LONDON — For a musical that’s all about dancers, there’s not a huge amount of dancing in “A Chorus Line,” which opened last week at the London Palladium — the first West End revival of the musical since it opened here in 1976, a year after its smash-hit debut on Broadway.
But the most dance-intensive moments are fundamental to our very idea of “A Chorus Line”: the “Aaaah-5-6-7-8!” that unleashes the explosion of movement with which the musical opens, and the slow sideways-moving line of gold-clad top-hatted dancers with which it closes. In between those moments is the meat of the show; the passage from anonymity as the dancers begin the audition, to individuality as they tell their stories — and then back again, to an impersonal line of identically dressed, identically moving performers.
On opening night at the Palladium, the audience greeted those first moments with a roaring cheer, a salute to the love-story that “A Chorus Line” tells — not between its characters, but between them and showbiz. The choreography may look stylized, but it doesn’t really matter. Watching, we are both in 1975 (as the opening projection tells us) and in 2013; leotard and dance styles might have changed, but the desire to be on Broadway has not.
Michael Bennett, who conceived of the show, choreographed and directed it, died in 1987, and it is his co-choreographer, Bob Avian, who has been responsible for directing the major “Chorus Line” revivals since.
So how much does the dance (and the dancing) matter in “A Chorus Line”? Two days after the London opening — greeted by a positive storm of approval by the critics — Mr. Avian flew to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for a well-earned rest after several months of putting the musical together in London. Speaking by telephone, he discussed the choreography, his approach to staging the work, and why “A Chorus Line” still speaks to a contemporary audience.
Q.
How did you and Michael Bennett approach the choreography? Is the opening number really the kind of routine you would have asked an audition group to do?
A.
Michael and I were a good team, because he was a jazz dancer, and my training was classical. Between us we came up with a lot of choreography that was more integrated. A lot of it was based on dance crazes of the time — disco, the toe-heel-heel, the body shifts that go along with that. We pulled on elements of popular dancing as we were doing it; we were children of our times, dance-wise. There’s actually not much contemporary dance in there; there is ballet, typical broadway and tap. The only jazz combos are in the opening sequence and the montage sections.
Q.
Did you initially think it would be more of a dance show?
A.
Well, it was a very slow process and I’m not sure we had an idea of how it would be. We had the original tapes of the stories from our dancers and once we decided to put those stories in the framework of an audition, we were able to construct the piece. But it took us a very long time. We did four workshops, which no one did in those days — we were the first ones ever to do it. The montage, which is 22 minutes, took us six weeks. You wouldn’t be able to do that today, it would be too expensive.
Q.
Is the routine we see at the beginning a realistic idea of what you might see at a Broadway audition today?
A.
A dance call is still pretty much the same. When we have an open call, you might get 700 people. We divide them into groups of 10 and make them all do double pirouettes — you can immediately see people’s training. We keep 2 or 3 people from each group, then we teach them the opening combination, a shortened version, then the full one, then the ballet combination. You get a feel for their jazz style, and the ballet combination is very revealing in terms of technique.
Q.
Are you strict about remaining faithful to the original choreography? Do you adapt to different dancers or, perhaps, a more contemporary style of dancing today?
A.
The ensemble stuff is set in stone, but with the solo work, we are very open. For Cassie’s dance, for instance, we try to pull on the strengths of the dancer performing the role. If she has a great extension, or very supple back, we make tons of adjustments along the way. In structure it’s still the same, because it’s about the music and the storytelling — it’s about narcissism, about the need to have her gifts recognized.
In the individual stuff, the staging of the songs, I make adjustments all the time. At the beginning of the rehearsal process, I just let them do the number and see what they will bring to it. In that way, I suppose it becomes more contemporary because they are performers of today.
Q.
Have the technical capacities of dancers changed since you first staged the musical in 1975?
A.
Undoubtedly. The quality of the dancing is much higher than it was when we made it. Also, then you still had a singing chorus, or a dancing chorus; it was hard to get people who could do everything really well, and now that is the norm.
It’s still hard to get a woman who can do Cassie’s big song-and-dance solo; we’ve had performers who are great dancers, but can’t really sing it. It’s a very difficult song and you need a lot of stamina. But every time I return to the show, the caliber is higher in general.
Q.
Is there a difference between the U.S. and the U.K in the quality of musical theater performers, given that there is more of a conventional theater tradition here?
A.
Not essentially. They were perhaps a little behind America in the past, but that’s mostly to do with the fact that we pull from a population that is so much bigger — it’s a numbers thing. But now they have the same all-around training, and they are fully the equals of U.S. performers. In fact, I think this London cast is the finest company we’ve had in 35 years. Every time I do “Chorus Line,” I think, not again! But this was all pleasure.
Q.
The audience was beyond rapturous at the performance I attended. Why do you think people identify so strongly with “A Chorus Line”?
A.
I think it speaks to everyone because it’s really about people on an assembly line. They are not stars, and they aren’t trying to be stars — they are trying to succeed in essentially a humble way. And the musical talks about things that weren’t discussed on Broadway before: homosexuality, plastic surgery, angry or troubled or loving relationships with parents. Even though much has changed socially since we made it, those issues don’t go away.
