It`s probably a good thing that the 1952 movie musical ”Singin` in the Rain” is all about a studio`s bungling efforts to transit from the silent era into the sound one. The message comes through loud and comically clear that show business is often a series of mishaps that, luck be willing, don`t get in the way of a hit.
For surely the saga to mount a stage version of the movie classic is a guidebook on the peaks and perils of the industry. A new touring company, which will be performing the third version of the show, arrives at the Chicago Theatre Sept. 30. Early reports indicate it may be the best, although that wouldn`t be so hard to achieve. The second version, the Broadway mounting, was a multimillion-dollar oddity, a critical flop that creaked along for a year thanks to television spots, the durable allure of the original movie and the tenacious support of a New York columnist.
”It was really not very good,” says Peter Gennaro, the veteran choreographer who staged the dances for the first production, in London, and for the new road tour. ”I know Twyla Tharp (director/choreograph er for the Broadway show) is a talented lady. But the choreography meant little to me, and the show looked as if it wasn`t really directed at all. At times, you couldn`t tell who was supposed to be speaking.”
(Gennaro, who had expected to be tagged after London for the Broadway follow-up and only learned of his replacement by reading it in the newspaper, has an ax to grind. But other observers back up his criticisms. Members of the cast complained publicly that Tharp gave inadequate stage directions. During some of the previews, hundreds of patrons reportedly left at intermission.)
”You are not getting the Broadway version in Chicago,” Gennaro says. Instead, he was given his second crack at the show, requested to change much of what he had done for the London one. The solution, he says, was to make this new version ”as close to the movie as you can get.”
For instance, Gennaro says he is fairly faithful to the famed Gene Kelly solo to the title song (performed here by male lead Donn Simione, a member of the original London cast of ”A Chorus Line” and now a veteran of that show on Broadway). Gennaro was limited somewhat by the space. He has less room to work with than the large studio street set built for Kelly. But what he calls the ”tray”–the device that makes the stage downpour possible–is modeled after the Broadway one, less lavish but with the same onstage rain illusion.
(The tray is one big set all by itself, complete with its own floor and ceiling. The mechanics of the device recycle 195 gallons of heated water, losing only about a gallon each performance.)
Gennaro also promises that Donald O`Connor`s famous athletic solo to
”Make `Em Laugh”–to be performed here by Brad Moranz, who played the part on Broadway before the show closed–is also quite similar to the movie, although it necessarily lacks his famous side-flips from the walls. (No one could do that night after night, Gennaro suggests.) ”Good Morning” is staged much as it is in the film.
Where this ”Singin` ” may seem different is in the big production number. The ”Broadway Melody” montage in the movie wasn`t a feasible stage number–it would require something like four or five complete stages to reproduce. So Gennaro has a big tap number to George Gershwin`s ”Fascinating Rhythm” inserted in its place.
There are also a couple of new numbers. One is a love song for Don Lockwood (Simione) and Kathy Selden (portrayed here by Cynthia Ferrer), inserted for their first meeting after fans try to rip off movie star Lockwood`s clothes. And Lina Lamont, the silent star whose floozy voice and accent made her a problem for the transition into the sound era, gets a song all her own, partly, Gennaro says, to show off the talents of Jennifer Smith, whom he considers ”much funnier than the movie Lina.”
Film clips help convey the cinematic elements of the story, such as the studio`s efforts to dub the picture and produce its first talkie. And the original movie scenario is followed closely, including the finale set in a movie theater during a world premiere. That`s followed by a new chorus reprise of ”Singin` in the Rain” and an extra display of showers.
All of which brings up the obvious and still unanswered question that has dogged the ”Singin` ” project since its original London version: Why try?
The original movie was a sublime celebration of cinema–it was not only a good movie, it was a movie musical about the movies, magically incorporating the elements of film into both story and song. Who can forget the effect of Kelly`s love song to Debbie Reynolds sung inside a sound stage, employing the stage`s special effects in a way to let the audience in on the secrets?
One critic aptly noted that the whole endeavor was about as mind-boggling and thankless a task as turning ”A Chorus Line”–the perfect stage show
–into a film.
”Why? Because you go to a theater and sit in the audience, and you simply want the people on that stage to give you a terrific show,” Gennaro says. ”You want to laugh and be entertained. So what difference does it make whether it`s on the screen or the stage, if it is entertaining? The stage version meant that there are different people doing something you love, and that reveals different things.
”The original is a classic, but it had lots of flaws,” he adds. ”In our version, we have a guy playing the director (Alan Sues, a one-time regular on the old ”Laugh-In” television show), and he`s priceless. People hardly remember the director from the movie.
”Another reason is that nobody`s coming up with terrific shows, so we`d better do revivals, we`d better put movie musicals on stage. I get scripts all the time, and I read them and think, `Oh my God.` ”
The London version of ”Singin` ” with Tommy Steele, thanks largely to its star, became the longest-running show ever to play the London Palladium. But, when first asked to participate, Gennaro had his doubts.
”The business of the choreographer is to make new dances, not reproduce old ones,” he says. ”But I became convinced it wouldn`t hurt to try, that it was a good idea to stage this musical and surprising that it hadn`t been done already. And the people convinced me that the work on the London show would earn me a lot of money. They were right.”
