Was "A Chorus Line" overrated?

Yes.

Unfortunately the lousy movie sort of killed the play.

(Dance 10 looks 3 is a good tune)

Hugely overated . The choreography is unnatural. The show is overwrought.

Tits! When will I get my tits?!

I agree that the lousy movie did the show no favors, but it was a landmark musical. The storyline and structure were new, and the score was fresh and exciting. OP may think there were only two good songs, but the score was full of great stuff. "At the Ballet," "The Music and the Mirror," and the whole "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen" montage for example. Not to mention fantastic choreography and dancing. It was right for its time.

Thank you, R5.

I don't disagree, r5, but I stand by my post at r3

And reasonable people may differ, R7. : )

I always think back to the second Tales of the City miniseries, when Mary Ann is extolling the virtues of the show to Burke, and he doesn't have a clue what she's talking about...

Found this old thread.

Yes. It’s more fun to watch the actual Bob in one of his movies or tv.

Interesting, r9. That video is a preview.

Who's Bob?

R12, your gay card has been revoked.

It was not the first musical to have a gay character, but the first one to give that gay character quite a lengthy time on stage and directly talking about being gay. Paul's monologue is kinda the "coming out" moment of gay men in Broadway musical theatre, and for that alone it's an iconic show.

One thing that does hurt the show in revivals is that its very dated by now. That score is very much of the 1970s in its whole sound. It's kinda stuck back in 1976. That's the problem with revivals when they don't reinvent the shows for a new audience, they don't do well.

As Fosse said (approximately,) re ‘All That Jazz’ opening; ‘I’m going to do in 5 minutes what takes Michael Bennett 3 hours’

R4 LOL! The actual lyric is: "Tits! When am I gonna grow tits?"

Yes and no.

R14 Sammy Williams and company already played gay in Applause with DL Goddess Bonnie Franklin.

The original staging and especially lighting were brilliant. Audiences will still go to period pieces (Stereophonic), but not in the numbers needed to support a Broadway musical. The largest problem is that actor training programs crank out students who have techniqued and polished away their uniqueness and authenticity. Fakey performances won’t work with this type of theater.

NO!

Brilliant, landmark.

It's of its time. Its time has passed.

Its the first Broadway show I remember being advertised heavily on tv. As a young gayling I was intrigued and dying to see it.

The biggest song, What I Did for Love, should answer the question, OP. Mediocre song at best.

The show was of its time and was NOT overrated. It just didn’t age well.

I think the movie gets a bad reputation. Some of the supporting performances are great (Vicki Frederick is a first-rate Sheila) and Surprise, Suprise was a great addition.

But I agree the movie plods along in spots. Alyson Reed perhaps wasn't the best choice for Cassie as well. I always thought Attenborough should have gone with more of a big music star of that moment, like an Olivia, Sheena or Melissa Manchester. But I like Michael Douglas, Terrance Mann and Sharon Brown

Fosse said he would have directed ACL the movie if he had been asked. He was BO poison after Star 80. It's not just that the movie was financial flop, people really hated it. The movie also needed something like the Flashdance song for Cassie's number.

Vicki Frederick said that people always went up to Fosse and told him that his show ACL was their favorite Broadway show of all time and it infuriated him.. He would have done the movie just to even the score.

I saw it three times and loved it each time when it was new and, as mentioned upthread, really unlike what had been done before. It is/was much like "Oklahoma!" in the 1940s. Yes, it's dated, and some songs can be clunkers by today's standards. But "I Can Do That!," and "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen" are wonderfully theatrical. "At the Ballet" is beautifully presented and acted. The finale of "One" was really thrilling.

There's a YouTube of Barishnikov doing the number.

One reason it may have been so big that I thought of was that it was coming at a time when the Broadway musical was really thought to be dying (this was before the hugely successful spectacular Lloyd Webber and Schönberg musicals of the 1980s), and it championed the work that singers and dancers in musicals actually do. I think people who worked on Broadway or who really loved Broadway musicals kept coming back to this for that reason. (In fact, many of the most beloved of all Broadway musicals are themselves about show business: Gypsy, Follies...)

