West Side Story

[Liam Hall]

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.

Calm down. Where has anyone in this thread suggested blackface is in anyway acceptable??

I'm arguing semantics - and doing that with my tongue firmly in my cheek. Don't take it so seriously....

Acting is acting. It can't by definition be 'authentic' because it is acting. They are just pretending and pretence is the opposite of authenticity.

 

[DLD]

... 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.

The Godfather had James Caan as Sonny Corleone, Abe Vigoda as Sal Tessio and Alex Rocco as Moe Green, yet no one went verklempt over the casting choices.

Goodfellas had other ethnic difference in Loraine Bracco not being Karen Friedman and Ray Liotta (likely) not being Henry Hill. But, at least, Henny Youngman was Henny Youngman, so you can safely rent the DVD of the film.

 

[Batutta]

The Godfather had James Caan as Sonny Corleone, Abe Vigoda as Sal Tessio and Alex Rocco as Moe Green, yet no one went verklempt over the casting choices.

Goodfellas had other ethnic difference in Loraine Bracco not being Karen Friedman and Ray Liotta (likely) not being Henry Hill. But, at least, Henny Youngman was Henny Youngman, so you can safely rent the DVD of the film.

There are ethnic differences in casting, and then there’s painting people different colors to avoid giving brown people starring roles. You can’t compare the two because historically Hispanic actors have rarely been given opportunities to have starring roles in big studio productions. The point of my analogy was to point out how absurd the original casting of West Side Story would look to a Hispanic/Afro Latino person, as absurd as painting black actors in whiteface to try and make them pass. I am an Afro Latino descended from that part of the world. But to put things back on track, Liam’s point I suppose is that ‘authentic casting’ is the only thing separating this version from the previous one and doesn’t think that makes it worth doing. As a member of an underrepresented group I would strongly disagree. Also, as others have mentioned, musicals are always restaged and updated for new eras so I think it’s perfectly valid to do so.

 

[DLD]

... There are ethnic differences in casting, and then there’s painting people different colors to avoid giving brown people starring roles. You can’t compare the two because historically Hispanic actors have rarely been given opportunities to have starring roles in big studio productions..

The film industry is not about"giving opportunity". It's about making mo' money.

 

[CharlesPapert]

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

Colin Hanks did a great improv run in there, they cut away from him at the end of his line but you can see him just start to break. Start at 2:59 (to appreciate the name on the slate, wink wink) and let it run 15 seconds.

 

[Batutta]

The film industry is not about"giving opportunity". It's about making mo' money.

I didn't know the film industry wanted to make money. Thanks for the insight...Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. It's not even about opportunity or money, it's about making the art better. There were thousands of gangster movies before The Godfather and Goodfellas. Part of the reason those became two of the best, and best regarded movies in cinema history is because they were made by Italian-American writers and directors who could infuse it with authenticity. That wasn't an accident. The studio didn't want Francis to direct that movie. He hadn't made much money for anyone yet or had many distinguished directing credits. Producer Robert Evans took a stand for him. He believed in his talent, and hired him because he said he wanted to 'smell the spaghetti'. If it was a purely financial decision I doubt he would have gotten the job. Same with Al Pacino. The studio didn't want him. If it was up to them they would have cast Robert Redford. He only got that job because Francis wanted an Italian-American in the part, fought the studio and gave him the 'opportunity'. It made him a star.

 

[Liam Hall]

There are ethnic differences in casting, and then there’s painting people different colors to avoid giving brown people starring roles. You can’t compare the two because historically Hispanic actors have rarely been given opportunities to have starring roles in big studio productions. The point of my analogy was to point out how absurd the original casting of West Side Story would look to a Hispanic/Afro Latino person, as absurd as painting black actors in whiteface to try and make them pass. I am an Afro Latino descended from that part of the world. But to put things back on track, Liam’s point I suppose is that ‘authentic casting’ is the only thing separating this version from the previous one and doesn’t think that makes it worth doing. As a member of an underrepresented group I would strongly disagree. Also, as others have mentioned, musicals are always restaged and updated for new eras so I think it’s perfectly valid to do so.

