "The Puerto Rican Sharks are played by Latino actors..."

Perhaps,  but I have seen many comments that indicate that a large chunk of the public is unaware of Ramasar's background.

[nanushka]

18 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Perhaps,  but I have seen many comments that indicate that a large chunk of the public is unaware of Ramasar's background.

Ok, so in spite of explicit textual evidence to the contrary, you choose to "guess" that the critic is as ignorant as "a large chunk of the public"?

That doesn't seem like reading in good faith.

Edited February 22, 2020 by nanushka

[On Pointe]

42 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Ok, so in spite of explicit textual evidence to the contrary, you choose to "guess" that the critic is as ignorant as "a large chunk of the public"?

That doesn't seem like reading in good faith.

I don't know what "reading in good faith" means.   I do know that I have read article after article  in so-called reputable media that have gotten basic,  easily verifiable facts about Ramasar and the Waterbury suit wrong.  

[nanushka]

13 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I don't know what "reading in good faith" means.   I do know that I have read article after article  in so-called reputable media that have gotten basic,  easily verifiable facts about Ramasar and the Waterbury suit wrong.  

What does the Waterbury suit have to do with it? She literally wrote that the “Sharks are played by Latino actors.” Bernardo is a lead Shark, no?

The New Yorker is famous for its rigorous fact checking. I would not personally describe it as “so-called reputable,” but I may well have misplaced faith. In any case, I’m not aware of any errors it’s made in reference to the Waterbury suit.

”In good faith” is a common expression defined in most online dictionaries.

Edited February 22, 2020 by nanushka

[Helene]

Do not discuss the discussion or each other.

[On Pointe]

Maybe because I have been in theatre for many years,  and because I am a minority American,  I have a very different view of this case than most who post here.  I think it's telling that most of the protesters on the street are fervent youngsters who don't seem to understand the gravity of the terms they fling around with such conviction.   They bring to mind Dory Previn's lyric,  "Beware of young girls,  too often they crave,  to cry at a wedding and dance on a grave.". And I'm particularly peeved that Ramasar,  who danced his way out of the projects, has become the sacrificial lamb for a lovers' quarrel between two entitled rich white kids from Connecticut.  (I am well aware that many will disagree with that characterization,  but that's how it looks to me.)

 

[nanushka]

12 hours ago, On Pointe said:

There was no need to bring up brown face at all,  except to indulge in a little virtue signalling about how deplorable it was in 1957.  But if she had to mention it,  she could have included at least one sentence to put it into context.  To a young person reading her review,  the use of brown face might seem like a tacky choice on the part of the producers,  instead of being emblematic of the dearth of opportunities for artists of color.

Many young people of today are, in my experience, quite surprisingly knowledgeable about the realities of inequity and oppression, both past and present — especially those who are likely to be reading New Yorker reviews of Broadway musicals. In any case, I think the majority of readers of the magazine, both in print and online, would be aware that brown face, black face, yellow face, etc. were and are not just tacky choices or silly racist stunts but artistic conventions that were visible manifestations of deep and widespread systemic problems. Personally I don't begrudge the critic for making that assumption about her readers, given space constraints in a journalistic context.

(Readers unfamiliar with Ramasar’s background may even have assumed, without the mention that the production appropriately cast Latino actors, that that was not the case; so that clarification may have been purposeful.)

7 hours ago, On Pointe said:

Maybe because I have been in theatre for many years,  and because I am a minority American,  I have a very different view of this case than most who post here.  I think it's telling that most of the protesters on the street are fervent youngsters who don't seem to understand the gravity of the terms they fling around with such conviction.   They bring to mind Dory Previn's lyric,  "Beware of young girls,  too often they crave,  to cry at a wedding and dance on a grave.". And I'm particularly peeved that Ramasar,  who danced his way out of the projects, has become the sacrificial lamb for a lovers' quarrel between two entitled rich white kids from Connecticut.  (I am well aware that many will disagree with that characterization,  but that's how it looks to me.)

I understand, appreciate and respect your perspective on all that, and while we've disagreed about the case on other threads, I don't at all think your views are without merit. I'm at a loss, though, what connection you're implying between the Waterbury dispute and these reviews of West Side Story.

(Is the implication that criticisms of Ramasar's performance are fueled by the same sort of bias that has, in your view, led to his treatment as a sacrificial lamb? That would seem like a very large leap to me, and I'm not assuming that's what you mean, but I otherwise don't see the connection and would like to better understand.)

Edited February 22, 2020 by nanushka

[canbelto]

9 hours ago, On Pointe said:

Maybe because I have been in theatre for many years,  and because I am a minority American,  I have a very different view of this case than most who post here.  I think it's telling that most of the protesters on the street are fervent youngsters who don't seem to understand the gravity of the terms they fling around with such conviction.   They bring to mind Dory Previn's lyric,  "Beware of young girls,  too often they crave,  to cry at a wedding and dance on a grave.". And I'm particularly peeved that Ramasar,  who danced his way out of the projects, has become the sacrificial lamb for a lovers' quarrel between two entitled rich white kids from Connecticut.  (I am well aware that many will disagree with that characterization,  but that's how it looks to me.)

 

Race has nothing to do with this. Chase and Amar did something wrong, and they're paying the consequences. If getting heckled at the job is one of the consequences so be it.

[On Pointe]

2 hours ago, nanushka said:

 I'm at a loss, though, what connection you're implying between the Waterbury dispute and these reviews of West Side Story.

(Is the implication that criticisms of Ramasar's performance are fueled by the same sort of bias that has, in your view, led to his treatment as a sacrificial lamb? That would seem like a very large leap to me, and I'm not assuming that's what you mean, but I otherwise don't see the connection and would like to better understand.)

I've read many reviews of the new WSS,  and most of them bring up Ramasar's involvement in the Waterbury-Finlay dispute and the protesters in front of the theatre.  The UK Guardian has devoted more column inches to it and Ramasar being cast in the show than they have to the show itself.  Whether the reviewers like or dislike Ramasar's performance is almost an afterthought.  For example,  from the Guardian:

"Less wise was the casting of Amar Ramasar as Bernardo, a performer plagued with controversy after he disseminated sexual images of fellow female dancers during his time with the New York City Ballet. The casting decision has surely caused a headache for the production and ethical reckoning for some viewers which seems, given the performance, not worth it; Ramasar’s Bernardo fades to the background, upstaged by a magnetic Yesenia Ayala as Anita, Shereen Pimentel as Maria and a smoldering ensemble of Sharks. It’s as if the production strapped the distraction of his casting to the character’s back and willed both to disappear."

 There is a negative review of Ramasar embedded in all the verbiage,  which is legitimate,  but dragging in his problems with NYCB is not.  (Note the absence of Chase Finlay's name.).   They are supposed to be reviewing the show,  not Ramasar's life.  These reviewers do not have the protesters' excuse of being young and naïve.  They know damn well that Ramasar's transgressions are in no way comparable to the bad behavior of powerful men like Harvey Weinstein,  Les Moonves,  Charlie Rose or Matt Lauer,  or even comedian Louis CK.  If every performer's bad behavior was put to the Ramasar test and thereby deemed uncastable,    there wouldn't be a show running on Broadway.

1 hour ago, canbelto said:

Oh please. Race has nothing to do with this. Chase and Amar did something wrong, and they're paying the consequences.

This is America.  Everything is about race.  If Chase Finlay is "paying the consequences" I guess I missed it.

[Helene]

Every mention of Peter Martins in any context includes a link to an article with text that notes the accusations against him. It's called clickbait, and it's monetized.

Finlay and Catarazo would have been treated similarly had they had taken on a high profile commercial gig in NYC. Cantazaro decamped to Europe, while Finlay has been lying low.  As a member of a wealthy family that appeared to be supportive when the lawsuit first hit, he likely has resources and connections to other professions.  

