What's new

West Side Story – Spielberg remake (2 Viewers)

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,443
Real Name
Jake Lipson
Jonalyn Saxer, who is listed in the ensemble as a Jet, was announced yesterday as playing Karen Smith in the national tour of Mean Girls, which begins performances on September 21 in Buffalo, NY.

I wonder how long West Side Story is shooting for. Obviously, if Saxer is just playing a Jet ensemble member who hasn't yet been named, it's probably a small role, and it's possible that they could finish shooting her portion of the movie before the movie itself is finished shooting. So I wouldn't foresee any conflicts.

However, it does make me wonder as to the movie's progress. We're not going to see it until December 2020, so there's plenty of lead time, but it seems like they'll be done way sooner and Disney is just holding it for a December release for Oscar and holiday business.

I'll see Saxer in Mean Girls before the movie comes out.
 

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
60,683
Location
Rexford, NY
Forgive me if this has been posted before in this thread (but I haven't seen them)...but still images of some of the shooting locales in Harlem have been making it into the NYC papers:

west-side-story-harlem.jpg


west-side-story-epk-westsidestory_firstlook_rgb-1.jpg


The sprawling cast is pictured in the new image from left to right: Jets members Anybodys (Ezra Menas), Mouthpiece (Ben Cook), Action (Sean Harrison Jones); Jets leader Riff (Mike Faist); Baby John (Patrick Higgins); Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler); Maria’s brother and Sharks leader Bernardo (David Alvarez); and Sharks members Quique (Julius Anthony Rubio), Chago (Ricardo Zayas), Chino (Josh Andrés Rivera), Braulio (Sebastian Serra) and Pipo (Carlos Sánchez Falú).
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,956
Location
Albany, NY
Jonalyn Saxer, who is listed in the ensemble as a Jet, was announced yesterday as playing Karen Smith in the national tour of Mean Girls, which begins performances on September 21 in Buffalo, NY.

I wonder how long West Side Story is shooting for. Obviously, if Saxer is just playing a Jet ensemble member who hasn't yet been named, it's probably a small role, and it's possible that they could finish shooting her portion of the movie before the movie itself is finished shooting. So I wouldn't foresee any conflicts.
Spielberg tends to shoot fast, so I wouldn't be surprised if all of her scenes were already in the can. Based on the bits we've seen, it seems like they've shot a lot of the big ensemble scenes early in the schedule -- which makes sense, since they're also probably the scenes that require the most location shooting. Apparently the NYC and New Jersey filming wraps in August. Not sure if that includes sound stage work, or if the scenes on interior sets are being filmed elsewhere after August.

Forgive me if this has been posted before in this thread (but I haven't seen them)...but still images of some of the shooting locales in Harlem have been making it into the NYC papers:
Thanks Mike! Ron posted the second photo earlier in the thread, but the first photo is new to me.
 

Chelsearicky

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
158
Real Name
Richard Barrett-Olson
Last edited:

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,443
Real Name
Jake Lipson
Harold Prince -- who produced the original Broadway production of West Side Story as well as producing and/or directing an astonishing number of classic shows that have shaped musical theatre over the last several decades -- died today at age 91. Broadway marquees will be dimmed in his honor tonight.

I bring this up here because I think it is wholly appropriate for the new West Side Story film to be dedicated in his honor when it opens next year. There has been no statement yet from the film's producers as to whether this will happen or not, but I think it absolutely should.
 

Matt Hough

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
26,131
Location
Charlotte, NC
Real Name
Matt Hough
I agree. I was greatly saddened to see the reports of his passing when I logged on to the internet this afternoon. What a legend in the American theater! I saw many of his productions during their Broadway runs, and he will always hold a special place in my heart for his work in the theater.
 

StrongRex

Grip
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
24
Real Name
Daniel
I know that the remake is definitely happening and nothing can be done to stop it, but I want to put in my two cents anyway.

I don't have much against remakes in general - I think for the most part, they are unnecessary and cheapen the experience of the movie that got it right the first time around. I believe if you insist on remaking a movie, remake a bad movie. A lot of bad movies had great ideas in them somewhere but they were executed poorly. But we all know Hollywood is more concerned about cashing in on the success of blockbuster movies than actually being creative and caring about telling a good story. But the one movie I had hoped they would never remake ever is my favorite movie of all time, West Side Story.