Fair points. Of course, the original casting was absurd. Most Hollywood movies of that era had absurd casting. And we're not doing much better today. The movie business and the wider industry needs to do better in terms of diversity both in front of the camera and behind.

You are mainly talking about whitewashing, which I agree is wrong. My point is that I didn't think the casting was particularly authentic in the first place and I don't think authenticity is particularly important as long as the actors are believable. I get your point about righting a past wrong though - as I said, I'm mostly arguing semantics, so will shut up now... . ... Anyway, I'm told by someone who saw the film today that Rachel Ziegler is the best thing in the movie, so good for her.

 

[DLD]

I didn't know the film industry wanted to make money. Thanks for the insight...Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. It's not even about opportunity or money, it's about making the art better. There were thousands of gangster movies before The Godfather and Goodfellas. Part of the reason those became two of the best, and best regarded movies in cinema history is because they were made by Italian-American writers and directors who could infuse it with authenticity. That wasn't an accident. The studio didn't want Francis to direct that movie. He hadn't made much money for anyone yet or had many distinguished directing credits. Producer Robert Evans took a stand for him. He believed in his talent, and hired him because he said he wanted to 'smell the spaghetti'. If it was a purely financial decision I doubt he would have gotten the job. Same with Al Pacino. The studio didn't want him. If it was up to them they would have cast Robert Redford. He only got that job because Francis fought for him and gave him the 'opportunity'. It made him a star.

FFC had an ample resume before Godfather, including the Best Original Screenplay award for "Patton" and, as I had mentioned, he got an American Italian guy (Rocco) to play a Jewish mobster and he got his Jewish guys (Caan and Vigoda) to play the Italians. By then, Coppola had enough of a pedigree to insist on his choices. That's because he was a proven commodity. His opportunities came in the early-mid 1960's and followed a fairly typical format. They took place at a lower level. And that's how it works in Hollywood. You begin by directing the low budget riffraff or playing supporting roles or working as a cinematographer. That's where you earn your bones. The high profile jobs are recognition for the past achievements. And, if you fluff your lines, you're going back down the ladder of success. Maybe you'll climb back to the top again. Maybe you won't. The top, as the line goes, is quite lonely.

And Spielberg earned his rep on the "Duel" and numerous TV episodes. After "Jaws", if he wanted to do an authentic recast of "Fiddler on the Roof", he'd get Orthodox actors and have them perform in Yiddish. Or maybe he'd cast Laurence Olivier in the main role without even asking if Lord Larry had a bris. And he's allowed to make a mistake once in a while too. Like working for Quibi. Or remaking "The Westside Story" in the age of rap.

 

[paulears]

The TV, movie and theatre industry is trying really hard at diversity. I'm in that business and you can see the change. It's a good thing. Some movie versions of shows are truly dire - Les Mis and Cats, for example - but West Side Story is a very important production. It's the same plot as one of Shakespears very famous plays, and in this, the quality of every element is really good. The singing, choreography and attention to detail seems to be drawing praise from people in the industry - a kind of gold standard production. I won't go and see it. I hated Romeo and Juliet, and I didn't like West Side Story, although the music is wonderful. It's the one musical I once played in the pit and had to really work very hard - Bernstein's music is complex clever and damn hard. It's not for everyone - I won't see it, but an awful lot will. The story is internal. The casting seems to be very accurate and the sets and real dressed locations stunning. It will make money - lots of it. Unlike the dire ones!

 

[Batutta]

FFC had an ample resume before Godfather, including the Best Original Screenplay award for "Patton" and, as I had mentioned, he got an American Italian guy (Rocco) to play a Jewish mobster and he got his Jewish guys (Caan and Vigoda) to play the Italians. By then, Coppola had enough of a pedigree to insist on his choices. That's because he was a proven commodity.