It is funny that much of the ideas about the sacrifices people make for Broadway careers were also interpolated into "Applause" six years earlier, but much less successfully. When the Bonnie Franklin character talks about how hard it is to make it in musicals and the sacrifices dancers have to make at the beginning of that show's title number, she seems like she's just bitching rather than really going through suffering (of course, part of the reason for that is that Bonnie Franklin ALWAYS seemed like she was just bitching no matter what she did). Also, "Applause" focuses mostly on middle-aged characters, with the younger dancer and hairdresser characters only at the margins, while everyone in "A Chorus Line" (except Cassie and the rarely seen Zach) are young people, which made the 1976 show seem much fresher and more relevant.

The only thing overrated about it has been generations of b-class theater dancers weeping over how it tells "their story" as they embark on their 20th production of it.

It was fresh and new. Now...it isn't.

No one sings my tenderest love songs quite like Ethel Merman...

A Chorus Line remains a unique and brilliant show.

The change is in the gawdawful tastes of the young philistines creating and seeing musicals today. After years of garbage like Les Mis and Phantom audiences are delighted where drivel like RENT and Six and most sung-through musicals today with their ridiculous casting and gender dysphoric "representation" are the sole enticements. The triumph of the emo-feel bad flop Merrily We Roll Along as some new revelation was very telling. Other than the bad new set it was really no different at all from the failed original.

Every decade brings something truly wonderful like Hamilton, but mostly it's just Some Like it Hot, Suffs, and BOOP!

It has aged much worse than many of the musicals from Broadway's Golden Age. Whereas they can still seem fresh, ACL seems very dated, and it's been much harder to revive.

[quote] The triumph of the emo-feel bad flop Merrily We Roll Along as some new revelation was very telling. Other than the bad new set it was really no different at all from the failed original.

So true. Other than a completely revised script. And a substantially revised score. And the casting of experienced actors. And not opening cold on Broadway. And also winning four Tonys and getting across the board rave reviews versus winning no Tonys and receiving across the board pans.

Identical.

[Quote] Pultizer Prize winning lyrics!

Be fair. The cheesiest lines don’t define all. There are many brilliant songs in the show. When Paul suffers his injury, “What I Did For Love” never fails to move me, and I’ve heard it a million times.

The gold outfits in One are completely outdated in today’s environment. Even Vegas moved on from such kitsch.

The ending should have them wearing more sophisticated clothing. And maybe One could have more of a modern beat to it.

I first saw ACL two years into its original run and many, many times afterwards. I still think it's a masterpiece but the stinky revival and, as mentioned above, the movie tarnished it's reputation.

[quote]The ending should have them wearing more sophisticated clothing.

Like what, pray tell?

[quote]Every decade brings something truly wonderful like Hamilton

BWAH HAHAHAHA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shows that were set contemporaneously to their Broadway productions often have a hard time in revival -as opposed to shows that were set in the past or were simply not set in the real world. Look at how differently The King and I and Flower Drum Song fare. Both are stories about Asian people, with strong scores by Rodgers and Hammerstein. But the attempt to deal with "modern" issues in FDS dated almost while the show was running. We judge the show's view of the present with expert eyes, whereas few of us know enough about the history of Thailand and King Mongkut to make an informed judgment. Of course the setting is only one aspect of a show, but I think it holds as a truism: "contemporary" shows date quickly and are hard to revive successfully.

R33, 1975 was not the Golden Age.

This show was an explosion in my life. I saw it on the eve of my 14th birthday and … I still remember that. I don’t care if it’s dated. So are black and white movies, but Casablanca and Psycho are still classics. So is ACL.

So, no.

A fiftieth anniversary revival for this season (2025-26) has been in the planning stages for a couple of years now. They did have a concert performance about two months ago, and an announcement was anticipated - but so far, nothing.

R43. They should do a 50th anniversary tour and make Broadway the last stop for a limited run.

