West Side Story (1961)

I'd rather see it on the stage, not just for purity, but hoping to shed some old Hollywood cheesiness. I'm not sure exactly what it is though; maybe the adaptation was taut; maybe it was more technical (sound engineering, etc). Maybe the acting was more authentic on the stage, or at least felt more authentic in that consciously staged environment (see my recent post on Wit and adapting stage to screen). The movie felt cheesy and dated; I wonder what Robbins/Bernstein/Sondheim/Laurents thought of it. I guess Robbins co-directed, so it must not be too contrary to the play. I may be more forgiving of these elements on the stage. I was disappointed in the races and nationalities they had playing the Puerto Ricans. Hopefully the 2021 film did better; I wonder about the original Broadway cast.

It's strange to review adaptations having never experienced the source material, nor other adaptations of it. It's like reading the Bible in only English: to what degree am I getting the Bible and to what degree a translation? The translator is deeply involved; so is the adaptor to film. I considered skipping the 1961 film and going straight to the 2021, but I'm glad I didn't: adaptations are often influenced by earlier adaptations of the same source, especially earlier ones with profound cultural influence. Amazon's new Tolkien series is unapologetically responding to Peter Jackson's trilogy; it can't avoid it; the earlier is too influential; Jackson's Minas Tirith is culturally canonized just like Tolkien's, so Amazon must respond to both if they intend to tap the same popularity; ignoring the earlier adaptation will alienate an enormous viewership (probably a bad example: imagine a LotR adaptation casting actors to play the main hobbits who are the ages the main hobbits are supposed to be. It would probably upset lots of people at first, it would feel blasphemous given the legacy of the Jackson movies, and those familiar with the source would have to justify it to everyone). The 1961 West Side Story is very close, in time and directorship, to the musical, so I figured I wouldn't have to worry so much about liberal interpretation. I'm guessing it's pretty close, barring some technical details, and maybe acting?

It's interesting when experiencing a second adaptation sheds light on the source, when you've never experienced the source. This happens by exposing inconsistencies between the first adaptation and the source. Maybe the 2021 film will point to the original musical by defying elements of the 1961. I'll never see West Side Story on stage in the '50s; anything I'll ever see will be an adaptation; but seeing 10 adaptations, centripetally orbiting, would let me construct some semblance of the source. I'm reminded of this theory of symbols pointing to the unspeakable, maybe from Paul Tillich? It also sounds like inferring the properties of black holes by the behavior around them, direct study (and safe return) being impossible. I'm sure I could think of many more examples of an influential entity that is only experienced indirectly, and the more angles you get, the better you understand that which you can't access. This doesn't quite work for Bible translations though, since many are not translated directly from the original languages, and anyway, haven't we lost many of the original documents anyway, if there were any to begin with for some of these books, and rely largely on oratory history? This idea of gaining the source by observing its satellites doesn't work as well when the satellites have their own satellites. Do any of Jupiter's moons have moons? Actually, maybe it'd be like observing the planets in our solar system to understand the black hole at the center of the Milky Way; instead we just find ourselves talking a lot about the sun. It'd be better to observe suns in our galaxy than planets in our solar system.

I'm ambivalent about Bernstein's score. I'm interested in him. But I can't say I loved it. I don't love John Williams, and this sounded kind of similar. I'm far more interested in Bernstein than John Williams. But both seem to embody this sort of pop-classical, not like Lorie Line or Dustin O'Halloran... but maybe compare the Jurassic Park theme with the "tonight, tonight" theme. Compare both with "music of the night" from Phantom of the Opera. All seem to be extremely popular and celebrated, but I don't quite get it. I don't love the music from Star Wars, including the main fanfare. I don't really understand this classical theatrical stuff. I love stuff from each component -- classical, theatrical, film -- but I'll have to hear more Bernstein, and maybe more Williams, and figure out what's going on there. It's almost trying to be pop but it's too formal. It works for formal settings like "Imperial March", but not for common pathos. I guess I still like the West Side Story music, but not as much as I expected, mainly because it doesn't sink in -- it has a dated formality. I'm trying to be more precise, but I'm not sure. I liked "Simple Song" from Bernstein's Mass, last I heard it. It had a modern harmonic sensibility. West Side Story is sort of trying to be poppy and modern and affecting, with its I and IV chords, but the melodies don't quite land. There are far older pieces that are formal and affecting but not dated. So it's not just a symptom of its age. Maybe I'm not a huge fan of lydian. West Side Story liberally employs it, and I think Jurassic Park and Star Wars do as well. Oh! Also Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings. I love some of it, but if I really look at the music, some of the melodies that are supposed to be really affecting aren't for me (hobbit theme). I never loved that score as much as I wanted to, and it's certainly not for lack of love of the context. It's in the music itself, the melodies and chords. It's formal, older men trying to do pop, perhaps. Maybe they just aren't hip. Hip is a real thing. Old formal doing old formal is one thing, but old formal doing hip is tough. I don't know if that's what's really going on in West Side Story. I'm trying to figure it out. There are certainly classical artists through history whose work stabs forth to modern hearts. My now-tired example is Holst's "Jupiter", but I'm sure you can imagine classical artists in all media with modern or timeless sensibilities. I'm not sure West Side Story transcends its era so well. The music didn't seize me, at least not the stuff that seemed intended to seize me (the multiple love themes). Les Mis did better, as far as musical theater before my lifetime goes. Jazz musicals have some successes too. The music of West Side Story interested me, certainly. But it didn't hit me like great popular music does, or even like passionate classical music with modern pathos.