He was not a proven commodity as a director at all for the studios at that time. The last movie he directed was a flop. The studio did not want him, only Robert Evans did because Paramount's last mafia movie did poorly, which he credited to having no creative personnel of Italian descent. They first offered it to Sergio Leone. He turned it down so they offered it to like a dozen non Italian directors before Francis. Obviously Francis wan't a noob without a clue, he proved he had some talents, but his resume as a director was not ample at that time. He also had to make some casting compromises. He was basically forced to cast James Caan, because that's who the studio wanted for Michael. Sonny originally went to an Italian actor. Francis wouldn't budge on Al, and he was eventually allowed to cast him as long as Caan was cast as Sonny. My point here is that history proves what happens when you strive for cultural authenticity in your art, and Hollywood has given chances to less proven talent before. Obviously they have to have talent and embody the role. But you have to go looking first. You don't just offer the role to the biggest name you can find regardless if they are right for the part and stop there. That just doesn't cut it anymore. You don't make Exodus & Kings with the two whitest actors on earth just because it's easier when we know that does not reflect history at all. If that means the movie doesn't get made, then don't make it. We already have The Ten Commandments. Spielberg is to be commended for taking a chance on newcomer Rachel Ziegler who, even if not specifically Puerto Rican is at least Latin and looks right, when he could have given the part to like Anne Hathaway if all he cared about was box office.

 

[Batutta]

I will confess, setting aside the casting I really do enjoy the 1961 West Side Story. I saw it in 70mm at the Cinerama Dome and it was pretty amazing to see it that way. The directing, camera work, music and choreography are all pretty great to experience on a massive screen. I look forward to seeing this version although sad that it probably won't be in a theater.

 

[ahalpert]

I will confess, setting aside the casting I really do enjoy the 1961 West Side Story. .

There's usually SOMETHING you have to set aside to enjoy a work more than a decade or 3 old... I'm rewatching star trek TOS and dang that's a show full of gender stereotypes and sexism

 

[Batutta]

There's usually SOMETHING you have to set aside to enjoy a work more than a decade or 3 old... I'm rewatching star trek TOS and dang that's a show full of gender stereotypes and sexism

And that show was pretty 'woke' for its era. Minorities in featured roles. First interracial kiss on tv.

 

[ahalpert]

And that show was pretty 'woke' for its era. Minorities in featured roles. First interracial kiss on tv.

Well, you can be progressive in one way and not in another. In terms of diversity of casting, it would be criticized if made today because there are so many white actors. But its inclusivity was way ahead of its time, of course. And Black people, Indians, some Asians played characters of power, importance, intellect. A+ in that regard IMO

Women also featured prominently in respectable roles. The first officer in the original pilot was female, which may have been a bridge too far. In TOS, the same actress is demoted to a nurse. The show was generally women's lib. But on top of the miniskirts, it seems that literally every female character harbors a deep, overriding desire to be beautiful and wanted. (The corollary is that all men are overwhelmed by female beauty.) And the women universally admire strongmen, even rapists.

Homosexuality isn't even on long-range sensors. Megalomaniacal supercomputers are far more plausible and commonplace in the TOS galaxy than gay relationships. In fact, I don't think there are any explicitly queer characters, at least not prominent ones, in any of the Trek series up through the '90s and beyond. It wasn't until the currently-airing Discovery series that you have gay and lesbian main characters, as well as a non-binary actor and a trans actor.

 

[paulears]

Why are old TV and movies now being examined with shock and horror using today's standards. TOS pushed boundaries - and Roddenberry tried really hard compared to the standards of the time. Ten years before Start Trek - women were putting their husband's slipper out ready for when they came home from work. What is forgotten is that often these things viewed now as incredible were perfectly normal. Bit by bit in each decade, changes happened. However - for a lot of history, people were happy with their lives. Here in the UK, we had women suddenly getting the vote, something they'd never even dreamed about before. That was a fundamental change in society. However in say 1930, people were not looking back at the 1900's and saying how dreadful it was those poor women were defend the vote? Now we look back and airbrush out what we now deem unacceptable. Great Britain, and the British Empire specifically went around the globe taking what they wanted, claiming land and property. At the time - this was normal, and England, Scotland, Wales, France, and much of europe were constantly at war. It does not make people of that period war hungry zealots.

