A Chorus Line

As a lover of “A Chorus Line” I went and saw Melville Theatres version on Saturday evening the 29th November 2008. Firstly I have seen several versions of this production and prior to watching this show I was keen to see how Melville was going to hold all of the actors in a "line" across the stage. My question was answered as soon as the line was formed. There was an absence of 2 characters on stage, and it appeared that 3 male roles had been substituted with females. I guess we all know the struggle of finding male singer/dancer/actors willing to perform without payment. The change of male to female roles seemed to work. The performances were very mixed. I saw some were outstanding while others were less then impressive. I know this is Amateur, but for a show like A Chorus Line, Dancing and Singing is important. The girl that played Mike (Can't remember her new stage name) was the first soloist performance, and although the acting was reasonable. The Singing and Dancing was disastrous. It was ironic that the song was titled “I Can do That” “At the Ballet” was well harmonised by the 3 girls, although the taller of the three appeared very nervous throughout and lost focus on a number of occasions throughout the show. The following solo songs throughout the Montage were well executed although I would have liked to see more fiery personality from Diana Morales. I think it was a wise decision to add an intermission in this play and an equally good choice to have it at the end of the Montage “Shit Richie” which was well sung and full of energy from the cast. The 2nd Act started with “Tits and Ass” which I found average. The performer didn’t look comfortable on stage and this number needs such confidence. The part of Cassie in this show was portrayed more like the movie rather then the stage show which I was a little confused about (Although I did hear after the show that she was unwell so I don’t know if this is why it was different?). I really enjoyed “One” and the “Bows” I take my hat off to the cast on that one (or should I say, Tip my hat) I know it isn’t easy to get a group of Amateur theatre performers who can dance and all did rather well with the classic “A Chorus Line” style Choreography. Choreography - Throughout the show was of a high standard and the performers seemed very comfortable with it. Although 2 males (Al and Don – I think) seemed to be a beat behind the others and looked very unsure throughout the group numbers, and the Tap part looked a little unrehearsed. Singing – A few Bum notes reached by some of the Soloists but group numbers seemed to be carried well. Acting – I was pleasantly surprised at this. There were some extremely strong work here. Performers that stood out were Paul, Sheila, Bobby and Zak. Some of the other performers really need to watch their accents(I always notice accents). Sets/Costumes – Basic yet effective Lighting – I felt could have been better, I found moments where the stage was just not lit enough and therefore some interaction lost. Although I found other moments effective, eg The “Bows”. I have always disagreed with the ending of this show. I understand that the show is written that the Bow is the chorus staying onstage high kicking however I feel that with Amateur Theatre, The performers don’t get paid. A Bow at the end of the play with audience acknowledgement is their payment. Also the audience always gets confused as they are waiting for the actors to come back out on stage. I must also comment that a nice touch for this play was that they chose a solo Pianist rather then an Orchestra/band. I don’t know if this choice was made due to lack of room? But it gave a great “Audition” effect. Over all, an enjoyable night and I am sure that the performances will get stronger before closing night. I wish the cast and crew all the best for the remainder of the run!

I went to see this production at the matinee on Sunday, 30 November 2008. Like Thomas, I was looking forward to seeing this because I’ve enjoyed both the stage production and the subsequent movie. First off, my apologies for not listing the names of the actors, but I don’t have a programme in front of me. The opening of the show was great, with the audience entering the theatre to the sight of the dancers warming up on stage, the director Zack conversing with his choreographer Larry (played by a woman). The set was simplistic yet effective, done to blacks with a white line taped on the floor and mirrors on the back wall (which were hidden by a black curtain drawn across throughout the play). Musical highlights for me were the “Sing” duet between Al and Kristine De Luca, the piano accompaniment of Tim How (the show’s Musical Director), the “Ballet” trio between Sheila, Bebe and Maggie, and the “Who Am I?” solo of Paul St Marco. The men in this show outsang the women by far (especially Paul, Al and Bobby). Acting highlights were Sheila, Diana, Kristine and Zack. I have to agree with Thomas about the accents, they wavered throughout the show and some actors hardly had any American accent at all. I also have to agree with Thomas about the “I Can Do That” routine. The key seemed too high for her voice and she didn’t seem at all comfortable with the choreography or dancing. This is the first solo number in the show and it’s meant to be upbeat, energetic and full of pizzazz. It was sadly lacking in all three. I had a big problem with the projection of the female actors. I had difficulty hearing some of the female actors (in particular Bebe, Rikki and Judy) when saying their lines and when singing solos. This was especially apparent when they were speaking/singing at the same time as the piano was playing. While it was a fantastic idea to have the music played live, it might be an idea to move the piano so that the soundboard faces the stage or a wall, thereby absorbing some of the sound. I also had a question regarding the casting of the actor who played Cassie. The character of Cassie is 32 years old and a decade earlier, she and Zack had been in a long-term relationship. Melville’s Cassie looked to be in her early-mid 20s and the actor playing Zack looked to be in his mid-late 30s. Therefore, the scene where they discuss their relationship felt a bit awkward and, to use the word I overheard in the foyer, “creepy”. The original stage production commenced in 1975 on Broadway and the movie was made a decade later. Melville’s director, Lars Jensen, has used the original script. When the dancers were asked to say how old they were, the majority of them stated they were born in the late 1940’s/early 1950’s (making them in their mid-late 20s). However, the costumes that the Melville cast wore were more fitting with the 1980’s (legwarmers, headbands, fluorescent colours, off-the-shoulder sweatshirts) rather than the mid-70s when the play was set. There were also references throughout the play to Hollywood figures that I doubt the majority of the cast would have known (such as Robbie Goulet and Troy Donahue), let alone the audience. Because the story of chorus dancers is a timeless one, it wouldn’t have been too difficult to adjust the years to bring the show into more modern times. I felt that the whole production was lacking joy and passion. I wasn’t convinced by anyone in the scene in Act 2 where Zack asks the dancers what they’d be doing if they had to stop dancing, and everyone pretty much says dancing’s the only thing they want to do, how they love it despite all the insecurities and heartache. I didn’t feel any hunger or desire, just people saying the lines and going through the motions. For most of the show, some of the characters had a scowl on their face and projected a “don’t really care” attitude, so it was hard to believe they really wanted to get the job. In the big “One” production number at the end, it appeared that one of the female actors forgot the choreography and just gave up, not really putting in any effort for the remainder of the routine. To be honest, “A Chorus Line” felt more like “High School Musical”. However, I’m sure with a few more shows under their belts, the cast will get stronger and more confident. I sincerely wish them all the best.

Chookas guys am coming tomorrow night. Looking Forward to it.

I saw the performance of Chorus Line last week and went with the expectations of an entertaining evening. I was lucky enough to see the same company perform Blood Brothers last year and loved it. Therefore my disappointment was made all the worse by this experience. I dont mean to be negative in fact I am complimenting the company (I think the same director and similar cast) on last years efforts but I do have to say that this was a bit of a let down. I am not a huge fan of Chorus Line but do identify with the huge impact it has had on musical theatre, it is therefore an iconic piece. My feeling is that it deserved to handled with more reverence, and delivered with more passion. The energy was low and not dynamic enough (although I do understand that the run had just started - but is this an excuse to give a paying public?). I personally dont feel that the gender swapping worked as it left me confused and left the stage looking asthetically unbalanced. I have to say the female cast were a lot stronger than the males in this, I would struggle to mention a single leading male. Zac was okay, but too wooden, for me it was just a read through...Cassie was ripped straight out of the Attenborough film...a shame as it offers a lot more. Oh well, I dont ususally review and on the evidence of what i have wrote maybe I shouldnt do it again?!?!?! But I have to say that I still remain a fan of Melville but not a fan of this...sorry

In reference to the above comment by Jamie, there are in fact only two cast members from last year's production of Blood Brothers performing in A Chorus Line.