The main reason is that the stage show is just not that good! Even though it's the same story, the movie executes it far better. The movie is exactly what the play should have been, and I really wish stage directors had the option to make their productions more like the movie, while probably keeping some good ideas the show had like the Somewhere ballet. Even the music is better in the movie - I mean, having Tony sing so high he sounds like a pretty girl? His range and his songs sound much better in the movie - he sounds very masculine while still being a tenor. It makes for a much more believable romantic lead, especially comparing his voice to Maria's very feminine soprano voice.

And just reading the play script...it is so full of awkward and rushed dialogue, character inconsistencies, and heavily misplaced songs/scenes. It's like they wrote their first rough draft and decided to make it their final product. Cool and Gee, Officer Krupke's placements in the show alone proves that the author's writing leaves a lot to be desired. Arthur Laurents, I am looking at you.

Yes, I have heard the argument that Gee, Officer Krupke is supposed to be an angry song. Yes, I have heard the argument that Cool was meant to show Riff as a powerful leader. But those arguments still don't work, and I'll tell you why.

The Jets may have been angry when singing Officer Krupke, but they were still laughing and having fun, and it's a very funny song regardless. After Riff's death, we are not supposed to laugh. The enjoyable moments were supposed to be before the rumble, and now that it's happened and lives have been lost now it is time to get serious. The movie did a wonderful job of making this clear but the play did not. There were no tension or emotional stakes. It didn't seem to me that the Jets were really that concerned about what just happened. They didn't seem to be reacting as urgently as they should have been. Unlike in the movie, where they were scared out of their minds and wanting to kill the Sharks, they weren't worried at all about what was going to happen to them. In the stage show, they weren't focused on the Sharks at all during this scene. Singing Officer Krupke had nothing to do with making sure they got revenge on the Sharks, and then when Anybodys shows up that's when they decide to take their situation seriously - now they want to protect Tony and get revenge on the Sharks. That seemed really forced and out of place. Time to get serious about the plot now!

Which brings me to my next point; of all the Jets they could have chosen to take Riff's place as leader, they chose Action.:unsure::wacko: And they don't give any early hints or indications for any character development on Action's part, Oh No!! :emoji_confounded: He goes out of character and immediately becomes the cool-headed, authoritative type for no reason. Throughout the entire story, he is consistently portrayed as hot-headed, always ready to fight, always yelling and using his fists, and he would NEVER make the good decisions the writers forced him to make. This is what I mean by character inconsistencies. Action didn't become the way he did in the second act because he had the character development for it, he did the things Ice ended up doing because the plot needed him to.

Here is where the movie got this right: They put Gee, Officer Krupke in Act I before the war council, and they put Cool after the rumble which made much better sense. (I mean, why is Riff telling Action and everybody else to "play it cool" just before the war council? Nothing that bad has happened yet - also, Riff is the type of character who likes to have a good time, so Gee, Officer Krupke was a great fit for him.) And, they kept Action in character by having him blow up and get the rest of the Jets in a mindless frenzy, and chose a better, more realistic candidate to replace Riff and get everyone else under control: Ice. This character should have been in the play! Why wasn't he?? :emoji_disappointed:

Another song in a different scene I take issue with is I Feel Pretty taking place after the rumble and before Maria finds out that Tony killed her brother Bernardo. The tone is still very inappropriate when it's surrounded by violent, tragic events back-to-back. In the back of our minds we know that Maria's happiness is going to be horribly shattered when she hears what Tony did, and it's just more torture on the audience. At least in the movie, when the song took place in the bridal shop, you still had hope that everything was going to work out well for our two lovers. Seeing her perform it after the rumble is just more torture. There's not supposed to be "more fun to be had" in Act 2. After the rumble, it's serious business.

America...OMG, America...what were Laurents, Bernstein, and Sondheim thinking?!?! In the movie it's one of the best songs, but it's quite the opposite in the stage show. Yes, I'm going as far as to say America is the worst song in the stage show. Why? Because it's so boring and one-sided! I mean, the dialogue working up to that scene onstage is about the same as the movie, and then Bernardo and his Sharks just leave, and it's the Shark girls alone onstage. The writers cheated us out of a really juicy scene with these boys and girls! Once again, the way it is written and performed in the movie is what America should have been. It's a fun, exciting song and dance number that gave some women the chance to perform and compete with the Shark boys who otherwise don't do much in the stage show except dance and look intimidating. Bernardo also suffered the short end of the stick on character development too - he was given a much better chance to shine in the movie.

I mean, all the Shark girls are in love with America except Rosalia, and she's the only one they're pitted against?? Really? We're supposed to find a dozen girls mocking one homesick girl entertaining? Seriously? This scene might have worked if there were at least several more girls on Rosalia's side and the girls who were on the side of America didn't have such an unfair advantage. This conflict goes nowhere else in the plot and it's just as well because we don't care as much about the Shark girls as we do the gang - it's their story, so why were they not originally written in this musical number? Plus, the lyrics, like the dialogue, were awkward, rushed, choppy, and pathetic. Not to mention that the Jets already dominate the story more than the Sharks even in the movie, and the way this scene is written in the stage show gives the Shark boys even less to do!

The lyrics in the movie's version of America were wittier and much more clever. It also makes much more sense because we know the Shark boys hate America in the stage show too. It doesn't force the situation by forcing Bernardo to leave before the song. It further develops the scene by having him stay, and actually letting him have a singing part. The show tells you that Bernardo is a lead role, and yet he doesn't sing once by himself - not one line for a solo. Not only that, but Bernardo is a much more one-dimensional character in the stage show - he doesn't even have the tenderness and love towards his sister, at least not at the same level. The part where they tease each other in the bridal shop and hug before the dance? Gone. In fact, he acts more possessive of Maria in the stage show rather than over-protective. The scene where he takes the time with her in her room to explain where he's coming from in a way he believes she will understand? Non-existent!

He didn't have that many lines at the beginning of the movie, but in the stage show's beginning he has even less lines, and none of them define his character. He doesn't mock Krupke by saying nothing is impossible in America, and he doesn't get to say his best line of all in that scene to Schrank (Would you mind translating that into Spanish?). Schrank just tells him and his gang to leave out of the blue after one of his tirades against the Jets and calls them trash, making Schrank even more of a racist douche, and this time more unprovoked because Bernardo doesn't act like a smart aleck to him. The character defining moments for Bernardo are even less throughout the whole stage show. The only line he was given in the stage show that outshines its parallel in the movie and really defines his character is what he says to Riff about shaking hands before the rumble. In the movie he just turns him down in a direct, no-nonsense way but in the stage show, he comes down hard and just blows the whole issue out of the water. He should have had more moments like that.

Another reason I wish directors could have more freedom about what they could change in the show is because you may have one or two movies based on a stage play, but that play will be performed hundreds, thousands, millions of times over with many different casts and people will be seeing that far more often. That fact does shows like West Side Story a huge disservice - the movie makes much more sense in terms of story, three of the songs are much better placed in the show, and one of the songs was given a complete 180 in the right direction - the movie perfected that song! (Among everything else.)

And that's why WSS shouldn't be remade. All the things the 1961 movie got right the remake is likely to mess it all up by making it like the inferior stage show. I don't care that Steven Spielberg is in charge. Even though he's known for making some real masterpieces, he's made some pretty bad movies too. (Also, like some people pointed out here, he has never directed a movie musical before.) I have no reason to believe that they won't go by the stage show this time - the one thing I might look forward to seeing is how they might do the Somewhere ballet onscreen.
 
Last edited:

StrongRex

Grip
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
24
Real Name
Daniel
I have no problem with remakes, as long as the originals are still available (which is usually the case). If a good director has an interesting take on a story that's already been filmed, it might be worth watching.

Also, I don't really consider the 1961 movie "close to perfect." It has a hell of a lot going for it. The dancing is among the best in cinema. And it has three great supporting performances: Russ Tamblyn, George Chakiris, and Rita Moreno.

But Natalie Wood is miscast, and Richard Beymer is absolutely horrible. If you're going to do Romeo and Juliet, you need a good Romeo and a good Juliet.

You can read my article on the film.

I totally agree with you that Natalie Wood was miscast. Same for Richard Beymer. He is said to have crawled under the seat when he first saw the film. He hated his performance. It was truly horrible .Let's face it, he never had much of a career. Whatever could has possessed Robert Wise to cast these two actors? The story may have been based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, but even he based his story on other similar stories that were common in his day. I am truly amazed at how many gullible people to-day still think that Romeo and Juliet was a true story. He just based his story on someone else's and made his characters older and set it in a different city. I saw this film when originally released several times on a huge 62 ft wide screen in 70mm. Luckily it was shown without an intermission as the Director insisted for it's Roadshow release.


You know...I hear a lot of people say that about Beymer, and I never hear any examples on why it was a bad performance. All I see are people just bashing him every chance they get, and it's gotten out of hand. I thought he was a great Tony and he inspired me to want to play the role myself. I was invested in this character, and I found Beymer's emotions and motivations convincing. To me, he is Tony.

Crawling under his seat? Really? What I heard was that he walked out of the premiere, but honestly, I think he's too hard on himself and other people are too hard on him. Even though I think Tony and Maria had great chemistry in the film, I'm sure Natalie Wood treating him with contempt on a regular basis was tough for Beymer to deal with and it may have affected his performance in some ways. I couldn't tell, though. Not to mention that Robert Wise wasn't too fond of Beymer and wanted someone else for the role (which for me begs the question, why didn't he just cast someone else?), and directed Beymer to play the role of Tony in a way he didn't agree with. Even Russ Tamblyn is quoted as saying that under the right circumstances, Beymer would have knocked the role out of the park (can't find said quote).

Also, I don't know why anyone would say Natalie Wood was horrible in the role. I think she gave one of the strongest performances in the movie, and the first time I saw it I had no idea she wasn't Puerto Rican or at least Hispanic.

I would agree that Wood and Beymer were miscast. But the fact remains that as written, both Tony and Maria are the least interesting characters in the show. Even when I saw the recent stage revival with better casting in the roles this was apparent.

I don't agree with that - I was very interested in their characters. And besides, this is their story.
 
Last edited:

Chelsearicky

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
158
Real Name
Richard Barrett-Olson
You know...I hear a lot of people say that about Beymer, and I never hear any examples on why it was a bad performance. All I see are people just bashing him every chance they get, and it's gotten out of hand. I thought he was a great Tony and he inspired me to want to play the role myself. I was invested in this character, and I found Beymer's emotions and motivations convincing. To me, he is Tony.

Crawling under his seat? Really? What I heard was that he walked out of the premiere, but honestly, I think he's too hard on himself and other people are too hard on him. Even though I think Tony and Maria had great chemistry in the film, I'm sure Natalie Wood treating him with contempt on a regular basis was tough for Beymer to deal with and it may have affected his performance in some ways. I couldn't tell, though. Not to mention that Robert Wise wasn't too fond of Beymer and wanted someone else for the role (which for me begs the question, why didn't he just cast someone else?), and directed Beymer to play the role of Tony in a way he didn't agree with. Even Russ Tamblyn is quoted as saying that under the right circumstances, Beymer would have knocked the role out of the park (can't find said quote).

Also, I don't know why anyone would say Natalie Wood was horrible in the role. I think she gave one of the strongest performances in the movie, and the first time I saw it I had no idea she wasn't Puerto Rican or at least Hispanic.



I don't agree with that - I was very interested in their characters. And besides, this is their story.
Wood received some of the best reviews of her career for her portrayal in ‘WSS’. In the NY press, only Pauline Kael attacked her ( as well as the film itself). The other critics were extremely complimentary.The British Film Institute published a critical analysis of Wood’s career a few years ago, and it addressed the revisionist ( and frequently bitchy) attacks on her casting.
 

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,443
Real Name
Jake Lipson
I don't have much against remakes in general - I think for the most part, they are unnecessary and cheapen the experience of the movie that got it right the first time around.

First of all, since this was your first post: welcome to the forum, Daniel!

Second, I fail to see how a remake "cheapens the experience of the movie that got it right the first time around." It's well-known around this board that my favorite movie of all time is Aladdin, and I did not remotely enjoy the remake that Disney put out earlier this summer at all. However, I put on my Blu-ray of the original last night and it was there the same as it always was. I enjoyed it just as much as I did before the remake came out. So how does the existence of the remake change the experience of the original film at all?
 

StrongRex

Grip
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
24
Real Name
Daniel
First of all, since this was your first post: welcome to the forum, Daniel!

Second, I fail to see how a remake "cheapens the experience of the movie that got it right the first time around." It's well-known around this board that my favorite movie of all time is Aladdin, and I did not remotely enjoy the remake that Disney put out earlier this summer at all. However, I put on my Blu-ray of the original last night and it was there the same as it always was. I enjoyed it just as much as I did before the remake came out. So how does the existence of the remake change the experience of the original film at all?

