Remembering "Chess" on Broadway

Recently I blogged about a failed Broadway musical called Teddy & Alice. It ran for about two months in late 1987 and early 1988 and has been forgotten and never revived since. Another show that also had a brief run around that time has had a more interesting afterlife -- Chess.

Chess was the brainchild of the musical savant Tim Rice (former partner of Andrew Lloyd Webber, the scribes of Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita) who wrote it with Bjorn Ulvaeus, the genius who wrote most of ABBA's big hit songs. The concept of Chess was certainly of its time: set in the depths of the 1980s Cold War, it's about American and Soviet chess masters, facing each other down in world-wide competitions, with money, women, and international politics getting in their way. 

Summarizing the plot is hard because originally the musical started out as a concept album in 1984 and, once staged, apparently the 1986 London stage show in the West End had a different story than the 1988 Broadway version. The plot was constantly being re-written and revised. In its original previews on Broadway in 1988, Chess had running time of 4 hours and then was cut-down to 3 hours 15 minutes when it finally opened in late April. Needless to say the length made it less than appealing to ticket-buyers. Chess also failed quickly because it cost a fortune to stage, full of fancy lighting and special effects and moving stages. It needed to gross a ton of money each week to stay afloat -- and didn't. The 1980s was the era of spectacle musicals like Starlight Express that aimed to dazzle the auidences' eyes as much as satisfy their ears. Chess was another entry in this genre that has mostly faded away -- people just didn't want to spend their time seeing a show of German opera-like legnth that assaulted their senses all night long. 

The reviews in London in '86 had been mixed but the reviews in NYC in 1988 were scathing -- Frank Rich in the Times said it had an "ostensible story ... the evening has the threatrical consistency of quicksand", and that the show just hammers home the analogy that the world is basically one big chess game and we are all its pawns. The show-stopping song is called "Nobody's Side" where the heroic lady chessmaster manager, who works for the American player but is in love with the Russian player (c'est la guerre!), croons away "And when he gives me reasons/To justify each move ... Everbody's playing the games/But nobody's rules are the same/Nobody's on nobody's side."

Ya' dig?

Some other deep meaning, powerful lyrics: "I cross over borders but I'm still there now ... Let man's petty nations tear themselves apart/My land's only borders lie around my heart." 

Huh? (Still, you get chills when you actually hear it sung.)

In the 30+ years since Chess bombed on Broadway, it has actually had a rich afterlife with revivals and "concert musicals" done around the world. In 2009 I saw a concert version on TV that had been recorded in London in 2008, featuring Idina Menzel, Josh Groban and Adam Pascal from Rent. They were brilliant but my impression, even from this version, was that while the show had some powerful, beautiful, really great songs, the story was a confusing boring mess. 

I can't resist: musically, Chess is great; plotwise, Chess is ... a mess!

So far Chess has never been revived on Broadway -- besides its story problems, the show became immeadiately and painfully dated in the 1990s when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Maybe one day it'll come back to Broadway, if the plot can be brought under control and if there is interest in a show about something that clearly is now a historical era.

And it does have some great songs that stand the test of time so, in many ways, Chess will continue playing (haha get it?) for decades to come.  

P.S. The big opening song to the second act, "One Night in Bangkok" was actually turned into a music video that got some play on MTV and as a radio single. That was always the problem with the show -- it was a bunch of singles strung together to tell some kind of story ... that no one understands to this day. 

The Legacy of Chess in NYC

I don't play chess.

To paraphrase Dr. Strangelove, I have neither the time nor the inclination for the strategic thought the game requires. Much like driving a truck, I have great admiration but not the skills to do it. Barring a late in life conversion to the game, I'll never get into the game of chess.

And yet, oddly enough, yours truly has written two blog posts about the game -- one in 2008 and another in 2021 -- and both are two of my favorite posts ever.

The 2008 post was about a bunch of NYC kids who won several national championships down in Florida. I was flattered enough to get a thankful comment from one of the championship chess coachs.

The 2021 post was an admittedly snarky look back at the musical Chess that had a short, infamous life on Broadway. 

But the legeacy of chess in NYC runs much deeper.

Never mind that Bobby Fischer, probably the greatest American chess player in history, grew up in Brooklyn (he wasn't born in NYC but moved to the city at age six) and trained here. All over the city you can walk in public parks and see people playing it on cement tables built for the game. There are chess clubs in public schools all over the city, with students winning (as previously indicated) at championships all over the country and world.