I want to see the 2021 film though, so we'll see how these ideas evolve.

I liked it, I respect it, I wish I could see it on the stage, I plan to watch the 2021 film, and I'm reserving judgment on Bernstein. I liked the dancing a lot. I'd love to see it on stage. It's all good, just not the joy I'm accustomed to with theater.

Kanye

Unorganized notes on College Dropout and Graduation:

It's impossible for me to experience these fresh, given I know lyrics to so many entire songs. But there was some freshness ("Homecoming" is about Chicago the whole time!!). I hadn't listened deeply to these albums since middle school or high school, just a few tracks on and off. They remind me how down-to-earth Kanye once was. Still, even in the few years between these two, I feel like I can hear the fame softening and corrupting his verses. But his mother's death is probably the turning point, seen in 808s. As far as I recall, Graduation were his last consistently solid verses. Well, what about MBDTF? It's really hard for me to compare all these albums, since I grew up with them, and haven't marathoned them all. People love MBDTF. I don't think I did. I'm not sure I have the stamina to marathon them all. Nor do I need to be a Kanye scholar. But it is tempting...

Indeed I'm mostly in this to connect with my past selves. I grew up with him. Listening back, I can see why I liked it. Unfortunately he went a little off-the-rails and his quality foundered, so I haven't kept up with him closely, and his current output doesn't match my current taste very well. But I'll always be interested in him, I think, and I'll always have that first handful of albums.

I've only heard Late Registration thoroughly once since high school, but hearing College Dropout and Graduation now, it aligns in theory that it would be a peak for me. College Dropout seems gritty and honest but a little unpolished; Graduation seems a little too polished and privileged; Late Registration, I think, splits the difference. Graduation is a little too glossy, but I love it. I'd love to see it live, perhaps as much as any album from anybody. It's still grounded Kanye, but thoroughly famous.

jeen-yuhs

As a document of a complex icon, it's essential. As a movie, it's curiously aimless. I could be talking about Dont Look Back, but if that were the case, I'd be thrilled and changed. I guess when I first saw Dont Look Back I was obsessed with Dylan. Jeen-yuhs is for peopled obsessed with Kanye. I've been a fan one way or another since elementary school, but my taste has drifted a ways. I see his earlier work as superior, and more nostalgic for me, so it's been years since I was actively passionate as a fan -- but even examining his earlier work, some of which I love, I'm often underwhelmed. Kanye has made some great music, and I love it, and I'm a lifelong fan; but I don't see him as a superlative artist. Even when Dylan disappoints me as an artist, he's still profoundly magnetic in a way Kanye isn't. Kanye is original, but he lacks the subtlety of others interesting to me like Dylan. Aggression doesn't always suit me, which I've said before. I always liked "Family Business." Consider how rare such tenderness is in the grand scope of his discography and cultural influence. Most of his impact is aggressive or otherwise unsubtle. Aggression can be subtle if it's layered, but his often manifests superficially like medication-stilted stream-of-consciousness rather than draughts of a deep artistic well. Dylan had his amphetamine anger, and it's not my favorite part of his work, but his body of gentler subtle work is colossal compared to Kanye's. Maybe it's unfair or uninteresting to keep comparing Kanye West to Bob Dylan, but it's natural for me, and Kanye himself certainly wouldn't fear the comparison, nor would many culture critics, it seems. Kanye also wouldn't fear comparisons to e.g. Kendrick, but they're very unflattering for him, in my mind.

I feel Kanye has an inspired mind, but not necessarily a subtle one. Again, I don't mean he shouldn't be aggressive or abrasive, but usually his artistry is bigger than it is deep.

I do love Kanye, ultimately, especially the first few albums. But I've lost a little touch with him, like the filmmaker did. I don't idolize him like I do Dylan, so the minutiae isn't enough to carry the documentary. Dont Look Back was all about the minutiae of the icon, with minimal performance footage. But these are two different icons for me, personally.