I am generally not inclined towards remake skepticism, so when Hollywood titan Steven Spielberg announced a modern, mindful West Side Story for a new generation, I was just like, just let him, guys. So it brings me no joy to report that this is one story that should have been left in the midcentury times.
To be clear, they try so hard to make it worth your time. Tony Kushner's script attempts to make the story more relevant by adding stuff about gentrification, explicit sexism, and transphobia in addition to the extant themes of racism, immigration, gang violence etc. The choreography, costumes, cinematography, and camera work are stunning, and I find myself wanting to rewatch the group numbers over and over. Ariana DeBose deserves all the flowers she's been getting for her Anita and I honestly wish Mike Faist and David Alvarez were being talked about more.
The problem is that the film completely and utterly fails to convince you of the A-plot: the Star-Crossed Lovers story.
I am aware that in many ways, it's a hard sell. Maybe even "Seinfeld" Is Unfunny: how many works from the 50s bothered featuring interracial relationships? Or, it's a setting update of Romeo and Juliet, so of course naive teenage girl Juliet throwing everything away for Romeo should be incredibly ill-advised. But that's not what the original West Side Story is going for. We are supposed to believe that Tony and Maria are true love and the resulting backlash senseless. Was it a story that came off better in the 1960s? I have to assume so.
Newcomer Rachel Zegler as Maria has a crystal-clear soprano and does the job well enough for a Hollywood debut. The problem is that she has approximately negative chemistry with Ansel Elgort's Tony, who has all too few facial expressions for either his age-old romance or brand-new tragic backstory. They both have twice as much screentime as the more engaging side characters, leading the scenes with the two of them exploring their emotional connection to drag instead.
On a technical level I believe this is better than the original, but filmmaking has come a long way since 1961 so that's to be expected. But on a story level, it's still painfully in 1961, leading to dissonance that isn't present in the original film.
So what do we have when all is said and done? Not quite lipstick on a pig, since the original deserves its accolades in its surrounding historical context, but more like a group project where the leaders are bolstered by a supporting cast who did more memorable work. But that doesn't make for a fully satisfying film, so I'll take my supercut of all the new scenes featuring Bernardo and Anita and go, thanks.
Film There's a place for us...but it's not the 2020s moviegoing crowd
I am generally not inclined towards remake skepticism, so when Hollywood titan Steven Spielberg announced a modern, mindful West Side Story for a new generation, I was just like, just let him, guys. So it brings me no joy to report that this is one story that should have been left in the midcentury times.
To be clear, they try so hard to make it worth your time. Tony Kushner's script attempts to make the story more relevant by adding stuff about gentrification, explicit sexism, and transphobia in addition to the extant themes of racism, immigration, gang violence etc. The choreography, costumes, cinematography, and camera work are stunning, and I find myself wanting to rewatch the group numbers over and over. Ariana DeBose deserves all the flowers she's been getting for her Anita and I honestly wish Mike Faist and David Alvarez were being talked about more.
The problem is that the film completely and utterly fails to convince you of the A-plot: the Star-Crossed Lovers story.
I am aware that in many ways, it's a hard sell. Maybe even "Seinfeld" Is Unfunny: how many works from the 50s bothered featuring interracial relationships? Or, it's a setting update of Romeo and Juliet, so of course naive teenage girl Juliet throwing everything away for Romeo should be incredibly ill-advised. But that's not what the original West Side Story is going for. We are supposed to believe that Tony and Maria are true love and the resulting backlash senseless. Was it a story that came off better in the 1960s? I have to assume so.
Newcomer Rachel Zegler as Maria has a crystal-clear soprano and does the job well enough for a Hollywood debut. The problem is that she has approximately negative chemistry with Ansel Elgort's Tony, who has all too few facial expressions for either his age-old romance or brand-new tragic backstory. They both have twice as much screentime as the more engaging side characters, leading the scenes with the two of them exploring their emotional connection to drag instead.
On a technical level I believe this is better than the original, but filmmaking has come a long way since 1961 so that's to be expected. But on a story level, it's still painfully in 1961, leading to dissonance that isn't present in the original film.
So what do we have when all is said and done? Not quite lipstick on a pig, since the original deserves its accolades in its surrounding historical context, but more like a group project where the leaders are bolstered by a supporting cast who did more memorable work. But that doesn't make for a fully satisfying film, so I'll take my supercut of all the new scenes featuring Bernardo and Anita and go, thanks.