Steven Spielberg's West Side Story Is a Dazzling Bit of Americana
It’s a moving story about immigration and assimilation, and one of the best movies of the year.

On first glance, West Side Story might seem a strange project for Steven Spielberg: The director, better known for adventure films and serious historical dramas, has never made a musical. Robert Wise's 1961 film version, adapted from the 1957 Broadway show, is a popular classic in good standing, not an outdated clunker in need of update. Wasn't Spielberg supposed to be making another Indiana Jones?
But look a little further, and it's clear that West Side Story is an almost perfect fit for Spielberg's longstanding interests and predilections: It's a beloved, exuberant, tragic-yet-hopeful story of volatile young men, cyclical violence, and the sort of ethnopolitical culture clash that has defined the American project. It's a story about the formation of post-war American identity, about immigration, assimilation, and community, told through song, dance, romance, and cathartic violence. Spielberg is, among other things, Hollywood's foremost purveyor of pop Americana, obsessed with national myth and self-image; no wonder he couldn't resist. And for that, we are fortunate. Spielberg's West Side Story is a marvelous movie, bursting with life and vitality. It is one of the very best movies of the year.
Of course, it's not just Spielberg's movie: Although the film keeps the lush Leonard Bernstein music and the lyrics by recently deceased Broadway legend Stephen Sondheim, Spielberg's remake updates the book with new dialogue from Tony Kushner. Kushner, notably, is the playwright behind Angels in America, but he's also the writer of Spielberg's Munich and Lincoln, and many of the themes from those movies emerge here.
As in Munich, Spielberg and Kushner frame West Side Story as a tale of ethno-political cyclical conflict. In this case, the war is between the Sharks, a gang of Puerto Rican immigrants, and the Jets, a white ethnic gang described by a local police officer as "the last of the can't-make-it Caucasians." The rival gangs are fighting over the same slice of New York territory, a decrepit but joyful immigrant neighborhood that's already being torn down to make way for more upscale dwellings. They don't know much about each other, but they know enough—as Jets leader Riff (a feisty, rousing Mike Faist) says, "They. Ain't. Us."
Kushner's book is grittier than the original without ever becoming needlessly grim; his characters still talk in a stagey, rhythmic patter, one that seems musical even when there's no orchestral accompaniment. The accompaniment, however, remains one of the highlights of the show: Bernstein's moody, jazzy, big-band score has stayed a staple of high school marching bands for decades for a reason: Even when it's played badly, it still sounds pretty good—and here it's played and recorded exceptionally well.
The songs are catchy and memorable with big hooks, but they're not just throwaway earworms. And often enough, the music holds its own, with long, wordless sequences where the characters neither sing nor speak. The music is simply the sound of them going about their lives.
The song and dance numbers, meanwhile, are as memorably spectacular as you might hope from the single greatest director of movie setpieces in Hollywood history. Spielberg deserves this accolade without reservation or qualification: From Jaws to Raiders of the Lost Ark to Jurassic Park to Saving Private Ryan to War of the Worlds, Spielberg is the reigning master of ambitious cinematic sequence design; no director is better at creating instantly memorable, perfectly iconic imagery in sequence. If you are an American adult who has ever been to the movies, you can almost certainly call to mind at least one defining image from a Spielberg movie; more likely, you can think of a dozen. He has crafted too many universal cinematic reference points to count.
In West Side Story, Spielberg doesn't stage anything too overtly showy or grandiose; in some ways, the production feels small, almost intimate. But that just makes the sheer enthralling beauty of his shots more impressive. There's never been another director who is better at lighting and framing human bodies (and sometimes cars, trucks, tanks, dinosaurs, and spaceships) in motion, whether that motion is running or punching or dancing. West Side Story's breathtaking use of light, color, shadow, and tightly choreographed camera movement to convey meaning merely makes the case for his greatness yet again.
Indeed, even though West Side Story is Spielberg's first true musical, it feels like he's been directing them forever, and perhaps even like he invented the form—or as if he's inventing it as we watch. And as the movie plays out, it also becomes clear that, in some sense, he's always been making musicals, or at least that his intricately designed setpieces have always had a kind of Broadway musical influence to them: Think of the diamond MacGuffin hunt that kicks off Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, or the car factory chase in Minority Report, or even the T-Rex attack in the middle of Jurassic Park.
No one breaks out in song (though it's not too hard to imagine the T-Rex turning to the camera and belting out a showstopper about her rage and hunger). But these big numbers are constructed at least in part from the elements of musical theater. They are all mechanized motion, complex choreography, animalistic desire, the logic of action and reaction timed and sequenced to sound and music, with slow builds and big payoffs, and characters in crisis, fighting for their lives and their identities, telling you, any way they can, what they feel and who they really are. At their best, those sequences can be transcendent, thrilling, joyful, funny, frightening, moving, sometimes all at once. West Side Story is all of these, because it's Spielberg at his best.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
BORING!
Single Mom Makes $89,844/Yr in Her Spare Time on The Computer Without Selling Anything.KJQ you can bring from $5000-$8000 of extra income every month. working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger.
The potential with this is endless….. WorkJoin1
Boring indeed- 13 "Spielberg"'s in 10 paragraphs, but no mention of the guy who wrote the original .
This West Side Story, like the last one , is the umpteenth soap opera remake of Romeo And Juliet.
Maybe not mentioned because everyone in the world already knows. Mentioning it would have been boring.
"It’s a moving story about immigration"
Excellent. I'm glad billionaire Steven Spielberg made a pro-immigration film that will please other billionaires like Reason.com's benefactor Charles Koch.
#OpenBorders
I'm glad to hear it's a good film, since the original remains iconic. However, for this NYC born-and-raised girl, Rita Moreno and George Chakiris are forever Anita and Bernardo. That was one hot couple.
Um I was 5 years old when the movie came out and I was in love with Natalie Wood for the next 20 years.
The review above didn't mention it, but this movie does have Rita Moreno in it. In an older role, of course.
I thought West Side Story was just an updated version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Is that some other Broadway musical I'm thinking of? I'm not real up on musicals, Jesus Christ Superstar is about the beginning and the end of my interest.
100% correct.
It is refreshing to see something original come out of Hollywood.
The state of what the entertainment industry is churning out is pretty dismal.
There’s a fucking “I Love Lucy” movie coming out (although I do hope the mob finds Javier Bardem playing a Cuban troubling).
And they’re doing live re-enactments of old sitcoms on TV:
https://deadline.com/2021/12/live-in-front-of-a-studio-audience-facts-of-life-diffrent-strokes-recap-1234886445/amp/
The race to the bottom is on. Stand by for the Captain Crunch movie.
You need to set a story like this in 1957 - 1961. The idea of a white street gang in New York City that excludes Puerto Ricans for being Puerto Rican should seem ridiculous today. Back in 1957, integrating Puerto Rican immigrants into New York, and whites resisting, wasn't just a projection of progressive obsessions with race. It was a real issue then--that doesn't make sense within the context of 2021.
If they wanted to set West Side Story's take on Romeo and Juliet in an era that made sense, they might have set in Los Angeles, just before the riot of 1992. They should have made it between an African-American Romeo in a gang and the sister of a kid in an Asian gang. That was a time in history where there really was racial animosity for a newly established immigrant group against a backdrop of gang violence that sill has relevance today.
Better yet, Spielberg could have made it about the daughter of a cop falling in love with an African-American gang member who's trying to go right. That would still have some relevance today like white kids vs. Puerto Rican kids did in New York City circa 1957. Spielberg may not even realize that white street gangs roaming New York City (or any other major urban setting) and excluding Puerto Ricans is just a progressive fantasy at this point. For goodness' sake, hasn't he seen 8 Mile?
White street gangs in NYC being prejudiced against Puerto Ricans, I guess this is the warped reality boomer progressives live in--where they're still trying to resolve problems that existed in 1957 and just aren't relevant anymore. What they imagine is going on outside their suburban communities could only exist in the movies. It has nothing to do with the real state of America today. The question is whether they can't make this relevant today because they're trying to create a reality rather than address the real world, or if the issue is that the real world is unfathomable to them.
Romeo and Juliet still resonates, I'm sure.
Ken, well said.
Maybe a MAGA guy caricature in love with a teacher’s union boss’ daughter.
Make it a MAGA gay caricature, and I'll get you a meeting with a studio exec pronto.
Huh? The remake IS set around 1957 or during the time buildings were being demolished to make way for the Lincoln Center - ground breaking took place in 1959.
Huh? The remake IS set around 1957"
That's what I said. When it first came out, it was relevant to the reality of contemporary America in 1957-1961. Hell they even did it within the context of a wildly popular medium (the musical) that doesn't really have much relevance today.
They have set it in a context that has no relevance for today. To the extent that it resonates with audiences, it resonates with a psychological projection of progressive anxieties--rather than the real world.
Romeo and Juliet still resonates, but that's different.
It's an historical piece like thousands of other movies. A contemporary version would inevitably be ruined by obligatory wokeness.
This IS a woke version of an old story. Kushner ruined it.
FACT: I believe your assessment of it being a woke version is probably 100% correct.
And it's also incredibly stupid.
"You need to set a story like this in 1957 - 1961."
In other words, you can't set a story about a white gang roaming the streets of New York City today and excluding Puerto Ricans in 2021--because it doesn't make sense. That reality doesn't and couldn't exist. So, "You need to set as story like this in 1957 - 1961"--a context that has virtually no connection to the real world of today.
OMG. Seriously? Spielberg was trying to do nothing than stage a play in the same era it was originally set in, and you write a 346-word essay on how it implicates the racism of Progressives?!
Agreed. It doesn't take 346 words to point out that proggies are racist.
Threadwinner.
Agreed. It was worth unmuting Lauren to read that comment to get the full flavor of the burn that came afterwards in context.
*hands Lauren the aloe*
The Trumps are in gear,
Our cylinders are clickin'!
The Squads'll steer clear,
'Cause any pro-gres-sive
'S a lousy person!
Are you Jussie smollet?
If you think that's unrealistic, wait till you get a load of Indiana Jones.
What part does AOC play?
She sings a song about eating the rich.
No, she sings a song about not wanting to be in America because e'rything isn't free in America like it is in developed nations.
"I hate to be in America.
Nokay by me in America.
Everything not free in America."
Cocktail waitress. As she’s swiping a coworker’s tip she breaks out in song:
I feel proggy
Mind so foggy
Ideas boggy and soggy and lame
And this smoggy
City’s dumb electorate’s fair game!
"I like to be in America!
O.K. by me in America!
Ev'rything free in America!"
Sounds like the democrats' southern border policy.
We can relax in America
Everyone’s vaxxed in America
Gov’s got our backs in America
(For a “small” tax in America)
way to go out on a limb, Spielbergo
Someone watched this when they could have been watching the Beatles documentary?
Is it an either/or choice?
I'm not hip to what all the young people are into, but in the comments, I've seen a dozen or so vague cracks about a Beatles Documentary.
Is there an inside joke I'm missing here?
No. Congratulations, though, that you missed all Disney’s promotion for director, Peter Jackson’s 8(?)-hour documentary on the making of The Beatles’ “Let It Be” album. It premiered on Disney+ on Thanksgiving Day.
It was marketed to appeal to Boomers, of course, not young people.
CE really liked it. I liked a lot of it, but though it could have easily been edited down to around two hours. It was very repetitive.
So it's Peter Jackson's attempt at a Ken Burns style doc. Probably longer than it took to produce the album.
Much better than Burns though. No talking heads telling us how great the Beatles were, just studio footage of genius at work (interspersed with tedium and conflict and goofing around.)
It probably could have been cut down to 6 hours and still worked, but 2 hours would have made it a different film.
I've been told the Beatles have "no legs", but then this happened:
https://www.udiscovermusic.com/news/beatles-let-it-be-top-rock-albums-no-1/
The Beatles’ Let It Be album is supercharged by the Thanksgiving Weekend premiere of the docuseries The Beatles: Get Back on Disney+ to climb from No.10 to the top of Billboard’s Top Rock Albums chart for the first time.
Funny you ask that. I had just watched Ken Burns’ “Country Music” documentary, which is even longer and has lots of narration from Peter Coyote I what my sister calls the bland, hypnotic “NPR” voice.
Peter Jackson just let’s The Beatles tak for themselves. Not a word of narration.
Ugh, can't stand Ken Burns. It's something about the way both he and his supporters act like he's been given exclusive ownership of American History and any historical documentary automatically passes to him. It means that everything is being filtered through one person's perspective. And it of course discourages anyone with less clout than Burns from making documentaries about major historical subjects. I also haven't particularly enjoyed his style.
Won't even watch it on Netflix.
Does everyone get race and gender swapped?
No, to Spielberg’s credit, they do not.
Too bad. Would have been interesting to see two gangs, the white gang become Black, the Puerto Rican game becoming white (erasing the 'Ricans out of the movie altogether-- but thankfully avoiding that touchy "hispanic-passing-for-white" casting situation that gets some directors called out for), but each gang is all-female, with the leader of each gang being a trans-woman. It was, after all, 1957...
FYI, my borders have always been open for Rita Moreno.
I have argued before that we should all be able to agree that US immigration should allow any and all attractive, young women in the country.
At least we can all agree that Spielberg's greatest war movie is 1941.
Lol.
Enema at the Gates
you think the Japanese believe in Santy Claus?
Loved John Belushi's cameo as the fighter pilot landing in the middle of the street, right before the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
When you're a jet...
My favorite part is at the end where the guy says "We hit a sub! I saw it go down!"
Bernstein, Sondheim, and Kushner. How gay!
Puerto Ricans are American citizens, not so-called immigrants. The story holds true for its context but it’s laughable in a contemporary one. Of course, if you think that open borders isn’t derangement, you’d celebrate any idiotic spousal of unrestricted human movement every chance you get.
They’re citizens, because that’s how they were paid off for our use of their island as a military base.
But they’re not Americans by culture, and proudly so. They’ve had a separate culture for centuries, even when they’ve immigrated to the States.
Bingo
Why? Just why?
It would be interesting to see a period piece say 1935 Utica NY where you have the Italian neighborhood and the Jewish neighborhood and they dynamics between the two. Secular, socialist, zionist Jews interacting with Catholic traditionalist free market Italians. Now that would be very interesting.
A Jewish-Italian rumble scene would be priceless. At one point some guy yelling out in a loud New York accent: “Wait a second! I can’t tell who’s WHAT here!”
Utica not NYC. But your point is well taken. There has always been tension between liberal Jews and conservative Italians in the Northeast. For a long time both goups were very loyal democratic voters but that is long gone.
I hope for Spielberg's sake that every last damn Puerto Rican character is played by a Puerto Rican actor. 'Activists' will probably still ask why it "centers whiteness" and where are all the black, Asian, transgender and disabled people?
They’ve got a Pollack playing an American. Hope that makes you happy.
I’ll never forget the first Spielberg movie I ever saw. He really jumped the shark with that one!
Spielberg is but another piece of Hollywood shit. Soon... They truth will be out about these Evil jerks in Hollywood. Not a single "star" will survive thier coming due.
The Phucko Knows
Looks like it isn't doing that well at the box office.
Movie has been rated a flop. 10M first weekend.
Too bad. It's very good. By the way, Rita Moreno gets to sing "Somewhere." She plays the widow of Doc in the original, which makes her concern of ethnic conflict more poignant. After all, she watched the Jets grow up.