Saw the show on Saturday night and just thought I should add my 50 cents...I think some credit should be given to these performers, who have clearly worked hard and, from what I've been told, haven't exactly had the smoothest run so far, with each night there being at least one performer getting sick or being unable to perform. In the performance I saw, the girl playing Cassie had unfortunately come down with glandular fever and was replaced by the stage manager. I would like to commend this lady for stepping into this role at such late notice and actually capturing the character remarkably well, despite having to read from the script. Even as the show started I had to remind myself that this is amateur theatre, and therefore some of the obvious flaws could be partially forgiven (though some of the previous reviewers have been less forgiving.) Generally, I was very entertained and enjoyed the show...I saw another amateur production of the show 6 years ago which I thoroughly enjoyed and to an extent I couldn't help comparing this version to that one. One thing anyone who sees this show must remember is that for a person choosing to perform in a show like Chorus Line, it's a triple threat - the ability to sing, act and dance is pretty much essential. In both versions I've seen of the stage show, this seemed to be an obvious struggle. Of course in amateur theatre, it is hard to expect a director to be able to find performers who are consistently strong in all three skills. They do exist, but whether they choose to audition for a relatively small amateur theatre company such as Melville Theatre is a different matter. I know I am being brutally honest here but I strongly believe this has been the case. I won't repeat some of the comments made about the singing of individual performers, though unfortunately I had to agree with them a little... I got the impression that most of the performers had no previous singing training and this showed mostly during the solos (though I wouldn't go as far as to describe it as "disastrous" as one of the reviewers harshly stated.) As an ensemble though, they sounded pretty good. My first impression of the dancing was fairly mixed. Some of the performers moved well and looked as if they had previous dance training, and others not so well. There seemed to be a few coordination issues...quite often they did not look very in synchronised and were out of time with one another. The acting, however, was strong across the board - standouts include Sheila, Paul and Bobby. Paul's monologue - a difficult one - was powerful and he really captured the emotions and the heartache very well...we could hear a pin drop. I also enjoyed the solo from the girl playing Diana Morales, she sang surprisingly well and with great enthusiasm. On the whole, the acting was probably what kept the show afloat performance-wise. The script was used effectively - it is a good script to work with - and there were some funny moments which received lots of laughs. Though she struggled with the American accents, I thought the girl playing Val had a great energy about her (and kudos for choreographing the entire show too I might add!) However I felt a bit uncomfortable with her costume...a yucky orange midriff-baring top with a matching brief is usually going to be a hard one to pull off...whilst I know her character is supposed to be sexy I think something less revealing and more flattering to her figure might have been more appropriate. Again, brutal honesty here and this is in no way an insult to her - she still looked great - actually there were some good choices with stage makeup which worked well as everyone looked awesome on stage. For the most part, costumes were good although as mentioned before a bit anachronistic given that I don't think people wore the Flashdance gear in 1975, when the show is set. Tech stuff - the lighting was very effective in this show and it looked visually stunning at certain moments, particularly in that final send-off with the three people dancing to the percussion accompaniment - very cool. I felt the Melville stage was a good size, even for the number of performers. The set was simple but this worked. Just a minor thing - I thought that at the start of the show when everyone is auditioning there is meant to be a significant number of auditionees,and at least a handful of them who are "rejected" while the remaining few who happen to be the main characters are selected for the shortlist. In this version, only 2 people were actually cut, and the rest kept in, and this was fairly obvious. I do realise this is difficult because no one really wants to be in a show for 10 minutes before disappearing, but it seems unrealistic that only two people are cut from an audition whilst the other 17 are kept on. I think with a bit more confidence this show could grow...all the setbacks the cast and crew have faced haven't made things easy, but it is a test of character and teamwork as well. A show can't always run smoothly but it is the attitude in how you choose to deal with these unavoidable problems that makes the difference to the show in the long run. Only a few shows left now - chookas to everyone and don't lose heart... there is still time to make an good show great.

I went and saw this show on the final night, and had heard some interesting (not very good at times) reports about it, and had heard of the various trials the cast had faced (lead catching glandular fever) so went there not quite sure what to expect. And I have to say considering everything, I was extremely impressed. It certainly had its weak points, but it also had moments of utter brilliance, and I am not one easily impressed by shows to well done to the cast and crew for pulling through all the trials and tribulations you faced. I didn't really know the show very well, although i have seen the film once, and do own a copy of the broadway soundtrack. But as soon as I started watching the show I instantly realised how DIFFICULT a show to put on this is. As a Director I will admit I'm too chicken to attempt something this difficulty. Not only do you have to find actors who have all three - dancing, singing & acting, you need to find a very large group of them! The choreography was probably too simple for a show that is primarily thought of as a dancing show, and the big dance numbers lacked energy because of this I thought. This however may have been because of the lack of trained dancers in the cast. The synchronization of the dancing wasn't very good at times, which was slightly disappointing. I believe had this been lifted then it would have gone from a fairly good show to a REALLY good show, in spite of the other problems it faced. As I said though before this may have been simply a lack of trained dancers in the cast, and what can you really do? It appeared the only cast member who had the dance ability to pull off what was required in this show, was the young woman who played the choreographer Larry. Singing was interesting in that it was ho-hum in the solos but absolutely brilliant in the ensemble work. The harmonies at times were really nice, my favorite number was "What I Did For Love". Although I must make a special mention to one solo number, and that is "Sing!". The two performers who played the married couple who "sung" this song did brilliantly. Acting was strong across the board I thought, with special mentions to the woman who played Shiela, the two again who played the married couple, the man who played Zack and most of all to the man who played Paul with the massive monologue. That scene was absolutely brilliant. You had the audience in the palm of your hand through the whole speech. You really got the emotions required across and you had what must have been several pages of dialogue word perfect. Definitely the show stealer. A couple of the performers had difficulty with accents, one of the girls came out with a very English sounding accent at one point (one of the "At The Ballet" girls) and the Tits & Ass girl have a very strong Australian accent, both of which were very off putting. Don's accent while American was irritating as well, although I can't explain why, so just ignore me :) Sets were extremely simple, a blank stage with mirrors across the back. And they worked brilliantly. I really liked how you could see the spotlights in the mirror when they came on. Was a really nice effect. In fact all the lighting was really well done. Sound didn't really occur as there were no mikes. This was a problem at times when some of the softer voices needed to sing, they couldn't be heard. Bug mikes could have helped in this case I think. I read from a previous comment "it seems unrealistic that only two people are cut from an audition whilst the other 17 are kept on." Well yes it is, but what can you do? Your not going to get people who are interested in hanging around for such a small part are you? I'm surprised they found two! I saw that bit, had a bit of a chuckle to myself about how absurd it was and then passed it off as an inevitable issue of being an amateur show where you don't get paid to be there for just a few minutes at the beginning and end. Anyways, once again congratulations to a very tried and punished cast. It sounds like you've had a rough time trying to put on an already difficult show and you pulled through with something that you don't need to feel embarrassed about at all.

