MovieChat Forums > West Side Story (1961) Discussion > Not that Good

Not that Good

posted 10 years ago by akfellow
18 replies | jump to latest

I'm sure it was a classic in it's day, but I've seen it twice on stage in the past 15 years and both were leaps and bounds better than this movie.

What they did was they hired dancers before actors (except for the role of Natalie Wood).I thought Richard Beymer was far from exceptional, and was a mediocre singer. It's too bad because he's supposed to the main character and amazing, but I found myself liking the scenes more when he wasn't in them. In fact, the only scene/song I really liked was "America." Natalie Wood was beautiful, but was drug down by Richard Beymer in every scene they shared. Too bad.

[–] DryToast 10 years ago

mediocre singer

His singing was dubbed by someone named Jimmy Bryant.

"You must sing him your prettiest songs, then perhaps he will want to marry you."

[–] friendoffilm 10 years ago

Eh! To each their own, but, as a devout fan of the film West Side Story who has also seen a number of really good stage productions of this great musical that I've also liked a great deal, the dubbing of Maria and Tony in the film doesn't bother me, really. Moreover, dubbing was quite common in films back then, during that period.

[–] oprlvr33 10 years ago

Well, I certainly enjoyed the film, for its (exhaustive) intensive musically-dramatic overture and overview. The most outstanding aspect was the beautifully written and managed choreography (with the exception of a gang-rival section, in which 3 of the actor/dancers were not in-sync - oops)

And Beymer was okay as Tony, but Tony was not the lead nor intended star role of this film, nor the stage version. Yes the romantic premises was Tony and Maria; the key lovers. However, the general focus was the rival gangs; in proudly which Chakiris won a Golden Globe and an Oscar, for outstanding performance as Bernardo.

Peanutlee33

[–] friendoffilm 10 years ago

This:

Tony was not the lead nor intended star role of this film, nor the stage version. Yes the romantic premises was Tony and Maria; the key lovers. However, the general focus was the rival gangs; in proudly which Chakiris won a Golden Globe and an Oscar, for outstanding performance as Bernardo.

is a point well taken, oprivr33, It's true that in both the film and the stage version of West Side Story, the Jets and Sharks, in their conflict, walked off with the whole thing, if one gets the drift.

[–] mail-2217 10 years ago

I disagree. I'm a musician and have played the show a number of times so I've seen both perspectives and I consider them different animals. It's the difference between a -play- and -movie-.

The movie is w-i-d-e. It emphasises bigger issues and visuals. The show focuses more on the characters... which is fine for the theater. And frankly, sometimes Sondheim's lyrics are a bit -too- clever for me. The movie takes a little of that edge off.

And, I know it's heresy for some but I prefer the music from the movie. If you listen to Bernstein's score for On The Waterfront, it's clear he just wasn't a -movie- guy. The guys who re-arranged it did a fine job.

In short, I think the movie is something of a small masterpiece. All the grousing tends to be the usual 'it's never as good as the book' snobbery.

I just watched it again and I think it's aged great. On the other hand I played a revival a few years ago and it felt a bit dated.

One last thing: everyone focuses now on the Romeo/Juliet thing which annoys me. I wish kids would watch it and -then- be told about the Shakespeare connection. It deserves to be seen on its own and not just as an 'adaptation'.

[–] friendoffilm 10 years ago

You've made some very interesting points about West Side Story, mail-2217.

This;

I wish kids would watch it and -then- be told about the Shakespeare connection. It deserves to be seen on its own and not just as an 'adaptation'.

is something that I agree with you wholeheartedly on.

[–] mail-2217 10 years ago

I only say that because that is how -I- (and my mates) saw it when we were kids back in 1637. We saw it as a 'stand-alone' deal and it was -great-. Everyone wanted to start a gang.

If we had been told beforehand by some well-meaning adult, "Oh you'll love it. It's SHAKESPEARE!"? Woulda ruined the whole deal.

When you feed a kid, NEVER tell 'em there's broccoli in the sauce.

[–] leader-7 10 years ago

I'd like to know what medical science is keeping you alive, mail-2217. and does your doctor share the secret?

****

[–] mail-2217 10 years ago

It's no secret... I got clued in when my kids started watching all those teen vampire shows. I intend to unlive forever... assuming the supply of small children doesn't dry up of course.

[–] leader-7 10 years ago

With the birth rate where it is, you're safe!

[–] pontevedro 10 years ago

What they did was they hired dancers before actors

This was also true of the original cast musical. The show was originally conceived by Jerome Robbins, a dancer, after all. And it makes sense too. You can dub singing, but it's harder to "dub" dancing convincingly. Most of the roles in WSS are primarily dancing in any event.

Natalie is not the only non dancer - Richard Beymer is not a dancer. (His role doesn't call for it). And although Rita Moreno dances, she's not primarily a dancer.

[–] friendoffilm 10 years ago

Rita Moreno danced beautifully in the "America" scene in the film West Side Story.

[–] pontevedro 10 years ago

Yes, I agree that Rita Moreno dances beautifully in that scene. But she was and is primarily an actress.

As I think more about it, the more I think that the OP was just wrong. Natalie Wood and Richard Beymer were actors, not dancers. Very few of their other roles involved dancing. George Chakiris and Rita Moreno were also primarily actors, but they brought considerable dancing skills to the table. Russ Tamblyn first achieved fame in a role featuring his acrobatic dancing ability - Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, but had substantial acting chops as well. He got a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Peyton Place, a role involving no dancing.

The other Jets and Sharks, and their ladies all were required to do more dancing than acting and so their resumes reflect that.

I shouldn't forget Jose de Vega, who played Chino. He's an actor, not a dancer. I don't think his role required any dancing.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

As I think more about it, the more I think that the OP was just wrong.

Yes! The actors primarily acted and the dancers primarily danced. George Chakiris, Rita Moreno and Russ Tamblyn were the icing on the cake. The singing and dancing of Moreno, Chakiris et al in America for instance, is just stunning and IMO a fantastic accomplishment.

I think the movie stands as a wonderful hybrid of both creative arts.🐭

[–] friendoffilm 10 years ago

Way to go, spookyrat1! You expressed it very articulately and succinctly. Many (although certainly not all) of the cast members were able to both act and dance, which really helped make this beautiful great golden oldie-but keeper of a classic movie into the dynamic little package that it really is!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] winy68 9 years ago

Opinions are like arse holes
Everyone has one and most of them stink

Yours in particular

[–] prplayer 9 years ago

agreed

so many movies, so little time