BWW Reviews: Stage Adaptation of DIRTY DANCING Makes O.C. Debut

Well... Another day, another beloved movie gets a stage adaptation.

Of the multitude of recent film-to-stage adaptations that have risen from the video dust bin to breathe new life in a different guise, the stage version of DIRTY DANCING---whose first national tour is now gyrating inside Costa Mesa's Segerstrom Center for the Arts through February 15---is by far one of the oddest, most peculiar ones of the bunch.

Though it's not difficult to believe that this stage adaptation has actually been a hit both in Australia and in the UK (they have the original 1987 film's nostalgia-hungry fans to thank for that, no doubt), it's a bit alarming to think that such an awkward head-scratcher has continued life in its current, somewhat off-putting format. Though, sure, in its defense, the show does boast an entire jukebox-worth of likable, classic 60's hits, some relatively funny moments, a few clever recreations of classic scenes from the movie, and, most blatant of all, some truly eye-popping state-of-the-art video projections---all of which can certainly distract and lull enough patrons into submission.

But those are just some of the pro's. Unfortunately, the con's far outweigh the positives.

Just under the surface, bubbling up for all to see: jarring, awkward scene transitions; some pedestrian acting; intrusive peripheral characters; a lot of messy (sometimes lazy) storytelling; the inclusion of unnecessary criss-crossing subplots; some strange musical interludes; and---its biggest, most frustrating sin of all---not knowing exactly what kind of show it wants to be.

Clearly suffering from an identity crisis, the stage adaptation of DIRTY DANCING can't quite decide whether it's a book-heavy musical, a dense play with incidental music and a few occasional live-sung numbers, a dance-lite showcase with laughable After-School Special theatrics, or simply just a staged-reading of the movie script (with some added embellishments) using live actors on celluloid backdrops accompanied by the motion picture soundtrack.

So rather than follow a uniform path, this stage version will try to use whatever device is convenient for the moment---to hell with consistency and seamlessness!

From one moment to the next, the show has a difficult time pinning down what kind of show it is because, frankly, it desperately wants to be an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink theater piece. Perhaps this explains why the show's tagline is DIRTY DANCING: The Classic Story On Stage (rather than, say, DIRTY DANCING: The Musical). I guess the producers have a fear of commitment.

How strange, then, to watch what you think is a musical that boasts a gazillion radio hits only to hear some of them piped through the speakers as if some dude in the back just hit 'Play' on their iPhone (er, record player), instead of being sung live accompanied by the very capable orchestra that's present for some songs (here's a thought---let your singers SING!). And why oh why don't the two lead characters ever sing---but other characters break out into song? And, for goodness sake: "She's Like the Wind"---Patrick Swayze's cheesy but ultimately endearing love ballad from the movie---is reduced to forgettable instrumental background music? Why? So we can hear the, um, incredible dialogue better?!

The staging---and the motivations behind them---feels so random that sometimes serious themes elicit uncomfortable snickers while attempts at humor sometimes crash to a thud. And in a well-meaning but ultimately disingenuous move, the show also tries its best to present the Catskill Mountains resort of Kellerman's as a self-contained bastion of progressive (though highly contradictory) ideologies in the still volatile 1963.

And clearly, because the folks behind DIRTY DANCING are so scared to disappoint the film's fans, they have become constantly reliant on the cinematically sumptuous background projections to take the audience from one location to the next. On film, of course, this is something that is seamless and quite dramatic. On stage, while it's somewhat effective in certain points, much of the staging itself still suffers causing some of the most awkward transitions I've seen in a stage show (I'm pretty sure I am not the only one dumbfounded by what the show considers its ending to the first act---oh, look the house lights are on... guess that's intermission!). As such, certain inserted sequences feel like lazy moments of forced punctuation.

I mean, seriously?! Why bother when you're basically flashing the movie on 3D panels (via projections) then placing actors in front of them!

Although, to its credit, the show does earn some points for doing its best in making sure every memorable scene and every quotable line from the movie is present and instantly recognizable. But, as it stands, the unexpected charm and, yes, even the ribald sexiness of the original source material that the stage show tries its darndest to "recreate" for the stage feels completely forced and, subsequently, falls flat most of the time. This is especially true in its handling of the movie's infamous coming-of-age blossoming of young "Baby" Houseman (Jillian Mueller, sporting Jennifer Grey's curls) and her star-crossed romance with brooding bad-boy Johnny Castle (Samuel Pergande, perpetually peeved). It is only when the two secret lovers join, finally, in joyful, uninhibited dance at the end (flanked by, frankly, their far more interesting friends) does their courtship feel believable. It is also the moment when the show finally soars gleefully beyond its obtrusive machinations.

By then, though, you've realized you just spent two-plus hours trying really hard to care what happens to these two crazy kids. Was it really worth it to sit through a show just to see how they handle everything after "nobody puts Baby in the corner?"

So despite what could have been a plethora of wonderful possibilities of turning a relatively entertaining hit musical flick into an ovation-worthy new enterprise, the show, on the whole, doesn't quite live up to the already lowered expectations.

It's really too bad, because within this ad-hoc concoction of inescapable flaws are some incredibly talented people that deserve better than this show: the creative technicians that have conjured up some dazzling stage magic, as well as an ensemble cast sprinkled with recognizably gifted individuals.

Though, yes, it lends to the show's overall artifice in a not-so-good way, there is no denying that the gorgeous and often remarkable video projections designed by Jon Driscoll are stunning, theatrical marvels (even I was impressed by Baby and Johnny's outdoor dance lessons on top of the log and in the lake---two signature scenes recreated really well for the production).

And, of course, I have to at least congratulate the show's ensemble cast for doing the best they could with the material they're tasked to bring to life each and every night. These hardworking actors/singers/dancers all look and sound great as a collective. Among the standouts in the cast, though, include Doug Carpenter (as boy-next-door Billy), the intriguing Jenny Winton (as dancer extraordinaire Penny, whose got a secret), and the funny Emily Rice (as Baby's sister Lisa).

To post a comment, you must register and login.