There were plenty of people at NYCB with whom Ramasar had more in common in terms of class and race and having had to strive against formidable obstacles, albeit with the help of ballet's most entrenched and seemingly unmovable affirmative action program: for men.  He chose his wealthy Connecticut friend based on something else that appealed.

 

[abatt]

3 hours ago, On Pointe said:

This is America.  Everything is about race.  If Chase Finlay is "paying the consequences" I guess I missed it.

How could you miss it?  He had to give up a career that he worked years and years to train for. Ironically, if he had not resigned I truly believe that the company would have been required to offer him his job back.  He is also a defendant in a civil lawsuit, incurring legal fees and potentially subject to having to pay damages, depending on the outcome of the case.  Those are the consequences.  

Edited February 22, 2020 by abatt

[dirac]

Quote

Whether the reviewers like or dislike Ramasar's performance is almost an afterthought. 

I noticed that, myself.  It's plain some reviewers are allowing this to color their appraisal of his performance. They are also not always clear on exactly what it was that Ramasar did or did not do.

Quiggin writes:

Quote

Back in the day the makeup in West Side Story seemed phoney. almost like a simulated sun tan, at least in the movie version. I saw it when it first came out. I was going to college in Chicago and my close friend at the time was a Puerto Rican architecture student from Brooklyn. We both made jokes about the film.

Pauline Kael made fun of the gang members' makeup in her review. We tend not to give people "back in the day" much credit, but often as not things in movies that seem ridiculous to us seemed just as ridiculous to them, at least to the more sophisticated and self-aware. (Of course, there was a large body of critics who hailed WSS as brute realism, so there you are.)

[canbelto]

1 hour ago, dirac said:

Quiggin writes:

Pauline Kael made fun of the gang members' makeup in her review. We tend not to give people "back in the day" much credit, but often as not things in movies that seem ridiculous to us seemed just as ridiculous to them, at least to the more sophisticated and self-aware. (Of course, there was a large body of critics who hailed WSS as brute realism, so there you are.)

I think some reviews also mentioned how wooden Richard Beymer was as Tony. Beymer is indeed the weak link of the film. One wonders what might have happened if Larry Kert was allowed to reprise his role of Tony for the film but the personal animosity between Kert and Robbins did not allow for that to happen.

[On Pointe]

5 hours ago, abatt said:

How could you miss it?  He had to give up a career that he worked years and years to train for. Ironically, if he had not resigned I truly believe that the company would have been required to offer him his job back.  He is also a defendant in a civil lawsuit, incurring legal fees and potentially subject to having to pay damages, depending on the outcome of the case.  Those are the consequences.  

Chase Finlay's actions were the catalyst for all the protests,  and yet no one is screaming in the streets that he's a "sexual predator",  an "assaulter",  a "pervert" or a "pedophile".  He's left the narrative.  It must be easier for him to go a year or more without work than it is for Ramasar.  If he walked past the Broadway Theater,  probably most of the protesters wouldn't even notice him.  Meanwhile Ramasar's life is ripped to shreds.  (And it's no cakewalk for Alexa Maxwell either.). There seems to be no consideration for Zachary Catazaro who lost his NYCB career,  or Jared Longhitano,  who lost his job,  his insurance coverage and all of his money,  and neither one of them saw any photo of Waterbury or discussed her at all.

I've been reading audience members' impressions and reviews of WSS and a number of them believe that Ramasar doesn't belong in the show because he's "Middle Eastern".  Anti-Arab views could be fueling some of their animosity.  (It doesn't matter that he isn't an Arab - perception is everything.)  Yet even when the show was in previews,  some felt that Ramasar was the strongest actor in the show.  One even said he was the only member of the cast who can act.  I just read a laudatory  comment from an audience member who believes that he has improved tremendously since he was in Carousel because of all he's been through.  So there's that,  but it's a small consolation for having crowds of teenagers trying to drive him out of his job.

