two tales of a city

If I had gone to see Steven Spielberg's West Side Story without knowing that it was a remake, I would have thought it was a perfectly fine film. But that's not what happened. It was a remake. And I went to see it specifically to compare it to the original.

Credit for the idea goes to my old friend, Vinnie. Out of the blue he suggested that we see the original 1961 film (which was in limited release), then follow up with the new remake. I could then write a blogpost comparing the two. So here we are. For the purposes of this writeup, I am going to assume that the reader is familiar with the storyline. I also note that Vinnie helped me with a lot of the thoughts and ideas. I don't remember which seeds he planted or helped develop, so I can't give him specific credit for  specific points. Sorry, Vin.

The differences between the two movies is obvious from the start. The original starts with a beautiful aerial pan of Manhattan, showing the skyscrapers in their glory. Spielberg's remake starts with shots of rubble and debris, as we see that the old neighborhood is being torn down -- to be replaced by Lincoln Center. That theme is referenced several times through the movie in what seems like an attempt to give the story gravitas.

Which brings me to one of the most noticeable differences between the two movies: the level of wokeness. In the original film both gangs are portrayed with roughly the same level of sympathy. We see that from the very beginning. Throughout the prologue we see various assemblages of Sharks and Jets confronting each other and backing down -- with the advantage going to whichever gang members find themselves in the temporary majority. But aside from the ethnic differences, there's no real politics involved; both gangs consist of aggressive guys loyal to their own group. In the new film, we start with an act of political aggression by the Jets -- they vandalize a political mural featuring a Puerto Rican flag and quotes from the Puerto Rican independence movement. And throughout the disputes we are shown the Jets as xenophobes fighting what they see as foreigners encroaching on their territory. And they threw in a lot more hefty baggage about the Puerto Rican experience, which distracted from the story.

The character of Doc, the gentle old Jewish shopkeeper who was kind of a neutral party running a no-man's land in the original has been replaced by Valentina, whom we learn is Doc's widow. Doc married a Puerto Rican woman, so she's kind of, sort of, trusted -- but only so far -- by both gangs. This, of course, leads me to wonder why she tried to talk Tony out of his romance with Maria. She could have encouraged it. And, when Anita objected, she could have said "it worked for me and Doc." Then, her singing "There's a Place for Us" at the end of the film (stealing that number from Tony and Maria, to whom it belonged) might have made sense.

On another note, Anybody's, the tomboy in the original, is a transmale in this one. The change doesn't really serve any purpose except, presumably to let Spielberg check a box. But it just smells of pandering to me.

So instead of being content to retell a tragic love story, Spielberg and company decided to tell a political tale. There's certainly room in the world for movies with these stories -- eminent domain and the displacement of the poor, the struggles of Puerto Ricans in the 1950s, and other such topics. But a remake of West Side Story shouldn't be the place for it.

Another noticeable difference between the films is in the dance numbers. The choreography in the remake lacked the artistry of the original. Watching the original, I was amazed at the beauty with which the performers portrayed violence through movement. This was especially true in the overture. The remake featured a much-shortened overture that's just not in the same league as the long version in the original. In many numbers, the remake uses complex filler instead of simple artistry. For example, "Gee, Officer Krupke" is performed in a police station with lots of desks and chairs, and papers flying all over the place. All that extra visual nonsense is simply distracting. "America" is turned into a huge extravaganza, bringing in children and blocking intersections, but the dance itself doesn't manage to capture the right feel.

The characters in this  are less likeable than in the original. Riff and Bernardo were both likeable -- despite their manifest flaws -- in the original. In the remake they're much less so -- both are much more angry and hateful. Chino starts out seeming very nerdy but always has a sinister quality to him. Those main characters, as well as Anita and Maria are given more full backstories. In some ways is a plus. Bernardo and Anita become a much more interesting couple, as they debate their future together -- where to live, how many children to have. In fact, they are a much more interesting couple than Tony and Maria. Perhaps someone should make a movie about them. At any rate, there's very little done to give the rest of the Sharks and Jets any distinct personalities. They're kind of like this movie's Munchkins (or Oompa Loompas if you prefer) -- there are a lot of them and they're mostly interchangeable.

There is one thing about the remake that's superior to the original -- skintone. In the original movie there were times that the Puerto Rican characters -- notably Bernardo -- look like white people with dirt smudged on their faces to make them look darker.* The remake, with its Hispanic actors, looks more realistic in that regard. I'm not of the opinion that people should only accept or be given roles that match their ethnicities, but they should look believably like the characters they're playing -- without the obvious addition of face-schmutz.

Because my comments above are largely negative, I need to restate what I said above. The new WSS is a fine movie if you take it on its own. But it's by no means great, and it doesn't measure up to the original. I'm of the opinion that films should be remade only if there's a reason, and they should justify their necessity. There was no good reason for this one, and it failed to justify itself.

____________________________________________

*I acknowledge that this might be in part a byproduct of modern technology. With the film cleaned up and converted to whatever higher-definition is being used, flaws that weren't apparent may be showing up. I never saw the original in its original release, so I can't say for sure.