Governments world wide have done terrible things, but at the time, in that context - presumably democratic Governments had support for what was happening?

The roles in movies and TV reflect current social standards - always have. George Takai was gay when Star Trek was written - but homosexuality was NOT then, acceptable to the masses. Back then, that was how it was - and times change.

 

[DLD]

$100M budget (before marketing/advertising costs). $10.5M opening weekend. A megabomb.

 

[ahalpert]

Why are old TV and movies now being examined with shock and horror using today's standards.

I wouldn't say shock and horror. It more just elicits the occasional groan or wince from me. But I'm watching it, aren't I? It's not like I've boycotted it.

TOS pushed boundaries - and Roddenberry tried really hard compared to the standards of the time.

Yes, and that's just the thing. We celebrate Star Trek for being ahead of its time--which is to say, closer to the values of the era we live in now. So, if we're looking back on it for that very reason, why would you expect a viewer to disregard differences from today's values or inconsistencies within its own philosophy? If we were in the business of turning a blind eye to such things, we'd be less interested in the show to begin with. And if Roddenberry were only in the business of depicting society as it was rather than how it could be, then he'd never have boldly gone where no man had gone before.

for a lot of history, people were happy with their lives.

Which people?

Here in the UK, we had women suddenly getting the vote, something they'd never even dreamed about before. That was a fundamental change in society. However in say 1930, people were not looking back at the 1900's and saying how dreadful it was those poor women were defend the vote?

The suffragists probably did look back that way. it's not true that everyone behaved the same in every era. In the massively-underrated show Underground, the white characters who are good guys are abolitionists, not "benevolent" slaveowners.

In any case, I'd rather argue about any particular social issue or change on its own merits rather than whether or not we can pass judgement on another era.

I pass judgement on our OWN era. Do you never turn on the news and feel appalled by some mass hypocrisy or some injustice that's considered perfectly normal? I could probably list dozens.

Plenty of war-hungry zealots these days! There are Americans calling for nuclear counterattacks every time someone does something nasty to us.

Anyway, I don't think it's the works that we judge but the era. Look at Mad Men, which was a veritable love letter to the 1960s. There were many moments of unspoken historical judgement, such as when Sally runs into the kitchen wearing a plastic bag on her head and her mother scolds her--for something completely unrelated, making no comment on the bag. Or when the airplane reaches its traveling altitude and the "Smoking" permitted sign comes on and everybody lights up.

----------

And to be clear, the values we all claim to hold dear haven't changed much since the magna carta. We've just gotten better about living by them.

 

[Batutta]

I think Spielberg and Tony Kushner bungled this one in the storytelling. The film is magnificent in almost every category -- the directing, camerawork, choreography, editing, performances -- but they made one key change that screwed up the story. The film hinges on a 'love at first sight' event, and I didn't buy it this time. Tony needs to be kind of a starry eyed idiot for that to work and Ansel played it too cool, dark and mysterious. Why did he play it this way? Because Kushner added a backstory to Tony where he went to prison for nearly beating a guy to death. That changes the entire emotional calculus of the story, and they didn't adjust the rest of the plot for that, so the romance doesn't come off as plausible to me as a result. Tony as originally designed was a bit of an innocent who gets drawn into the gang violence so this also alters his arc in the film, and colors the tragedy of his doomed romance with Maria. It ends up feeling like Tony and Maria are in two different movies because they kind of are. Another funny thing, despite the casting being much more authentic, the original film still feels more realistic. I guess because they shot it close to the era it was taking place in, on a lot of real New York locations, the 1961 version has more verisimilitude. This version is very glossy and Hollywood slick.