Skip to main content

Oh man, without a gang, you're an orphan.

West Side Story
(1961)

(SPOILERS) Why the hell is Spielberg remaking this? Does he somehow think that, from on high in his Hollywood ivory tower, he has the keen insight to imbue some of the realism lacking in the Robert Wise/ Jerome Robbins Best Picture Oscar winner (well, it is a musical)? Or that, with today’s marginally keener eye for ethnicity-appropriate casting – if you aren’t Ridley Scott – this alone is good enough reason to retread ground there’s no earthly reason to (this at least appears to be part of it; that and he loved it as a teen, the soft-headed sop)? I don’t think West Side Story represents the unalloyed perfection its ten Oscars might suggest, but I have great difficulty in working out quite what the Berg thinks he’s going to achieve, aside from unflattering comparisons. If in doubt, he should go ask Gus van Sant.

Of course, Spielberg also cites going back to the stage original for source material as one of the key ways his envisioning will be different. He might have gone back further, to the Will Shakespeare original, but Baz Lurhmann embellished on that one two decades ago, further casting doubt on the value of a revisit. Spielberg, for all his plundering, has steered mostly clear of remakes, but when he hasgone there, the results have been mixed if not to say arbitrary. As in, why precisely did you feel the need, Steven? His Twilight Zone: The Movie segment (Kick the Can) was easily the weakest of that collection, while Always, at least a redo of a not-that-beloved picture (A Guy Named Joe) was mostly inert. And War of the Worlds, well, I guess it wasn’t a period pic, but I didn’t really buy those foisting acclaim on it for the 9/11-War on Terror subtext. So why, really? I suspect it ultimately comes down to his still having that musical itch to scratch, having only got as far as sticking his toe on the dancefloor with sequences in 1941 and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and that, with regular DP Janusz Kaminski profoundly unsuited to bright, fluffy, carefree fare, he settled on a musical that would more suit his accomplice’s dour sensibility.

I regularly quote Pauline Kael in my reviews, mainly because, agree with her or not (often not), she more often than not came up with enormously readable (and quotable) takes on the movies she saw. And when she was laying into a critical darling, the results could be especially choice. Kael did not like West Side Story, to put it mildly. Most amusingly, her reasons for loathing it, on at least several points, were the very reasons I found myself drawn to the picture, at an impressionable young age.

Kael does, I think, get rather carried away preordaining the prerequisites of a good musical (“the light satire, the giddy romance, the low comedy and the unpretentious stylised dancing…”) while simultaneously sounding like a bit of old fuddy, bemoaning the noise West Side Story makes and furnishing a dismissive take on the quality of the songs and choreography, as well as lobbing some low balls by complaining about how it lacks the poetic language of Shakespeare (no shit – or spit, if you’re a Jet). But she also sniffed “Well, it’s a good musical for people who don’t like musicals” – which is me, basically. And she further sniffed, or excoriated, the very being of star Natalie Wood, whom I was completely besotted with at first sight; “Natalie Wood is the newly-constructed love-goddess – so perfectly banal she destroys all thoughts of love”. Not content with that, Kael goes on to negatively compare her performance as Maria to the robot Maria in Metropolis. Ouch.

But she also makes a number of fair comments, although you have to assume certain caveats to be on board with them. Such as the seriousness of a review claiming that, through the medium of dance “we are seeing street gangs for the first time as they really are” (an idea she scorns, although she is taking it very literally; again, this is a musical). Kael goes on to question the gang’s racial composition, being that “one group has their faces and hair darkened, and the other group has gone wild for glittering yellow hair dye”; and what can you say in response, other than nod in silent agreement? She also calls out the insufferable moral rectitude of Doc (Ned Glass, his character to be rewritten as Rita Moreno in the Berg’s version, Moreno having played Anita here), “a sweet, kindly, harmless old Jew full of prophetic cant” who intones “When do you kids stop? You made this world lousy!” Kael levels the charge that “this is a movie that pretends to deal with racial tensions”. But to be fair, I’d suggest that, if you approach West Side Story with modest expectations, you won’t come away upset that it failed to change the world. Still, all this ought to be food for Spielbergian thought, as he’s going to expose himself to the same kind of pitfalls, only sixty years on.

The first time I saw West Side Story, I thought it played a blinder, and I was entirely engrossed and affected by its tragic turn (this as someone who doesn’t like musicals, albeit I also enjoyed The Sound of Music, My Fair Lady and Fiddler on the Roof; perhaps I only like Best Picture Oscar winning musicals?) I’ve seen it a couple of times since, and one charge I’d direct its way is one I’d also direct at Will Shakespeare, to be honest; the central romance is fairly insipid. Wood is and was as delightful a newly-constructed love-goddess as ever (even if she did keep a shitlist in her dressing room), but Richard Beymer, probably through no fault of his own – he was told to play Tony as a vanilla nice guy rather than with an edge – is on the bland side. It’s difficult to really fall for a tragic romance if you aren’t fully captivated by the fates of the star-crossed lovers.

Indeed, as is often the case when a romance doesn’t quite hit the spot, the consequence is that the greatest pleasures come from the supporting cast. Rita Moreno (actually Puerto Rican, so that was something) is full of vigour as Anita, girlfriend of Sharks leader Bernardo (George Chakiris – both won supporting performer Oscars). Chakiris is fine, although Bernardo’s protective brother routine during early scenes gives off a barely-concealed incestuous vibe. Russ Tamblyn, like Beymer later to grace Twin Peaks, makes an unlikely but spirited Jets leader Riff; it’s particularly odd to see him here having been more familiar with his Dr Jacobi.

On the debit side, there’s also a noticeable lag – in a movie that is very content to take its sweet time anyway – post-rumble, during which the picture fails to dig in to the rising tensions (ironically, since Wise and Robbins rearranged the positions of some songs in order to double down on exactly this). Three or four of the numbers are classics, which is enough to make up for the ones that are merely average – America (“Industry boom in America, twelve in a room in America”), Maria, I Feel Pretty, Somewhere, and then there’s the amusing Gee, Officer Krupke (with several risqué sex and drugs references to drugs: “with all their marijuana, they won’t give me a puff”) – although nothing subsequently can beat the tag choreography of the opening location work.

Kael’s take is partly flawed through reviewing the critical response – or its peer response, since it comes from an analysis of its Best Picture triumph – rather than the content itself, decrying its perceive pretentiousness in being “devoted to the serious theme of the brotherhood of man” (so encouraging a run of such movies). If the tail were wagging the dog of West Side Story, that might be an issue, but it still essentially has Francis Bacon’s play as its spine. West Side Story may not be perfect, but it’s more than good enough to preclude any need for a pallid remount, particularly from a director a good decade and a half past his peak. Wise was at his when he made it (and a spring chicken of 46); in the next couple of years, he’d follow it with classic horror The Haunting and all-time biggest-grossing musical The Sound of Music to prove this was no flash in the pan. Spielberg’s version will have to do half a billion Stateside alone to equal the original’s success, quite aside from the creative rod he’s created for his back; he may well come away wishing he hadn’t delayed Indy V.






Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.