The play or musical didn't do so well, but the movie adaptation was a hit- Page 2

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 1:41pm

Not sure, best12, but isn't the movie of Cuckoo's Nest considered an adaptation of the Kesey novel rather than the Wasserman play adapted from the Kesey novel?  

Updated On: 1/12/16 at 01:41 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 1:44pm

The rights to the play were purchased and owned by Kirk Douglas who played the lead on Broadway, and it was his son Michael who produced the film (and won an Oscar for doing so), based on the play and the novel.

Updated On: 1/12/16 at 01:44 PM

[degrassifan]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 1:53pm

EDIT: I will add that only ONE Best Picture-winning film (My Fair Lady) came from a Tony-winning "best musical."?

 

If you don't mine me asking, what do you mean? 

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 2:03pm

Just realized I need to amend! The Sound of Music won the Tony as well, so there are two.

 

What I mean is that out of all the films to win Best Picture at the Oscars, only two (not one) of them are based on a Tony-winning "Best Musical." (The Sound of Music and My Fair Lady, which won in back-to-back years.)

 

Three more are based on musicals that didn't win the Tony Award (West Side Story, Oliver!, and Chicago), and the other four are either original or based on something other than a Broadway play (The Broadway Melody, The Great Ziegfeld, An American in Paris, and Gigi.)

 

Some consider Going My Way to be a musical as well, but I think that's stretching it. Bing Crosby sings a couple of songs in the film, and there is an opera scene from Carmen with Rise Stevens, but that's it. I don't consider it a musical or even a backstage musical (move with songs). It would be like calling "Sense & Sensibility" a musical because Kate Winslet sings two songs at the piano in the film.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 2:05pm

BroadwayGirlie2 said: "Sometimes that happens where the play or show wasn't that good but the movie is a big hit. It also happens the other way around as well where the movie wasn't that all great but the show or play was a lot better. So I guess it depends on the person or people watching it. Everyone has to be a critic these days.

I think a lot depends on the director and the approach s/he takes.  A movie has the advantage of being able to open up the action to multiple locations, for example.  

I personally think the Sound of Music and Fiddler movies were significantly enhanced on film for a number of reasons, not the least of which was their ability to take advantage advantage of location shooting and cross-editing.  Climbing the Alps just doesn't work on the stage, and the bleakness of Anatevka in the winter is not as palpable on stage.  Yet, Hello Dolly did not work because you just can't recreate the excitement of the title song, Put on Your Sunday Clothes and So Long, Dearie on film.  Seeing it in person, with the sounds from the orchestra pit pulsating and the chorus selling its all just can't be captured on film.  

Equus doesn't work on film nearly as well as the stage because it is very cerebral and the maiming of the horses works better in the abstract.  Yet, to me, the same author's Amadeus works better on film because it is able to take advantage of all that movies have to offer, e.g., close ups, editing, gorgeous locations.  

Bottom line for me: each work presents certain opportunities for the stage and for film, each director and set of actors and creative crew either serve the script or don't.  Sometime, the combination of factors work better on film, e.g., Sound of Music, sometimes on stage, e.g., Hello! Dolly!

Having said all that, given the choice of a well executed Streetcar Named Desire stage production or the movie (which I think has the greatest performance ever captured on film, i.e., Vivien Leigh's Blanche), I will go for the stage production, for its sheer immediacy.  Public television's excellent taping of A Moon for theMisbegotten 40 years is never going to approach the experience that I had with the live performance given by the same legendary cast, but we are never going to have the opportunity to see that live performance again, so I am glad it exists. 

I probably veered off the topic, but this is a fascinating subject.  Even though I profess to far prefer seeing a live performance, I have enjoyed many movies far more than the stage version...it just depends on the piece, the opportunities that film and stage provide for that piece, and the quality of the execution.

 

 

 

 

 

"

 

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 2:10pm

I think if there is anything to take away from this, it's that the source material doesn't guarantee anything. There are successful shows that yield good or bad films, and there are (perhaps equally) unsuccessful shows that can yield good or bad adaptations.

 

It takes the right people believing in the material, and the right creative team adapting it for the screen. But the measure of "success" of the original production can often cloud judgment. As I discovered, there is "hidden gold" in many of the plays/musicals out there, and some lesser known shows could adapt very well to the big screen.

Updated On: 1/12/16 at 02:10 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 3:18pm

Jarethan said:

"I think a lot depends on the director and the approach s/he takes.  A movie has the advantage of being able to open up the action to multiple locations, for example.  

I personally think the Sound of Music and Fiddler movies were significantly enhanced on film for a number of reasons, not the least of which was their ability to take advantage advantage of location shooting and cross-editing.  Climbing the Alps just doesn't work on the stage, and the bleakness of Anatevka in the winter is not as palpable on stage.  Yet, Hello Dolly did not work because you just can't recreate the excitement of the title song, Put on Your Sunday Clothes and So Long, Dearie on film.  Seeing it in person, with the sounds from the orchestra pit pulsating and the chorus selling its all just can't be captured on film."

I agree with this (though there are additional reasons to not love Hello Dolly the movie).  

But would add that both Cabaret and Chicago are great movies in spite of the fact that on stage they are meta-theatrical musicals.  In very different but equally brilliant, adroitly judicious and surprisingly authentic ways, Fosse and Marshall adapted their Brechtian elements and show business self-reference, self-reverence, and self-irreverence to film.  

Updated On: 1/12/16 at 03:18 PM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 1/13/16 at 1:32am

henrikegerman said: "Jarethan said:

"I think a lot depends on the director and the approach s/he takes.  A movie has the advantage of being able to open up the action to multiple locations, for example.  

 

I personally think the Sound of Music and Fiddler movies were significantly enhanced on film for a number of reasons, not the least of which was their ability to take advantage advantage of location shooting and cross-editing.  Climbing the Alps just doesn't work on the stage, and the bleakness of Anatevka in the winter is not as palpable on stage.  Yet, Hello Dolly did not work because you just can't recreate the excitement of the title song, Put on Your Sunday Clothes and So Long, Dearie on film.  Seeing it in person, with the sounds from the orchestra pit pulsating and the chorus selling its all just can't be captured on film."

I agree with this (though there are additional reasons to not love Hello Dolly the movie).  

But would add that both Cabaret and Chicago are great movies in spite of the fact that on stage they are meta-theatrical musicals.  In very different but equally brilliant, adroitly judicious and surprisingly authentic ways, Fosse and Marshall adapted their Brechtian elements and show business self-reference, self-reverence, and self-irreverence to film.  

Absolutely agree...interesting that Rob Marshall's concept for Chicago was so perfect for it, and his concept for Nine was a disaster.  It demonstrates just how unique each piece is and how difficult it is to make a great show translate to film

"

 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/13/16 at 1:51am

Romanoff and Juliet

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/13/16 at 2:02pm

The Madness of King George is based on a play that has yet to be produced on Broadway, although it had runs in the UK and in San Diego, and toured the US and UK.

 

Nell is based on a fairly obscure play.

 

Strictly Ballroom is based on a play that has yet to play Broadway or the West End.

 

 

[Scripps2]

Posted: 1/13/16 at 3:55pm

I saw the Robert Lindsay & Joanna Lumley headed West End revival of The Lion in Winter a couple of years ago. With the gargantuan figures of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart on stage, any one of whose lives could make a thrilling evening in the theatre, and a script written by James Goldman close to his Follies peak, I couldn't understand what made it such a dull evening.

 

I decided it must have been director Trevor Nunn's fault.