[canbelto]

Amar Ramasar is gainfully employed. He still has a loyal girlfriend. He is earning money, he has health insurance. All he has to suffer is that people are saying mean things about him. Which, well, is a part of life if you are involved in a very public lawsuit about your poor behavior.

Chase Finlay AFAIK has gone completely off the grid since 2018. We simply have no idea whether he is working, or where he even is. It's unlikely he can ever make a comeback in the world of dance. In addition the details of his substance abuse problems are now public knowledge. I'd say that's a big consequence for him.

You want to make this "poor Amar" but Amar was/is a grown adult who did some stupid things and his consequence is that people don't like him. Which I'm sure he realizes and accepts. You want to make him a combo of George Stinney/Emmitt Till but that's not a fair metaphor. He's alive, well, and working, with a loyal girlfriend. I fail to see how awful his life is. In fact I think he'd be the first to say he is very blessed.

Edited February 23, 2020 by canbelto

[On Pointe]

By the way,  as predicted by Broadway fans,  two days after opening night,  numerous cast members are missing shows,  including Tony,  Maria,  and Ramasar's Bernardo.  Evidently they were holding it together for the critics,  but performing in such a hazardous show,  and spending half the show soaking wet during flu season,  is taking its toll.  It's been my experience that after the adrenaline of a Broadway opening,  for several weeks afterward it's very hard to keep energy and enthusiasm up for eight shows a week.  (It gets better,  but this is an inexperienced cast that doesn't know that.)

[sandik]

On 2/20/2020 at 9:02 AM, BalanchineFan said:

Sure, call it what you like. I don't say puff piece to denigrate the reporting, I say it as a binary opposite to a review. There is no journalistic attempt to evaluate the results, just to report on the creation of the piece and promote the project.

Another term for this is a preview.  In general, you don't preview shows that you think are going to tank (unless it's got someone newsworthy in the cast or the production team), but you can, within the context of the article, point out places that look like they will be challenging. 

But mostly, as I think of it, a preview is a story about the work in the director's/choreographer's head -- a review is a story about the work that you see in performance.

[abatt]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/arts/dance/west-side-story-dance.html

 

Dance critic Gia Kourlas reviews WSS.

[BalanchineFan]

On 2/21/2020 at 9:34 AM, California said:

Does he even have that option? Didn't the union-negotiated resolution guarantee him just one more year at NYCB? That might be gone. 

Ramasar is still on the NYCB roster as a principal. I don't see why that would change. If WSS runs for a year he'll be there. Equity contracts run for a year after opening night. If it closes, I imagine he'll return to NYCB.

[nanushka]

12 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

Ramasar is still on the NYCB roster as a principal. I don't see why that would change. If WSS runs for a year he'll be there. Equity contracts run for a year after opening night. If it closes, I imagine he'll return to NYCB.

When does his current NYCB contract end? The reason it could change is that NYCB is not required to renew his contract despite being required to finish out the period. of the one they terminated — at least that’s my understanding.

Edited February 25, 2020 by nanushka

[BalanchineFan]

3 minutes ago, nanushka said:

When does his current NYCB contract end? The reason it could change is that NYCB is not required to renew his contract despite being required to finish out the period. of the one they terminated — at least that’s my understanding.

I understood that he had his job back... period. They can fire him again if he gives them cause. They would remove him from the roster if they didn't want him back (or if they could, I suppose). They remove other dancers quick enough.  What grounds do you imagine they would fire him for now?

[nanushka]

35 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

I understood that he had his job back... period. They can fire him again if he gives them cause. They would remove him from the roster if they didn't want him back (or if they could, I suppose). They remove other dancers quick enough.  What grounds do you imagine they would fire him for now?

No grounds. As I said, I understood that they were only required to employ him for the remaining period of the contract they inappropriately (according to the judgment of the arbitrator) terminated. Again, I may be wrong, so if anyone has details about what specifically the union arrangement requires I’d be interested to know. They are not simply required to automatically renew every dancer’s contract from year to year, are they? At least I assumed they were not.

Edited February 25, 2020 by nanushka