West Side Story

Liam Hall

Liam Hall

Veteran
I've just seen the trailer and an interview with Steven Spielberg as part of the publicity for the upcoming release of West Side Story:

In the interview he said the original film still has so much relevance today as it did all those years ago.

So, I have two questions; WHY and WHY?

WHY remake a classic?

WHY make it look the same?
 
He doesn't need the coin.

The other thing that stuck out at me in the presser was making a big deal over "authentic casting". It's acting. You are all just pretending. There is nothing authentic going on. Nothing.
 
Liam Hall said:
He doesn't need the coin.

The other thing that stuck out at me in the presser was making a big deal over "authentic casting". It's acting. You are all just pretending. There is nothing authentic going on. Nothing.
Click to expand...

For some reason that reminds me of the key & peele sketch where 2 actors play out a gangster scene. One is a real-life hoodlum who gets criticized for his authenticity. The other is a preppy Oxford graduate whom the director praises in contrast


not sure what's going on with the west side story casting. I think it's wrong and harmful to exclude casting actors from minority populations. But I don't think you need to be the exact ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation/height/weight/hand dominance/etc as someone else in order to understand their perspective and represent them theatrically
 
Last edited:
You're probably right Doug in terms of the $$.

I know it's been well received but it seems an odd choice and execution to me.
 
Liam Hall said:
I've just seen the trailer and an interview with Steven Spielberg as part of the publicity for the upcoming release of West Side Story:

In the interview he said the original film still has so much relevance today as it did all those years ago.

So, I have two questions; WHY and WHY?

WHY remake a classic?

WHY make it look the same?
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting question. That piece comes from a genre that ASSUMES (historically, at least) that you will do it over and over again, with different performers, directors, stage design, etc.

That's the nature of theatre, of musical theatre, of opera, operetta, ballet scores and choreography, all of "classical" music, also jazz, and many other genres.

Film is a bit different only because it's young. Young enough that each creation is both the definitive content and the definitive execution, for better or worse. This will change with time. It has to a certain extent already, but will change a lot more over time.

West Side Story, this "classic," is not born of film, and I'd argue that even film is a perfectly legitimate genre for remakes.

In opera, theatre, musical theatre, these things are not considered remakes. They are interpretations of a creation. In fact, even if a remake is done much more poorly than the first version of something, it helps further shed light on the original creation, if nothing else because it highlights with more data points what the original had achieved and what the original IS, versus its interpretation.

If Shakespeare's plays were captured in some medium for all time, with every nuance of the performance etched in the record, should theatres stop performing Shakespeare? Should actors stop learning and trying to perfect those roles? Should future interpretation only do live readings and not also capture their performers for the record, in print?

West Side story is a masterpiece, and yes, the original was led by some absolute titans. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done again.

None of this is an endorsement of what is being done by Spielberg and company from a quality standpoint, just my view on our relationship to masterpieces: Namely, they should be explored and re-explored, and reinterpreted specifically BECAUSE they are masterpieces (at the content level, not just execution).
 
ozmorphasis said:
This is a very interesting question. That piece comes from a genre that ASSUMES (historically, at least) that you will do it over and over again, with different performers, directors, stage design, etc.

That's the nature of theatre, of musical theatre, of opera, operetta, ballet scores and choreography, all of "classical" music, also jazz, and many other genres.

Film is a bit different only because it's young. Young enough that each creation is both the definitive content and the definitive execution, for better or worse. This will change with time. It already has to a certain extent, but will change a lot more over time for this simple reason that creators get inspired by existing material and want to get their hands in it. Yes, for a studio, it's also a money making opportunity, but again, historically their is a long record of people doing it for other reasons as well, especially the people involved with the actual content vs those financing the project.

West Side Story, this "classic," is not born of film, and I'd argue that even film is a perfectly legitimate genre for remakes.

In opera, theatre, musical theatre, these things are not considered remakes. They are interpretations of a creation. In fact, even if a remake is done much more poorly than the first version of something, it helps further shed light on the original creation, if nothing else because it highlights with more data points what the original had achieved and what the original IS, versus its interpretation.