I was still thinking about the show the other day, I realise it's finished now but I just thought I'd add a suggestion in regards to casting for the benefit of future productions - if you're going to do a 3 week run with a show like Chorus Line, why not cast more people in the show and assign understudies to each and every role, ensuring everyone gets the opportunity to perform the role at least once. On nights where someone isn't playing the role, they could play the dancers who only feature in the opening act who don't make it through to the final audition. This would help prevent the obvious problems this show encountered - i.e. you're covered if someone is unable to perform and you don't have the dilemma of what to do to make that opening audition scene look realistic. I'd be interested to know why the director didn't do this in the first place, unless of course there simply wasn't enough people who auditioned for the show? Otherwise it's not really fair to expect an audience to still be asked to pay the full $20 for a show that is lacking because of some problems that could have been prevented with a bit more organisation in replacing a cast member who was playing a key character. That's just what I think. I still liked the show and thought they recovered reasonably from these issues. Cheers.

considering how hard it was for them to cast the full show as it is (having to resort to casting women in men roles, etc) what on earth makes you think they could cast TWO lots of them? What you say is a good idea in theory and I'm sure every director would LOVE to do it for every show out there... but I'm afraid that is just not practical. audience members are asked to pay a full $20 for an amateur show.... I think considering everything I got my money's worth. It was definately amateur at times, but it was still really good at times as well... so I came expecting an amatuer show and went away impressed.

I appreciate what you're saying WP and yes I do realise the difficulties but I think if there had been a reasonable turnout to auditions for this show it might have been manageable to assign understudies for even just a few significant roles(having said that I have no idea how many auditionees turned up for this production). For example a production of Cats last year had understudies for each role due to the popular turnout...I'm assuming perhaps just not the same response for Chorus Line? By the sounds of things the girl playing the role of Cassie was never really able to play the role to her full ability - or at all, as the case was on the night I went - due to an illness, and of course these things happen. But if that were to case an understudy would have been vital to replace a relatively large role, which is where I felt the audience were missing out a bit. But I'm not criticising the director for this problem, as I'm sure they did all they could in the circumstances. And as mentioned, I still managed to enjoy the show.

I am new to Perth (been here for a year now) and have a been a lover of amatuer theatre for a while. I found this website around the time that Beauty and the Beast was on at the Regal late last year, and have been following it ever since! I discovered on this website that you have Awards for Community Theatre called the Finlays, which I think is excellent and I must congratulate the young man that played Paul for his performance and on his nomination for an award, It was well deserved. I was however surprised that this show was not nominated for its Choreography? I had seen 5 out of the 7 that were nominated and although I think that not all of the Chorus Line performers were amazing dancers, I felt that this show deserved to be nominated. Who chooses which shows are nominated? Sam :)

Each play is assessed by four adjudicators. And it's spelt Finley - pronounced A, spelled with an E though

Actually, there were 4 microphones hanging just behind the top curtain. The problem was feedback when they were turned up any more than they were, and the actor's voices sometimes weren't projected enough or they were standing downstage of the mikes, with the curtain blocking the sound.