They launched a new tour after the movie was released and it came town so we went. The actor who played Bobby in the movie reprised his role for the tour. The show was old and tired but was still watchable.

So, Datalounge..What have you done for LOVE? I never saw ACL on Broadway, too young. Saw the revival.

BTW-It's a great fucking song,

I remember seeing a tour production when it came through my city in the 90s. It was very well done. I think it was the twentieth anniversary tour - so it had to be the 1995-96 season.

Not in the least overrated. Groundbreaking and brilliant on many levels. The first mega hit musical.

I saw it near the end of its run, which may be part of why I disliked it. Not much energy which made it easy to see how predictable it was. Paul’s speech was something you could see a mile away and by then it was hardly groundbreaking. The play was notable for its minimalism and providing something resembling a contemporary musical. At its base, though, it’s an old chestnut, the backstage musical, but without the wit of that genre.

I still have 'One' on my Youtube playlist. I have trouble imagining them re-staging the show, though.

[quote]The first mega hit musical.

What??

Not overrated but, energy and urgency of the original productions and perhaps the early national tours are impossible to recreate now. One of the things that made the show so compelling in 1975, was the behind the curtain expose of the Broadway Gypsy life, it's risks and rewards and what people do to get and stay at that level. In a macro sense the show was about anyone who ever had to put themselves on the line to get a job. Things that have now been explored to exhaustion on film and television and so there is no real revelation.

The characterizations are also dated, so you'd have to do it as a period piece and Sammy's monologue is not the least bit shocking and won't resonate the way it did 50 years ago It's also true that the original cast was magic, there was just something about that group of people.

So not overrated, but not easy to revive

The film:

Since "One" is a parody of a big show stopping Jerry Herman style number, I would have opened the movie with Carol Channing on the Tonight Show telling Johnny Carson about her new musical in the works.

And I would have ended the movie with her entering to massive applause and a standing ovation at the number's end.

To me, the show needed that context.

[quote] [R33], 1975 was not the Golden Age.

I didn't actually say it was. My meaning was to contrast it with musicals from the Golden Age. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Most Sir Richard Attenborough movies, including "Gandhi," would be greatly improved if they were introduced by Carol Channing and concluded with her getting a rousing standing ovation.

I remembering seeing the movie when it came out, and seeing it again on HBO when it aired a few years after - but I honestly don't recall anything from the movie. I do remember parts of the stage musical better. About a year ago I found the DVD in Walmart for around $5. I bought it thinking I could watch it again on a Sunday afternoon - I still haven't taken the shrink wrap off of it.

Saw the original production downtown, at The Public Theater, prior to the broadway run. Stunning….as in I was stunned. Wonderful concept, beautifully executed. And, as was said in an earlier post, brilliantly lit. I have never thought much of Marvin Hamlisch’s music when performed out of context, but somehow it works in his shows.

[quote]Most Sir Richard Attenborough movies, including "Gandhi," would be greatly improved if they were introduced by Carol Channing and concluded with her getting a rousing standing ovation.

To think they made a movie about that deadbeat Gandhi, when there's a story like this that hasn't been told.

Never in a million years did I imagine Carol Channing as the star of the show the characters are auditioning for in "A Chorus Line."

I always assumed it would be someone more dignified, like Lauren Bacall or Mary Martin.

Brilliant show!,

No one did dignity better than Carol!

Maybe ten, fifteen years ago, Baayork Lee (the original Connie and the show’s original dance captain) directed a production at the Hollywood Bowl.

I’ve only seen clips, but it looked quite good. Mario Lopez (of all people) played Zach, and he was quite good. He actually leaned into the queerness.

It’s the kind of show that can only work on stage.

r34, I saw both the original and the revival and all the tinkering did nothing to change anything.

Getting rid of Rich & Happy to accommodate the excruciating That's Frank, number I'd say it made act one much worse. We still have Beth, a character we barely know sing the show's best song which remains a swing and a miss dramatically.

Making the the role of Gussy noticeably larger so the show could cover its ass and have a black actress play her (and sing her one bad song twice) also made no real difference, nor did adding a child actor and a set that looked like an abandoned Sears.

The strength of the wonderful score remained as did the failure of the implausible friendship of three hard to like characters. What really changed was people today appreciate an emo feel-bad show and don't seem to notice how these characters would never be friends in real life.

Tinkering with unimportant details gave them some cover, but really, they simply played a flop like the biggest smash ever and turned a turkey into a hit.

R63 let's face it, the *real* reason that MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG revival was a huge hit was because of Daniel Radcliffe ("Harry Potter") and Jonathan Groff's ("Frozen") combined star power, which drew in the audiences.

Groff alone has made the current JUST IN TIME a Broadway smash.

[quote]1975 was not the Golden Age.

I thought that term included up to the mid-late 1970s to include Chicago and Annie. Basically before the British invasion, but a google search says up to 1964 meaning Fiddler and Hello Dolly being the last of that era.

I grew up listening to it and dancing it in my living room, yes, I'm a homo

I remember reading that Oliver! was the first British musical to transfer successfully to Broadway in the early '60s.

Afterward, it took over a decade for another one when Evita transferred in the late '70s.

Jesus Christ Superstar was in between the two in the early '70s, but that was first staged on Broadway and then crossed over to London.

After Evita, came the '80s run of back-to-back hits (Cats, Phantom, Les Miz, Miss Saigon) but then what came afterward?

I know sunset Boulevard flopped in the '90s.

More recently, the hits coming from London have been revived American musicals that have transferred.

r67, what has prompted this bizarre line of thinking which has nothing to do with "A Chorus Line"?

[quote] I remember reading that Oliver! was the first British musical to transfer successfully to Broadway in the early '60s.

R67 Before that was The Boy Friend, in the 1950s. (w/ Julie Andrews.)

R68 I was responding to R65, specifically about the '80s British invasion.

Since I don't really follow musical theater, I was asking if the Brits have since created another hit musical on Broadway that wasn't merely a revisal of an American musical like the recent Company and Merrily We Go Along.

R69 thanks for the correction.

"ONE" by Marvin Hamlisch in the White House, 1988

This may seem like an obvious question, but unless you actually had the experience of seeing it, in its original form, how can you know if it was overrated or not?

The movie is DOA. Moribund. Airless, in the way the Rent movie is but much worse.

It feels as if they used the creative team from an '80 perfume commercial to make A Chorus Line. The original play had '70s dirty NYC grit. The movies felt like pure '80s gloss.

THAT woman wrote Let me DANCE for You. I'm not at all surprised.

"A Chorus Line" was a big smash hit the way "Jaws" was a summer blockbuster. Also, it was a hit with out of town tourists in NYC and this helped the city recover from a very bad late 70s malaise.

R72, there are a few video tapes of the original cast performing the show off Broadway and on Broadway. It was around 1975-76, so there are some of us who did actually see the original cast on Broadway.

I hate the term "over-rated. It's like, who the fuck a you to make that judgement? You know better than everyone else because... why?

Saying "I don't get it" "not my thing" "I can't see it" are all fine. But over-rated just makes you sound ridiculous.

A Chorus Line is rated correctly.

I saw it before Broadway, r76. I had just moved to New York, and my roommate, an actor, had an extra ticket at the last minute. I had no idea it was going to be this huge cultural touchstone, particularly among the gay community. It wasn't overrated at all. I loved every minute of it, and it gave me a lasting appreciation for people we categorize as "talent," which is such a big thing if you're gay in New York and it's 1975.

R76 I doubt everyone giving their opinion saw it.

Even in retrospect, A Chorus Line was not overrated.

Rent was overrated!

I saw ACL twice in January 1976. I saw it several more times with replacement casts on Broadway and on tour. I have to say it is definitely a case of diminishing returns. The show never lived up to its reputation when the OC cast left.

ALW = overrated ACL = perfect