If Shakespeare's plays were captured back in the day in some medium for all time, with every nuance of the performance etched in the record, should theatres stop performing Shakespeare? Should actors stop learning and trying to perfect those roles? Should future interpretation only do live readings and not also capture their performers for the record, in print?

West Side story is a masterpiece, and yes, the original was led by some absolute titans. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done again.

None of this is an endorsement of what is being done by Spielberg and company from a quality standpoint, just my view on our relationship to masterpieces: Namely, they should be explored and re-explored, and reinterpreted specifically BECAUSE they are masterpieces (at the content level, not just execution).
Click to expand...
 
In terms of "authentic" casting, what Spielberg is referring to is that many of the leading Puerto Rican characters in the 1961 version are not played by Puerto Rican actors, except for Rita Moreno. Many aren't even Latin but white actors in brownface (Natalie Wood, George Chakris). Rachel Zeigler's Maria in Spielberg's version is half Columbian, half Polish though, which takes some of the bite out of his 'authenticity' claim, although at least she looks Puerto Rican.
 
Imagine if Martine Scorcese remade ET and shot it in the same style as the original so the two movies were almost indistinguishable and the only feature of note was his claim of 'authentic casting' where he used an actual alien to play ET despite the actual alien not being alien at all?
 
ahalpert said:
For some reason that reminds me of the key & peele sketch where 2 actors play out a gangster scene. One is a real-life hoodlum who gets criticized for his authenticity. The other is a preppy Oxford graduate whom the director praises in contrast


not sure what's going on with the west side story casting. I think it's wrong and harmful to exclude casting actors from minority populations. But I don't think you need to be the exact ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation/height/weight/hand dominance/etc as someone else in order to understand their perspective and represent them theatrically
Click to expand...

That's hilarious.
 
Liam Hall said:
Imagine if Martine Scorcese remade ET and shot it in the same style as the original so the two movies were almost indistinguishable and the only feature of note was his claim of 'authentic casting' where he used an actual alien to play ET despite the actual alien not being alien at all?
Click to expand...

I'll wait until they recast the Muppets.
 
Liam Hall said:
Imagine if Martine Scorcese remade ET and shot it in the same style as the original so the two movies were almost indistinguishable and the only feature of note was his claim of 'authentic casting' where he used an actual alien to play ET despite the actual alien not being alien at all?
Click to expand...

This is a dumb comment. Aliens like ET don’t exist (as far as we know). Puerto Ricans do. And if aliens actually do exist and Martin Scorsese were to put one in a movie, YOU’RE GODDAMN RIGHT I WOULD WATCH THAT!
 
Batutta said:
In terms of "authentic" casting, what Spielberg is referring to is that many of the leading Puerto Rican characters in the 1961 version are not played by Puerto Rican actors, except for Rita Moreno. Many aren't even Latin but white actors in brownface (Natalie Wood, George Chakris).
Click to expand...

I saw an interview with Rita Moreno where she said that even she was in brownface because they made her several shades darker with makeup than she really is.
The original was an awful film and I'm sure the remake is even worse. I won't be watching.
 
Liam Hall said:
Rachel Zeigler is not Puerto Rican.
Click to expand...

I already made that point. What's yours? To be more accurate than your analogy was, imagine Spike Lee had directed Goodfellas in 1990, and instead of Italian-Americans, he cast all the leads with Black actors wearing white makeup and doing bad New York Italian accents.
 
I think there's a tangible positive in terms of elevating the careers of Hispanic actors. I think you probably also empower the audience that identifies demographically. Look what happened with Black Panther. Granted that that was about a literal superhero. But there were people buying tickets for whole classes of schoolchildren to go so they could see someone who looked like them save the world.

Its also great that they hired an up and coming Hispanic director to helm the project

But otherwise I kind of agree with Liam that "authenticity" is kind of a joke in terms of same-race casting, which this doesn't even achieve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top