The other night, my composer/music director fiance and I saw an
article and video featuring the new opening number of the Broadway revival of the musical
PIPPIN. Part of the article's stance is that the success of the show will depend on the success of "the fusing of signature Fosse touches with acrobatics, contortionists and trapeze acts imported from the circus" in an attempt to recapture what was so special about the show in the first place.
If you were to ask theatregoers who saw the original 1972 production what singular impression they took away, forty years later, there's a good chance they might mention some of Bob Fosse's imagery before they sing you a few bars. (Ben Vereen's authentic jazz hands!)
PIPPIN, more than most other musicals, is a show where the choreography is integral. (Another notable exception, of course, is Jerome Robbins'
WEST SIDE STORY.) Bob Fosse's choreography for
PIPPIN was exciting; it was very stylized, and it was provocative. It was not, however, integral enough to director Diane Paulus and (legendary, talented, Fosse-protege) choreographer Chet Walker to be maintained for audiences in 2013.
I will note: the point is not that the choreography will not be
respected - surely if the work is to be safe in anyone's hands, it is Chet Walker's.
My point is - choreography in theatre, specifically in musicals - is not considered a component of the piece of art. It's an add-on. When reviving an old show, directors wouldn't dream of changing a melody line. Scenes and songs may be cut, or even reordered, to serve a modern audience, but they don't hire a new composer. Not true of choreography - that's different all the time, and it's hardly ever mentioned. (Again,
WSS is an exception... both in that it featured original choreography, and, for the 2009 Broadway revival, in the translation of some lyrics to Spanish. Even then, director Arthur Laurents made a point of bringing the show to today "without changing a word or note.") It would be huge news to write a new song or a new ending for a revival of
INTO THE WOODS, wouldn't it? No one blinked, however, when Kathleen Marshall created her own steps for
ANYTHING GOES.
Why?
Lots of other parts of the show change, too, of course. The orchestrations might be redone to work with a different number of musicians. The lighting design would undoubtedly change to take advantage of a new space, new technology. The costume design would likely change. The performers, of course, are different. Where does the essence of the old show get lost? Perhaps the dividing line is at what's merely visual. The songs and the dialogue are what we hear and what pushes the story along -- what it all looks like, including the dancing, changes. But if that's the case, why isn't a concert performance of
OKLAHOMA! considered a revival? Because there's no physical acting? Choreography is surely part of the acting. It's what the performers are doing: they're singing, they're speaking, they're dancing. A concert performance of a musical is kind of like the Paul Taylor company performing
Fancy Free - that's not a musical, of course, because there's no singing, no dialogue, just dancing and music. A concert is not a musical because there's no dancing and perhaps no dialogue, just music. The other visuals may be there -- lighting, costume -- in both of these situations... but neither is considered a "musical."
Some shows don't have all of those elements, of course. We just saw
THE LAST FIVE YEARS - no dialogue and no dancing there, but it's clearly a story told via musical. It would feel very strange to add big dance sections for Cathy and Jamie into that score, and it would be equally strange to add scenes of dialogue for the characters. I'm not saying that a show has to have all these elements to be considered a "musical" - I love seeing shows that push those boundaries - but I do think it's inconsistent the way we add or drastically change those elements when we revive existing shows.
Well, okay. What, then, makes a musical revival different for a new generation? What can the new director do to create something fresh? If we treated choreography the same way we treated the book and the score, perhaps the director would be "translating" the choreography - for space, for time, for number of performers. Say the star needs to sing the hit song a half step down. Not really a problem. Say the star doesn't have the perfect extension the original cast member did, so she goes for just above 90 degrees instead of pushing 180. Also not really a problem. The essence of the song and the essence of the choreography is the same. Say the old staging had an ensemble of sixteen that filled up the stage, but this time around the house is smaller and there's only space/budget for ten. Stretch out the staging a little bit and keep the movement, and the stage will be filled and the essence of the movement is maintained.
Now, granted, maybe the director has an idea to change the movement that will really add something to the story, to the tension in a scene, to the audience's experience. That could be a wonderful decision - maybe the show becomes richer, clearer, or more accessible. But my point, again, is that we don't allow music directors or other composers to come in and change the tune of a song for any of those creative purposes. Why?
Another demarkation of what's essential: chronology. The composer-lyricist-librettist team creates the core material, and everything else comes later. The choreography is secondary, then, because it is dependent on the score. The choreographer is very rarely part of the original creative writing process. Granted. But what if the creation of the movement
was part of the construction of the show? Would that shape the songs written? The dialogue needed to push the story along? Would performers have a more embodied performance experience?
There's another obstacle to including choreography in the "package" of what's considered a musical. You can't package it. You've got your scripts, you've got your sheet music, you've got your... Labanotation? It doesn't happen, because the dance world hasn't created (or decided upon) a way to document dance to be recreated later. In the old days, you had to have someone who was a part of the original production come "set" it. The only new alternative is to have someone learn the choreography from a video in order to teach it to a new cast. It's much more difficult and more time-intensive than reading something off a page. (Enter motion-capture technology. Maybe a musical will, in the near future, come as downloaded pdfs, mp3s, and a motion-capture choreography file...)
I don't mean to get down about this. I don't think Broadway has it wrong. There are a bunch of reasons why we revive shows the way we do, and a lot of it makes a ton of sense. I do think, however, that this is an untapped possibility for the creation of new work, or even a new sub-genre of musicals, where choreography truly tells an essential part of the story.
It's not all bad. The current state of things does keep more choreographers employed - newcomers are able to create new movement for any show they work on - encouraging more newness and opportunity for innovation (whether or not that innovation is actually happening is, well, a different conversation). If choreography were maintained from all the old shows, the choreographer's job would be less similar to the composer's job and closer to the music director's. We might have "choreographic directors." It's only a short jump from that to the dance industry lamenting that no original work is supported enough to come to Broadway. (Sound familiar, composers? Writers? Audiences?) In this way, the limited view of choreography as essential to the show actually frees us up to create new and inspiring things.
Anyway. New technology is coming at us all the time. Dance is more in the public consciousness than it has been in years (thank you, reality TV). And theatre creators are constantly looking for new sources of inspiration. I think it's time to shake it up.
