Does the movie help the show?

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:24pm

I am a long time fan of CABARET. It is, by far, my most favorite musical ever written. A brilliant stage work and the revival was truly a breathtaking production.

In my opinion, the revival of CABARET was far superior to that of the CHICAGO revival. Don't get me wrong. I still LOVE the CHICAGO revival production, and the show itself, for that matter.

I'm just wondering people's opinions as to why the CABARET revival has since closed, yet the CHICAHO revival thrives. What is it about the show that has kept it going.

Another questions is: Did the movie of CHICAGO help the show's sales, in any way? Was there that much of a boost in interest after the movie? Same with THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA?

I'm simply asking because I was wondering if you think a movie adptation of the show (not the Liza version but an actually movie adaptation of the CABARET revival) would have boost interest in the show and kept it going?

Any thoughts at all are appreciated.

Updated On: 9/15/05 at 03:24 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:27pm

*Zips lips, and moves away from this thread*

YOU know what. I do have something to say. The great Gwen Verdon herself has said herself that she felt the CHICAGO revival was better than the original production that was created for HER.

[Gingersnap]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:28pm

Just judging by conversations I have or overhear with people at the Majestic, I'd say the movie has brought in some new theatre-goers to Phantom, at least.

Don't know about Chicago or Cabaret, as I haven't followed those two.

[peach]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:29pm

I don't have the numbers to support it, but I would imagine a big hit movie would definitely help the show. The Chicago movie was sublime - and won an Oscar. That can easily get people to jump on the bandwagon. I imagine the success of the movie certainly played a role (no pun intended) in helping the revival's sales. Only thing is - the movie and the stage show are quite different, so moviegoers looking to see the same on stage are in for a bit of surprise!


Updated On: 9/15/05 at 03:29 PM

[yipper]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:31pm

I going to guess that one of the reason the CHICAGO revivial has lasted so long is that it cheaper to keep going. Mininal sets, costumes, etc. Also, CHICAGO is sort of rediscovered classic, unlike CABARET which has been around for years in many incarnations.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:32pm

Peach the last line you wrote is SO true.

I hate the fact that people who love the movie, expect the play to be bright, colorful, and happy. It's not a happy musical, it's a satire, and true to our society today. Not to mention the glorious Kander & Ebb score, and Ann Reinking's slinky and sexy choreography. The movie just fails in comparison for me.

Chicago was a big hit before the movie. 6 Tonys, 5 Drama Desk, 6 Outer critics circle awards, 2 Oliver Awards, and the list continue. The show had its share of fans who would camp out at the theatre for tickets and stuff. But the movie really brought the popularity to the next level.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:32pm

The Cabaret movie is older and probably helped the first revival if everything.

The most recent revival distanced itself from the original more than the first revival, starring Joel Grey.

I love the new Chicago staging for the fact that it is simple and easy. It shouldn't be a bright, flashy show. I think the minimal staging of it is similar to that of the most recent Cabaret revival.

Chicago also appeals more to toursists than a show like Cabaret, I think.

[JBSinger]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:37pm

Yes, the Box office surged for CHICAGO on Broadway when the movie became a hit and they even launched another Bway tour due to demand.
PHANTOM has had a similar bounce from the movie. Even though the movie was not critically praised, it seemed to launch the BO back to sold-out status and an in-demand ticket again.
RENT & PRODUCERS will undoubtably feel the same surge (and RENT could use it) that will push their longevity even further.
Can't wait for DREAMGIRLS or SWEENEY TODD or HAIRSPRAY, just hoping they don't screw them up.

[peach]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:51pm

ljay889 - indeedy, you are right. Watching Ann Reinking's glorious work is just dreamy *sigh.*

I actually loved the Chicago movie and thought it was very well done. I have just learned to separate the movie and the stage show - and enjoy both. Too bad the unsuspecting theatregoers are often in for a surprise (and sometimes, depending on what they like, disapponitment) when expecting the stage version to be just like the movie.

Cabaret on the other hand - love, love, love it on stage. Not as crazy about the movie for some reason. But that's just me.

Speaking of stage to movie while I'm on a soapbox - not to threadjack, but it reminds me of my struggle with Godspell which, in my opinion, is a terrible movie. Too bad, because on stage it can be quite beautiful and moving (not to mention the music is simply splendid).

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/15/05 at 3:59pm

I'm with you on the Chicago movie, ljay. Roxie as a victim? Huh?

I agree that Chicago's operating costs are pretty low and I think it has a broader appeal--it's okay for kids, which Cabaret really isn't. And alot of regular folks would rather watch hot chorus boys and girls slink around that a musical with Nazis and VD scars...