Thoroughly Modern Millie: Film v. Musical

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 7:41pm

I was thinking about which is better, the film or the movie of THoroughly Modern Millie.

The film was produced by Ross Hunter after he was smitten with the British and American productions of The Boy Friend and Broadway's Polly, one Julie Andrews. After trying and failing to secure the rights to The Boy Friend, Hunter went to Richard Morris and asked for another 20's style farce as a vehicle for Ms. Andrews. The result was a 20's romp in which we watch the shenanigans of silly flapper Millie Dillmount. We are never to be emotinally involved in the story, it is sheer entertainment.

The show asks us to care for the characters while also enjoying that carefree fun. Millie is suddenly goingthrough a journey and becoming a "modern" and the story is now wrenched in sentimental emotions, yet still the authors are trying to maintain the 20's carefree musical.

Which do you prefer? Do you think the stage version was an improvement on the film? Do you think the film was more focused and specific than the show? Updated On: 12/25/04 at 07:41 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/24/04 at 8:14pm

Let me start off by saying that I LOVE LOVE LOVE the movie. I have never seen the show but they got rid of so many great songs from the movie, which is why I didn't like the cast recording that much.

[broadway geek]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 12:10am

I haven't seen the movie, but I would class the show as a romp. It was light and IMO not full with sentiment.

[dapapabear2]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 12:15am

I saw the stage version first and thought it was fun. When I first saw the movie I didn't like it at all but it has grown on me. I don't think I can say one is better than the other.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 12:16am

Don't we mean "film vs. MUSICAL," not film vs. movie?

[wildcat]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 12:30am

I,too, absolutely adore the movie, not least because of the sheer star power of the cast. To have three Broadway legends..Julie Andrews, Carol Channing and Bea Lillie..in a big budget screen extravaganza tailored to their talents is a gift, even if ultimately it feels longer than the Ring Cycle. I'm afraid the stage version is a sad disappointment.

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 10:37am

Thanks bluewizard.

I just changed the title of the thread. Silly me! Updated On: 12/25/04 at 10:37 AM

[mirandajrs]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 10:47am

I love them both. Carol Channing dancing on a xylophone equals awesome.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 10:57am

Personally, I hated the movie, but loved the show. Julie Andrews was wonderful, but the movie just didn't work for me and I wasn't a fan of the songs in the film.

[SallyBrown]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 11:30am

AH it's so hard
I love Julie Andrews but I also love Sutton Foster...
too hard mlesh

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 11:49am

The problem I have always had with the musical is that it really never decided what it wanted to be: a big-time Broadway monster or a delicate lampoon.

The movie was always a delicate lampoon, a fragile spoof of the twenties. Julie Andrews' wonderful performance with a large undercurrent of her performance in The Boy Friend was always a favorite. The musical's Millie is somewhat greener and tougher and somehow less fun, even if Sutton was perfection the way the character was written irked me.

Also, Muzzy was an eccentric and more fun than she is in the musical. I DO like the Mrs. Meers of the musical.

Another good thing about the movie: the four indominable divas at the center of the action: the delectable Julie Andrews, the precious Mary Tyler Moore, the zany Carol Channing, and the hilarious Bea Lillie, all at the peak of their powers.

The Jimmy of the movie is better as well. In the musical the whole playboy, man-about-town took away from the cute banter that the leading couple had in the film.

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 3:57pm

contrary to what many believe "Thoroughly Modern Millie" was not a box office flop. At the time of it's release (1967) the movie was Universal Pictures' biggest money maker in the history of the studio.

i've never seen it though. i was just reading up on it because of this thread.

[Hank]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 5:12pm

The Broadway musical was a million times better!
I just want to thank gherbert for clearing up a few facts. I was wondering how Julie Andrews ever got cast into that role, her British accent just dosen't make sence for a Mid-West, small town girl.
Never the less, I still got a kick out of seeing the movie after seeing the show.

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 5:39pm

I really didn't like the movie, even though Julie Andrews is my god. The musical's a lot better (in my opinion).

[gherbert]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 8:38pm

Anytime Hank!

But in the film the origin of Millie's hometown is dubious.

It is only in the musical where they make the whole to-do about the "one-ghost-town" and stuff. The film picks up three months after Millie's arrival in New York.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 8:59pm

The original film was no great great masterpiece, but it did have a sense of fun and mischief with wonderful 1920s character 'turns' by Lillie and Channing. It had a sense of cheeky camp and wry humor that the blander, colder Broadway version totally lacked. Only Kudish and Harris had any real flavor and pizazz. And what gherbert pointed out about the Broadway Millie "the way the character was written irked me" - I totally agree with. The movie Millie was both winsome and determined, while the Broadway Millie was too headstrong, hard and rather charmless. I wasn't wild about Sutton, but her office chair bit was a wonderfully funny moment the show could have used more of.

The Broadway Muzzy was a BIG mistake after the indelible Channing. Muzzy lost all her sass and snap and seemed more like Millies Mammy, dishin' out advice fo' de po' white folks.

The new 'book' for the Broadway MILLIE should have been written by Charles Busch.

Updated On: 12/25/04 at 08:59 PM

[MissEmilyArden]

Posted: 12/25/04 at 10:44pm

As much as I love Julie Andrews... Sutton was a goddess in that part.