And then there's the Marshall Chess Club in Greenwich Village.

It's over 100 years old and is as New York an institution as has ever existed. The club has members who have been playing there since there were children and are now quite elderly. It has had some famous members over the decades too, including Dada/Cubist French artist Marcel Duchamp, a young boy named Stanley Kubrick who would gone on to direct classic films (including the aforementioned Dr. Strangelove), and, more recently, radio legend Howard Stern. 

More amazingly, it has survived COVID and keeps going. This has been in part because of the popularity of last year's The Queen's Gambit on Netflix but chess is one of those games who popularity is perennial, whose practioners are devoted, no matter if the game has moments of fadishness.

The players at the Marshall Chess Club are the hardcore devotees who keep the game going no matter what -- and keep its proud legacy in NYC alive. 

Review: "Chess"

Well this is certainly a Mr NYC first: I'm reviewing a current Broadway show that I had previously blogged about as being a historical curiosity relegated to the  distant past.

I'm talking of course about Chess, the messy and failed 1988 musical that has been revived to massive success on Broadway. In 2021 I wrote a lot about how its various problems and controversies doomed it almost 40 years ago, and I mused about whether any producers might have the courage to rework and revive it. 

And they did!

Perhaps Mr NYC played a small part on this? (Who knows, only that I was ahead of my time.) So here's my review of the revival:

Set in 1979, the plot involves two brilliant chess masters, American Freddie and Soviet Russian Anatoly, who are set to compete in Milan. The match is heavy with Cold War politics, and the CIA and the KGB want Freddie to lose the match so that the Russians will be willing to engage in the Salt II Nuclear Talks. Freddie doesn't want to do this, obviously. Caught between them in Florence, Freddie's lover whom he mistreats and who, through various personal and political events, moves over to Anatoly -- who then defects to England with Florence, leaving his wife and children behind. Eventually, four years later, they all come together at another chess match in Bangkok -- the all of their fates intertwine and explode. 

This version of Chess has a new book that simplifies and clarifies the story. Some of the songs have been put in a more logical order that does a better job of pushing the narrative story. As for the story itself, it still doesn't really work as being quite as compelling as it aims to be, and the characters are a bit two-dimensional. That said, it never lags and you're never bored. Not at all! It's massively entertaining.

Chess is both helped and hindered by a narrator who explains all of the action and the historical context of the show. Because this version is being staged almost 40 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is therefore presented in a "once upon a time ..." fashion which gives the audience more perspective -- something obviously not possible in 1988. So that was good. Unfortunately the narrator tells a lot of dumb, corny, jokes that gives the show some humor (it's otherwise pretty heavy) but that is tonally dissonant with the rest of the story. 

However, the songs are amazing, and the production is brilliantly staged.

Lea Michele, as Florence, is beyond great -- she is a true Broadway star, the best of her generation, and her version of "Nobody's Side" is so hot, so on fire, it nearly burns the theater down. Aaron Tveit as Freddie and Nicholas Christopher as Anatoly are also great, incredible singers and actors who play these tortured geniuses struggling to survive. The rest of the supporting cast is strong and I must give a shout-out especially the ensemble which is on stage for the entire show and sings and dances throughout, performing many complicated numbers. They are the heart of this show and are wonderful.

So see Chess for a good time, a piece of fun Broadway theater -- a reminder that yesterday's failure can be tomorrow's triumph. 

Gotta Love New Yorkers

Who said there's no good news?

New York City school children won several national chess championships down in Florida last week. They came from all over the city too, from schools public and private, including I.S. 318 in Brooklyn, Hunter College Elementary School and P.S. 116 in Manhattan, and the Horace Mann School in the Bronx. They competed in the National Scholastic K-12 Championship sponsored by the United States Chess Federation.

The kids from I.S. 318 won the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade championships, and the kids from Hunter won the 2nd grade championship. It was a really impressive feat by a bunch of young kids -- even more impressive still, considering that a lot of grown-ups, myself included, don't even know how to play chess. These kids' parents must be so proud.

In these hard times, with so little good news out there and creeps like Bernie Madoff dominating the headlines, it's heartwarming to read about a bunch of New Yorkers, in this case the youngest New Yorkers, who we can be proud of. Congratulations guys! May each of you have great futures.

Classic Mr NYC

Well, I'll be darned. Mr NYC's powers of prophesy have hit again. 

In 2021 I blogged about the late 1980s Broadway musical Chess, about how it was a big spectacle with great songs and a muddled plot, and how it didn't last very long. Towards the end of my post I speculated (if I may be so gauche as to quote myself): "Maybe one day it'll come back to Broadway, if the plot can be brought under control and if there is interest in a show about something that clearly is now a historical era."

Guess what? There is a revival! Currently in previews and due to open on Broadway soon. And apparently it has an all-new book, a reworked story, which it very much needed.

Hmmmmm? Do you think perhaps the producers behind this revival saw my blog post and it sparked the idea to bring Chess back? Probably not. But a blogger can dream. 

But wait, 'dere's more! 

There's a new mini-series on Netflix called Death by Lightening about the 1881 assasination of President James Garfield. His Vice-President was Chester Arthur, former head of the Port of New York who become the 21st President of the United States and created the Civil Service. 

I've blogged about Arthur a few times, including about the fact that he was the only other President besides Washington to take the oath of office in NYC. In this mini-series Arthur is played by Nick Offerman, giving this long overlooked historical figure his due -- but after Mr NYC gave it to him first.

Eric Adams: The Secrets of His Success

The vision-less, incompetent mayoralty of Eric Adams is now getting more and more attention from what some might call the "elite" media -- specifically, The New Yorker, whose big new article on him, "Eric Adams' Administration of Bluster", goes into a mayoralty that's long on narcissism, short on accomplishment. The New York Times has run a few articles on his empty yet braggadocious tenure -- as well as the fact that, while many want to see him defeated for reelection in 2025, who the Adams-slayer might be remains frustratingly unclear. 

And that, in fact, has been the secret to Adams' mayoral success thus far -- a total lack of credible challengers, a strong alternative to him.

Even though he almost lost the 2021 Democratic mayoral primary, Adams' main challengers were the smart but politically inexperienced Kathryn Garcia, the "entrepreneur"/former presidential candidate/con-man Andrew Yang, and others who were either unknown or unimpressive. In the general election, his Republican opponent was Curtis Sliwa who was, and is, in short, insane. The NYC political reporter -- and three-time Mr NYC interviewee -- Ross Barkan asks in one of his latest articles, "How did New York get Eric Adams?" and then answers it in the same vein -- Adams was the best of a very bad bunch, the strongest in a very weak field; in short, he became mayor almost by default, thanks to a process of elimination where he was viewed as the "least-worst" option.

Unlike the big-time media, this blog and Ross have been covering the oddness and misgovernance of Eric Adams ever since he took office. This is yet another example of how Mr NYC has been "ahead of his time."

And, looking ahead, it's important to remember one big thing: political survival comes down to, at the end of the day, who supports you. Political survival, sadly, is not about how good a job politicians are doing, not about whether or not they're delivering good policies or tangible benefits for the public, but whether or not they have the support for the powerful forces that can keep them in office. Besides weak or non-existent political opposition, Adams has had and retains strong support among black and Hispanic voters, the business community, Jewish voters, police and the tabloid press. These are the same constituencies (saving the black and Hispanic communities) who strongly supported Koch, Giuliani and Bloomberg back in the day, and who violently opposed Dinkins and DeBlasio -- and it's why those former three mayors remained popular despite their plutocratic and corrupt mayoralties and the latter two became hated.

Eric Adams is mayor -- and may very well continue as mayor until January 1st, 2030 -- since he has probably the most powerful aforementioned group of supporters that any mayor has ever had, he has (for now) no potent opposition, the daily horror show and threat that Donald Trump poses continues to overwhelm and distract the public from Adams's failings, plus the sharp decline in local reporting has reduced the scrutiny that NYC mayors have gotten in the past. 

Adams doesn't really have any secret to his political success, he's no genius or playing some great game, some kind of multi-dimensional chess -- he's just been lucky (so far). He's been luckier than his opponents who are either dumber or weaker or crazier than he is; and if, in 2025 and beyond, his luck holds and his opponents remain imponent and he doesn't end up getting indicted (and it wouldn't shock me if he is), Adams may be able to retire from politics on January 1st, 2030 with NYC thinking he was a successful mayor.    

It will be classic case of failing upwards.