Imagine a beloved musical that's been baffling audiences for decades—its plot a tangled mess that leaves even fans scratching their heads. That's the story of 'Chess,' and it's about to get a dramatic makeover thanks to one man's bold vision.
Picture this: Danny Strong, the creative force behind hit TV shows like Empire and Dopesick, stumbled upon a concert performance of the musical Chess and found himself utterly confused by the convoluted storyline. Instead of just enjoying the catchy rock tunes composed by ABBA's Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus, he felt an irresistible urge to dive deeper. 'All of a sudden, I had this wild, almost crazy idea: maybe I could actually fix the show,' Strong recalled with a grin.
And that's exactly what he did. Strong took on the task of revamping the book for this musical, which centers on two chess champions—one from the United States and one from the Soviet Union—competing in a high-stakes tournament against the backdrop of the Cold War, complete with a complicated love triangle. His updated version features stars like Lea Michele, Aaron Tveit, and Nicholas Christopher, and it's gearing up for previews on Broadway starting October 15, with an official opening on November 16.
Now, for those unfamiliar, Chess is notorious for its murky narrative that weaves in subplots about defection, a missing family member, and other twists. Originally written by Tim Rice, it had a decent run in London's West End in 1986, lasting several years, but flopped on Broadway in 1988, closing after just two months. To make matters worse, the British and American versions differ in key plot details—like who wins the chess tournament—adding to the confusion. Yet, despite the storyline woes, the score has built a devoted fanbase, often performed as concerts rather than full productions.
Strong reached out to Rice and the original team for approval, which they granted swiftly, and he began crafting his take. He emphasized the political tensions of the era and added a narrator to help guide viewers through the plot, much like a helpful tour guide in a dense forest. Collaborating with director Michael Mayer, who helmed Spring Awakening, they staged a short run at the Kennedy Center in 2018 and a one-night Broadway concert in 2022. Mayer, who was equally puzzled by the original concert ('It was a musical event, but I was totally baffled by the story,' he admitted), joined because he trusted Strong's knack for blending big political narratives with intimate personal dramas.
'As Danny Strong demonstrated in Empire, he has an incredible talent for capturing the quirks of politics while delivering gripping, emotional stories about relationships,' Mayer explained.
But here's where it gets controversial: Is it right to tamper with a classic musical's original vision? Some purists might argue that changing a show's core could diminish its artistic integrity. Strong, however, is no stranger to theatrical endeavors; besides acting in films and TV, he's written books for shows like Galileo, which Mayer also directed, and he's hopeful it'll hit Broadway soon. Mayer's confidence in Strong stems from his ability to intertwine grand historical contexts with heartfelt interpersonal conflicts.
Ahead of the first preview, Strong chatted with The Hollywood Reporter about his journey and insights into revamping Chess. Let's break down his thoughts, making it easy for newcomers to follow—think of it as unraveling a chess puzzle step by step.
What drew you into Chess initially?
One day, while tuning into the soundtrack, I realized why the show struggles to take the stage. The music is adored by musical theater enthusiasts like me, but the full production rarely happens because the plot is too hard to follow. People stick to concert versions, like the one with Josh Groban and Idina Menzel, because they can't piece together the story. As I watched a video of that concert, my mind kicked into rewrite mode. I started pinpointing issues and brainstorming fixes. Then, bam—that delusional notion hit: 'Hey, maybe I can repair this thing.'
I looped in a friend to contact Michael Mayer, half-jokingly suggesting he direct my vision. The next morning, I had an email from Michael saying, 'I'm in,' and he mentioned Tom Hulce as producer. It was surreal!
Why did you believe you were the right person to tackle this?
I wasn't approaching it as a hero's quest, thinking only I could save it. I just wanted to explore it. As ideas flowed while watching, it felt natural—I've rewritten scripts before, recapped episodes, and even recut entire TV seasons. Applying those skills to a stage musical wasn't a stretch; it was an extension of my work in film and TV.
And this is the part most people miss: What exactly was the core problem with the original?
The story raced ahead too fast, with key events unfolding mid-song, making it impossible to track buried in lyrics. Plus, I wanted to amp up the tension beyond just romance and chess moves. The Cold War was raging when they wrote it, and hints of it popped up in the music, but I integrated real historical events directly into the narrative. By weaving Cold War elements into the love story and tournaments, it creates a thrilling, high-stakes drama. For beginners, think of it like adding layers to a cake: the base is the songs and personal conflicts, but the frosting is the geopolitical intrigue that makes everything more intense.
Did you add more spoken dialogue to balance it out?
Absolutely. It now resembles a classic book musical with substantial scenes leading into songs, sometimes stringing together musical sequences or back-to-back dialogues. I even trimmed some songs to streamline the score. As a fan of musical theater, I cherish Chess's rock soundtrack—one of the best ever—so refining it to its 20 essential tracks felt empowering. This edit not only clarifies but elevates the entire experience.
Regarding the differences between the British and American versions, which one did you prioritize?
Honestly, I skipped the American book entirely—I never read it. Rice and the team disliked it too, so I built from the songs and the mostly sung-through London version. That became my foundation, layering in those Cold War threads.
Were you worried about backlash for altering the music?
After 40 years, I trusted my gut to create a compelling story. My focus was on making it work, not pleasing everyone. Surprisingly, Rice, Andersson, and Ulvaeus loved it and had no issues with the cuts. At the Kennedy Center, sitting between them during intermission, Andersson gave me a beaming thumbs-up, and Ulvaeus patted my back. It was validating!
What about fan reactions?
I urge fans to approach with open minds. Online, they're passionate about versions and recordings, debating endlessly. But our goal is to craft a dynamic show for newcomers—engaging and fresh, as if it's your first time.
What prompted further changes after the Kennedy Center run?
We built on successes and ditched what fell flat. The narrator, the Arbiter, was a hit—his witty, sarcastic commentary landed perfectly, so we amplified that role. It was a pivotal step in refining the production.
Does this mean audiences will finally grasp your Chess?
I think so—crystal clear, even. Achieving that clarity alone is a win, but the phenomenal music pushes us further: from making it understandable to making it extraordinary, matching the songs' brilliance.
It’s fascinating how this aligns with the recent success of Merrily We Roll Along's revival, another flop-turned-hit. Is there a growing trend for reviving tricky musicals?
It was coincidental; our Kennedy Center show was in 2018, before Merrily took off. But their triumph was a great template—proving that a beloved but flawed show can succeed with rework. It boosted investor interest in ours. I don't see it as a fad; people simply adore these works and their tunes. Shows like Merrily and Chess rarely get produced, so making them viable excites fans immensely. For example, imagine a die-hard Chess enthusiast finally seeing a version that flows effortlessly—it's like reuniting with an old friend in a new light.
With Galileo potentially heading to Broadway, what’s next for you in theater?
I'm working on another musical, but it's too early to announce—script's not even started yet, and it's years away.
This interview has been slightly edited for brevity and flow.
What do you think—should classic musicals be updated for modern audiences, or preserved exactly as they were? Is Strong's approach to Chess a genius fix or a risky gamble? Share your thoughts in the comments below; I'd love to hear if you agree, disagree, or have your own controversial take on reviving theater!