Thank you, Jake!

I actually did enjoy 2019 Aladdin more than I thought I would when I went and saw it. I thought it actually had some pretty unique takes on the material and it was actually pretty fun to watch. But it was still pretty unnecessary, and it didn't need to be made.

Like I said, I don't hate remakes like a lot of people seem to, but I do think they're unnecessary and Hollywood is better off remaking bad movies. But we all know they are not as likely to do that, even though there are great opportunities there.

When I say that remakes tend to cheapen the experience of watching the original movie, I just mean that the original doesn't feel as special anymore because now it's not as much its own thing, and if the remake wasn't good then it means that the people who made it didn't understand what made the original so great in the first place. Generally, I can forgive remakes if they present something good and unique to the material, but in a lot of cases they don't.

But if you read my analysis of the 1961 movie vs the stage show of West Side Story, then you know my main reason for not wanting it to be remade ever. I feel like when it came to story, Arthur Laurents, Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim completely screwed up and the screenwriter for the movie script succeeded and improved where they failed.

I don't have any reason to believe that Steven Spielberg would stick to the improvements the first movie made, and one of the reasons I think so is because one of the characters is named Diesel. Ice is missing from the cast list. And I think that a West Side Story movie that has Gee, Officer Krupke and Cool in the wrong places would be an awful movie. That's just how I feel about it.
 

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,443
Real Name
Jake Lipson
When I say that remakes tend to cheapen the experience of watching the original movie, I just mean that the original doesn't feel as special anymore because now it's not as much its own thing

I completely disagree with that. The original is completely unchanged by the existence of a remake.

West Side Story is itself a remake of Romeo and Juliet. Is Romeo and Juliet changed, or any less special, because West Side Story exists?

I feel like when it came to story, Arthur Laurents, Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim completely screwed up and the screenwriter for the movie script succeeded and improved where they failed.

So what? The original film will continue to exist and be enjoyed by generations to come. Its place in film history is absolutely secure. If the new film ends up being closer to the stage version, then people who like the stage version have an option that reflects it, and those who prefer the original will continue to be able to watch it.

There is also tremendous opportunity offered by the chance to do this again with an ethnic cast. Natalie Wood was many things, and she gave a great performance as Maria, but she was not a Latina. I'm not saying that we should dismiss the entire movie because of the way it was cast, since what they did in 1961 was in accordance with the customs of the time.

However, it is problematic to look at a movie about racial prejudice in which the only Latina character that it's okay for the main white character to fall in love with is actually played by a white woman in makeup. The fact that we now have a much more diverse cast playing roles that are written as diverse characters is absolutely a valid starting point for a new take on the material.

This doesn't erase the original film's achievement in any way or mean that we won't compare the two, because of course it is a towering motion picture and no one is going to forget it. But I do think representation is a good thing and a solid foundation upon which to build a new film.

I also think it's a little premature to speculate on what Spielberg is going to do because, apart from a cast list and a couple of set photos, we haven't seen much yet. If the new movie ends up being bad, I'll call it out for that, but for right now I'm going to reserve judgment.
 
Last edited:

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,523
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
When I say that remakes tend to cheapen the experience of watching the original movie, I just mean that the original doesn't feel as special anymore because now it's not as much its own thing, and if the remake wasn't good then it means that the people who made it didn't understand what made the original so great in the first place.
Perhaps to you that happens but thankfully not to the vast majority of classic movie fans.

No remake can lessen, or even strengthen, the original film. Original films always stand on their own. Good or bad.
 

StrongRex

Grip
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
24
Real Name
Daniel
Perhaps to you that happens but thankfully not to the vast majority of classic movie fans.

You know, your message could have done without that part. As if my opinion is wrong just because the "majority" thinks otherwise. I really don't care either way. My opinion is my own and I'm not going to change it just because other people don't like it.

By the way, does anyone know why this site doesn't let you edit out typing errors easily? I'm just trying to remove /quote at the end of my message, but every time I do, it adds it right back.
 
Last edited:

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,523
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
First you never said it was your opinion, it sounded as though you were stating it as though it was a fact.

And of course I’m not trying to change your opinion. You can believe whatever you want. I just don’t agree.

And welcome to the forum. ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,712
Messages
5,121,143
Members
144,147
Latest member
cennetkaralowa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top