reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/27/85)
As I see it, there are three major problems with the film
version of "A Chorus Line". First, before one foot of film was
exposed, before one person actually working on the movie was
paid, "A Chorus Line cost $10 million, due to a variety of unwise
deals made during past attempts to get this picture off the
ground. Second, the filmmakers had no faith in the original vi-
sion of the play. Third, the wrong director was chosen. There
are other minor problems with "A Chorus Line", but these three
caused the greatest difficulties.
When you go into pre-production on a film having spent $10
million, and you know that, generally speaking, a film must gross
two-and-one half times its negative costs before it shows a pro-
fit, then there is likely to be little enthusiasm for spending
big bucks. This film cost $20 million, but only $10 million of
that is on screen. Sounds like a lot of money, still, but $5
million is just about the minimum amount of money a studio can
make a film for nowadays. $10 million is an average budget. For
this kind of money, you have to shoot pretty fast.
Musicals are notorious for their costs. While "A Chorus
Line" doesn't require elaborate sets or costumes, the time and
effort required to produce really first class dance numbers
weren't possible under the film's budget. I suspect that this is
part of the reason that "A Chorus Line" rarely shows us an entire
dance number. They probably couldn't afford to shoot most of
them right, so only the best bits and pieces show up on the
screen, with cuts to the patched in story or reaction shots fil-
ling the gaps.
Which brings us to the second problem. David O. Selznick,
who was probably the most successful transcriber of good books
into good films, said that, when adapting a beloved work to a
film, the audience would understand if you had to leave things
out, but had little tolerance for things changed and less for
things added. Selznick should be required reading for those
lacking original ideas for screenplays. On stage, "A Chorus
Line" consisted of the revelations of several dancers auditioning
for a show. The scene never left the stage, the time never left
the present. "A Chorus Line" was about dancers and how they be-
came what they are, their problems, their joys. "A Chorus Line",
in film form, tries to keep this focus, but also introduces an
extraneous love story.
This love story was present in the musical, but was back-
ground, not foreground. In the film, we are constantly cutting
to footage concerning the romance, leaving a dancer on stage in
the middle of spilling his guts about his deepest fears and in-
securities. Since the love story is half-hearted, it cannot re-
place the intensity lost by cutting from the film's real busi-
ness. I constantly found myself wishing that they would get back
to the dancers. Particularly harmful is the reassignment of "A
Chorus Line's" big song, "What I Did For Love", from one of the
dancers to one of the principles in the love subplot, completely
losing the beauty of the song in the process.
Obviously, the screenwriters had no faith in the concept of
focussing for two solid hours on the men and women on stage.
Ironically, whenever the film does focus on them, it works.
Whenever it leaves, it falls like a souffle in a kitchen next
door to the jackhammer operators' convention. If the screenwrit-
ers had only had faith...
Richard Attenborough was not a good choice to direct. He's
English, of course, and the concept of a Broadway chorus line is
definitely not English. More importantly, though, Attenborough
has a peculiar directorial talent. The more people he crams in a
shot, the better he does with it. In "Gandhi", in the funeral
scene, he had literally hundreds of thousands of extras, and his
handling of it is magnificent. But give him two actors and a
love scene, and he has no interesting ideas at all. "A Chorus
Line" worked by focussing on individuals, one at a time. Since
Attenborough has but little idea what to do with them, particu-
larly in a confined and not very interesting set, he rarely gets
the emotional values present in a scene. Give him several dozen
dancers kicking in unison, and Attenborough's not bad at all.
Give him one desperate actor revealing his innermost secrets and
Attenborough is boring.
This puts him at odds with Jeffrey Hornaday, the choreogra-
pher for the film. Hornaday, who choreographed "Flashdance", has
a way with one dancer, but is woefully lacking in imagination
when it comes to ensembles. Thus, Attenborough gives us poorly
conceived shots of fine solos and dazzling shots of mediocre
group work.
None of the actors stand out, as actors, and only Gregg
Burge stands out as a dancer, in a new number called "Surprise!
Surprise!" Michael Douglas is typically phlegmatic as Zack, the
director of the show, which would have been OK if he hadn't been
required to hold up half of the love story, as well. Alyson Reed
does nothing worthy of note as Cassie, a part which made Donna
McKechnie a star on the basis of a single number. She isn't very
pretty, she can't act very well, and she isn't an exciting danc-
er. Though the part has been considerably expanded, it certainly
won't make Reed a star. The rest of the chorus line is filled
with pretty boys and pretty girls who we don't really get to
know.
"A Chorus Line" is about one-third good. The best scenes
are in the opening sequences, where masses of dancers are being
auditioned. There are a few moments of flash elsewhere, but not
enough to save the film. Those who haven't seen the stage ver-
sion are likely to be more kind with the film than those who
have, as its only real crime is that it isn't anywhere near as
good as its source. In these days of such paucity of good ma-
terial, however, that's a pretty serious offense.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher