West Side Story (1961) VS West Side Story (2021)-Which is Better?

Romeo and Juliet, regarded as one of William Shakespeare’s most-accessible tragedies, has had such an impact on the West that it spawned West Side Story, considered one of the best musicals ever made. Getting its start on Broadway, the musical made its way to the big screen in 1961. For 60 years, it was an untouchable masterpiece. It wasn’t until Steven Spielberg in 2021 that anyone thought of remaking it. And in both cases, it was well-received by critics and fans.

On first glance, there isn’t much to discuss. Both film are viable translations of the play. Even reception-wise they’re similar, holding roughly the same aggregate on Rotten Tomatoes. So it really comes down to personal preference. Which do I prefer? Let’s find out!

As always, there’ll be spoilers!

Let’s begin with…

Story:

VS

The premise of these adaptations is the same: set in The Upper-West Side of New York City in the 1950’s, we follow two gangs, The Jets and The Sharks, as they struggle to survive. The Jets, Irish-Americans led by Riff, and The Sharks, Puerto Rican immigrants led by Bernardo, frequently get into trouble with the police as they claim overlapping territories. When Bernardo’s younger sister, Maria, meets Riff’s best-friend, Tony, at the local dance, the two immediately develop feelings. This “meeting of ethnics” doesn’t go unnoticed by Riff and Bernardo, who decide to duke it out in a fight. Torn between love and loyalty, Tony and Maria must decide if their romance is worth it…assuming it doesn’t end in tragedy.

While both outlines are similar, to the point where you could frequently argue plagiarism, they differ in subtext. For the 1961 film, it’s a straightforward story about racism and survival, as well as familial bonds. There’s also light commentary on police corruption and racism, but it doesn’t get in the way of the story. These themes carry over to the Spielberg film, but they’re delved into more. They’re even expanded on with the biting commentary on gentrification, something made blatantly-obvious with the film’s opening shot.

One point of note is the tone of both adaptations. The 1961 film, made when film musicals were largely viewed as big-screen plays, goes for heightened reality. Everything is awash in bright colours and evokes a romantic, almost dream-like vibe. The writing and tone are incredibly campy and otherworldly, making the darker moments more striking (for better or worse). In contrast, the Spielberg movie goes for grit and period accuracy. Every detail’s grounded and serves a purpose, including the gun Chino gets his hands on. This also has its shares of drawbacks, which I’ll cover later.

While both films clock in at over 2.5 hours, the former has an intermission partway. This was meant for audiences to stretch, go to the bathroom and buy more concessions, and it’s a good pause, but it feels awkward. It doesn’t help that a lot of the plot beats feel rushed, including the transitions to singing. The remake, on the other hand, has no intermission, making for a cohesive through-line.

The real question is, “Which version’s ‘feel’ do you prefer?”. A lighter, fluffier movie with an intermission partway, or do you want gritty with no intermission? While both have their strengths, I’m leaning more to the latter myself. It feels longer, and certain concepts don’t translate quite as well, but it doesn’t abruptly stop and leave you hanging. Spielberg wins.

Winner:

But a story’s only as good as its characters, which leads me to…

Cast:

VS

There are two major changes in the characters. The first is that Doc, the shopkeeper in the original movie, is replaced by Doc’s Wife in the latter. This was an interesting way to bring back Rita Moreno and have her inclusion make sense. For example, using Moreno was an effective way to make the criticism of The Jets’ molestation of Anita more currently-relevant; as Moreno’s character is the one who calls them out instead of Doc. In a post-Me Too world, giving the “You’re disgusting pigs!” speech to a woman makes more sense.

The other change in the remake, however, I’m less-enthusiastic about. The original movie had a minor character nicknamed Anybodys. She was a tough, tomboy-esque Jet who desperately craved respect from the rest of the gang. Because of her build, she also had a talent for slipping in and out of the shadows. The Spielberg movie keeps Anybodys, but makes the character a transgender man. It’s definitely interesting, lending well to a commentary on transphobia, but Anybodys doesn’t do much. He complains, gets into a scuffle with Officer Krupke and rehashes the role of slipping in and out of the shadows. I like that this actor is trans in real life, but his character, sadly, feels like a tokenized inclusion.

The rest of the cast I’m giving to Spielberg here…with two exceptions. This isn’t to disparage the original, which debuted during the era of The Hays Code, but in the original, the Puerto Ricans look and sound like brown-face representations of Latino-Americans. Even Rita Moreno, who actually is Latina, comes off as a Puerto Rican stereotype. The Spielberg movie not only gets the casting right, it also gets people who look age-appropriate. If we were judging the movies on that alone, it’d tip in favour of Spielberg.

Unfortunately, the Spielberg version has a blight: the leads. Ignoring the controversy surrounding Ansel Elgort, he and Rachel Zegler are perfect for Tony and Maria respectively, but the grittier tone means their romance sticks out more. It doesn’t work in a realistic story because of how heightened it is, and they lack the chemistry Natalie Wood and Richard Beymer had. Even the way they meet, which is a neat workaround, feels too hammy.

It's unfortunate that this is an issue at all, as it throws off much of the investment in their struggle. The 1961 film, while hammier, nails that, warts and all. That, and Anybodys actually feels like a character there. Sorry, the 1961 film wins.

Winner:

That was an unfortunate loss for Spielberg, but hopefully he can recover with…

Aesthetic:

VS

This one’s all based on personal preference.

It’d seem at first glance that it’d be an easy win for Spielberg; after all, it’s more grounded! You see that with a one-take pan of a demolition site set to The Jets’ whistling in the opening. Everything here is period-accurate and lived-in. Even the “pretty” shots have a tactile grime to them, and it helps accentuate the darker, more violent moments (like the knife fight during the rumble). The 1961 film, which goes for stylization and a ballet-like approach, seems to pale in comparison!

But you know what? I kind of like that earlier approach! True, it’s over-choreographed beyond belief, and the dramatic moments feel more jarring, but since this is a schmaltzy story anyway, I think it works. If anything, it holds up as a period piece, something the Spielberg movie can’t attest to. It also makes the Tony/Maria love story more believable.

So which do you prefer? A silly, ballet-like experience that’s heightened, even at the expense of accuracy, or a gritty, period-accurate piece that looks the part, but is much harder to swallow on the narrative front? Either way, there are pros and cons. It’s a tie.

Tie:

With that in mind, it’s time for…

Sound:

VS

Both movies have excellent music and sound. West Side Story is a Sondheim-Bernstein collaboration, so the lyrics and compositions are layered and memorable. Special shout-outs to “America” and “Officer Krupke”. The former’s a microcosm of the immigrant experience in the 1950’s, while the latter highlights the failures of society to actually help troubled youth. All of the songs are great, but those two in particular are excellent.

That said, the Spielberg adaptation adds to two of the songs and somewhat to a third. With “America”, the way in which Anita and Bernardo sing the lyrics feels more weighty. The 1961 version was fun, but it was a series of catty zingers. Spielberg’s rendition has them sing like an argumentative conversation, with both having valid points and moments of naivety. It also ends with them kissing, showing that while they might be at odds over their immigrant lives, they still love each other.

“Cool Boy”, on the other hand, is a clear knock-out for Spielberg. In the 1961 movie, it happens right after the rumble goes awry, as that’s when The Jets try and compose themselves. It’s a fun song, but it’s too silly for its own good. Spielberg’s take, however, comes earlier on and focuses on Tony wrestling Riff’s newly-purchased gun from his hands. Not only does this give weight to said gun and resolve a plot-hole, it’s a much more effective use of “Cool Boy”. It’s a dark song, and it needs something dark to go along with it.

As for a half-improvement, there’s “I Feel Pretty”. The 1961 movie loved this song, whereas Spielberg almost didn’t include it. The fact that he placed it after the rumble and set it in a hotel with maids, something that fits Maria better than a seamstress, works to its advantage, as does updating several of the lyrics. But he clearly didn’t care as much for it as you’d hope. It’s a shame, as you can sense the passion that Zegler’s Maria has.

One other side-note is the use of language. The 1961 movie sporadically tosses in Spanish, but not enough to be distracting. The Spielberg version uses Spanish constantly, even having a running joke of “If you want to be American, you have to speak English” permeate throughout. It’s not so seamless, even if it feels organic. And while you can gleam the context of what the characters say, a lack of subtitles in this day and age is a missed-opportunity.

I’m going with Spielberg. Not only do the songs (mostly) work, they fit the story better. In the 1961 adaptation, a lot of the songs feel rushed and come out of nowhere, which is weird considering the movie’s length. Spielberg’s songs, aside from fitting the tone better, don’t feel rushed.

Winner:

Time for the decider! This is…

Entertainment factor:

VS

Like everything else, which adaptation’s more enjoyable is based on personal preference. Here, it’s reliant on how you view this story: do you prefer a fluffier, dreamlike take with occasional pulls to reality? Or is a grounded take that calls attention to its shallow romance what you want? Both have their ups and downs. And both are a product of their times, one of the roadshow era and the other modern sensibilities.

I’m going for Spielberg’s take. I know it’s controversial to redo what’s regarded to be the greatest musical put to film, but it feels more tangible. I don’t fully buy into the conflict of the 1961 film, it feels like a side-story. The Spielberg movie, however, drives home that, yes, this is what was actually happening. The fighting is a short-term solution for a bigger problem-Bernardo even calls it “stupid”-but that problem created the fighting. The film doesn’t hide that gentrification and social inequality led to a power/race/class imbalance, hence why this story plays out like it does. Even Tony and Maria’s romance only lacks depth because it’s not allowed to properly develop. It’s what Romeo and Juliet was going for when Shakespeare wrote it initially.

Basically, Spielberg’s movie’s the better film. No disrespect to the 1961 classic, but it simply doesn’t measure up to what I feel is the superior adaptation from Spielberg.

Overall winner:

That about does it! Big thanks for reading this, and I’ll see you next time!