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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism