Movie Musicals (Chicago and Phantom, most specifically)- Page 2

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/3/04 at 3:01am

When was Phantom ever an opera? Just cuz' it has opera in the title does not mean it's an opera. It credits a book writer, therefor it is a book musical. Not an opera... Same with Sweeney Todd. It says BOOK BY HUGH WHEELER. It's a BOOK musical. Not an opera.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 2:01am

I think there was a lot of confusion throughout the early 80s (that later effected Phantom in the mid-80s) about what was a "rock opera" and what was the new "sung-through musical." People probably call Phantom an opera because it's almost completely sung. The term "rock opera" has all-but-disappeared.

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 12:03pm

150 minutes really isn't so bad for something like PHANTOM. Consider: the show's been running for twenty years. It's a well known commodity with a built-in audience garnered from years of road tours. As questionable as the score is (sorry, but it feels like it's all one number, built on variations of "Music of the Night"), it's *very* visual (no small thanks to Hal Prince for that) with a lot of audience appeal. If the marketing is handled properly, the 150-minutes issue will be a non one.

And funny someone noted that about the deleted scenes in FANTASTICKS. I kept watching them and thinking, "Why the hell did they cut this?" It's almost like no one had any faith in the quality of the material, and that's a shame.

Personal movie-musical fantasy? 110 IN THE SHADE.

[TheaterChef]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 4:55am

All right, to try and clear this all up, POTO is not an opera because it does in fact have dialogue more than in Act I. Ex. Act II; scene II, scene IV, scene VI, not to mention in Act I -- scenes I-III.

As for what makes an opera an opera and a musical a musical has been said to be because an opera is almost always a drama which is completely or mostly sung. Opera is led mainly by the vocals and orchestra, whereas musicals are carried through by the dialogue.

But, the "rules" have changed after such operas as Carmen and The Daughter of Regiment with them featuring dialogue. But going back to the original topic, ALW's work, POTO is tricky, but just like Les Miserables, Sweeney Todd, they are musicals, not operas.

The reason being why operas are operas and musicals are musicals can no longer be because operas are dramatic and musicals tend to be comedies, because of musicals like POTO, Les Mis, and Sweeney Todd. Still, we can say POTO is not an opera because it proceeds to tell a story through dialogue; ex. Mme. Giry explaining to Raoul how the Phantom came to be.

Musicals tend to use dialogue to tell a story and add in song and dance to enhance the plot. Opera tells its story mainly through song.

Though again this could be debated with examples such as Carousel and Mozart's The Magic Flute, there ARE differences between operas and musicals.

Musical singers are usually miked, whereas opera singers are generally not.

Also, opera has been around for a heck of a lot longer, and let's not forget it's actually sung in a different language (all of it).

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 10:56pm

Still, we can say POTO is not an opera because it proceeds to tell a story through dialogue; ex. Mme. Giry explaining to Raoul how the Phantom came to be. Musicals tend to use dialogue to tell a story and add in song and dance to enhance the plot. Opera tells its story mainly through song.

That's not necessarily true; look at Les Miz. It's completely sung. The only non-musical verbalization is short utterances: "Liar!" or "General Lamarque is dead!" It's a story that's told completely through song, and has no dialogue.

I think it's futile to try to differentiate opera and [sung-through] musicals, because the differences stem from historical development rather than characteristics of either form. Musicals come from early song 'n dance revue shows, which come from operettas, which are derived from opera. The musical form is only about a century old. Opera, as you've said, is a much older form, and developed from court masques.

Unlike the musical, which is still evolving, the opera is now a pretty stagnant theatrical genre; people still write and do experimental things with opera, but it's more playing with an old horse than actually helping it grow. And not all operas are in other languages other than English; there are plenty of English operas too. In Canada, several English operas have been produced in the last few years; even "Jerry Springer: The Opera" is stylistically an opera (although it's being marketed as a musical).

The musical form has greatly broadened and become multifaceted; it can no longer be defined as only musical comedy or "burst-into-song" shows. It's an incredibly flexible and undefinable medium now, which I think speaks for its popularity. Musicals can be sung-through or have a very small list of tunes; they run the full gamut of musical styles; they can be tragedies, comedies, histories, satires, or biographies; they might not even have a narrative, and instead be concert revues or performance-art pieces; they can have dancing or no dancing; they don't even need live music or singing (Contact). The only requirement in a definition of the musical is that music is involved somehow.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 11:42pm

Well, not all operas are completely "sung through" either -- especially 20th Century operas (from the verismo period and beyond). I've even seen Mozart operas that have dropped the recitative and had the singers speak those sections. And if you go to the English National Opera, all operas performed there are sung in English, regardless of the language of the original libretto (actually, until a short time ago, it was customary throughout Europe to translate operas into the native language of the country -- Wagner was sung in Italian at La Scala and Verdi was sung in German at the Berlin State Opera). For European audiences opera wasn't about pretty singing in a foreign language -- audiences expected to be able to understand every word of the story in their native tongue.

"Phantom of the Opera" is indeed not an opera, but that's not just because it is not entirely "sung-through.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 2:01am

I'm really enjoying this conversation. Please don't let this thread be lost

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 2:06am

>> I've even seen Mozart operas that have dropped the recitative and had the singers speak those sections

True enough. Mozart's original draft of MAGIC FLUTE has spoken scenes. The music for the recitatives came along later.

[J.]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 2:15am

PHANTOM is a musical, not an opera. The average "sung-through" musical(i.e. Lloyd Webber, Schonberg) are about 95% singing with a tiny bit of spoken words. PHANTOM is on the border line I think between a traditional and a sung-through musical being one of Lloyd Webber heavier dialogue shows.

[TheaterChef]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 1:31am

Oh my, I didn't think my input would cause such a stir. Wow, I hope I didn't offend. I didn't mean "(all of it)" as in all opera is in a foreign language...I was mainly using a hyperbole to show there aren't many musicals in another language unless rewritten that way. But I tried to keep things open due to inevitable debate. I know musicals are starting to resemble different aspects of opera more and more closely.

Thank you for the brushing up on what makes the opera and the musical different. I am starting to fear there isn't much between the two.

Anyway, thanks again for the correcting. Be well everyone.

[AnothaPartofMe]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 8:32am

Wasn't the Chicago a few years ago supposed to be Goldie Hawn as Roxie, Madonna (or Esther..) as Velma and Rosie O'Donnell as Mama Morton?

[beacon1]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 9:37am

A friend of mine was in an ensemble in Lucia Di Lammermoor(please forgive the spelling goofs. No time to google for the correct one.) It was all in Italian, of course, with the story outlined in the program. I enjoyed the evening immensely but sure would have loved a chance to hear the words in English. The anguish of the dying Edgardo would have been even more poignant.

As for POTO...I'm hoping the director made sure the lyrics were sung clearly. Nothing like plot exposition sailing by because you can't catch the lyrics.

I do love Gilbert & Sullivan but ya gotta concentrate because the jokes fly by so quickly.

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/9/04 at 10:12am

>> I enjoyed the evening immensely but sure would have loved a chance to hear the words in English.

It's almost strange how elitist our opera companies are over here. You go to Europe, and in France Wagner is performed in French. Go to Germany, and Verdi is performed in German. But here? Biggest problem is the lack of good translations of the librettos.

I almost hit the roof with Calgary Opera last year when they performed Poulenc's Dialogues of the Carmelites, a ravishing opera about a group of nuns executed during the French Revolution -- the final scene will rip your heart out, seriously. Well, Poulence wrote that productions of Dialogues were to be performed in the indiginous language of the audience. What does CO do? Perform it in French. Why? "Because it sounds classier."

:: rolling eyes ::

[YankeeMate]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 4:09am

==============
I can't say that I've ever even seen a movie musical that I was completey satisfyed with except, of course, for the Bette Middler GYPSY. And that is but one movie out of the thousands that have been made.
===============

I'd have to agree with that. I'm too young to have seen Merman on stage and the Nat Wood version was a bore but Midler's was a heart pounder. Whitney Houston's version of Cinderella was pretty enjoyable too if a bit clumsy but at least both were widely watched. I think one of the reasons the Tony Awards don't get the high tv ratings they should is because they're not as accessible as motion pictures at the local theater and most in middle America don't venture outside of their towns borders to see a show.

I'd love it if more shows could make an easier transition to celluloid and not lose something in the translation but more often than not the spark fades somewhere. I think 'Hollywood' sees musicals as a niche genre which often translates to 'too gay' in their book. There's always something more magical about seeing a LIVE show versus watching a one dimensional motion picture on a 50 foot screen.

[ForTheLoveOfLea]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 12:28pm

does anyone here think Ragtime would transfer well to the screen?