10 Best Movie Adaptations of Musicals — Page 2

MarkBearSF said: "- HAIR! - a brilliant attempt. Not like the original, but it works where a more faithful version wouldn't"



Good for what it was? Sure. But brilliant? That's taking it a tad far, don't you think? Further, I think it's rather silly to say a more faithful version of Hair wouldn't work on film when no one has ever tried.

Little Shop of Horrors

My Fair Lady

Fiddler on the Roof

Cabaret

Sweet Charity

The King and I

The Sound of Music

Oliver!

How to Succeed

1776

Sad that, other than Little Shop, these were all made 45-60 years ago (and Little Shop was 30 years ago).

Dave28282 said: "About what works in a musical film and what does not. You know, a little brainstorming for better future results."

ah i thought you were implying a film adaptation was allegedly in the works

Some movie adaptations are faithful to the point of not so much preserving the stage show but embalming it. Many Warner film versions of Broadway musicals and plays go to this extreme..The BAD SEED, & MY FAIR LADY are examples...both enjoyable as transcriptions of what was seen on stage. CAMELOT, FINIAN'S RAINBOW & HELLO DOLLY are bloated and cannot justify their lengths.

Some film versions make alterations, cuts and the resulting film is better than or at least as good as its source. Fox's GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES rewrites the script and cuts all but 3 songs but in general is an improvement on the stage play. CALL ME MADAM has been rewritten and greatly improved in its cinematic edition. FUNNY GIRL is much better on screen than on stage despite the loss of a few crucial songs.

The best walk a fine line between preserving teh stage production and creating a new exp[experience... SOUND OF MUSIC, WEST SIDE STORY and CABARET all mange to do this. I also thought the movie version of HAIRSPRAY was quite successful at this as well. Felt the same about INTO THE WOODS.

Many have mentioned Cabaret and Chicago. Rightly so. But two stage to screen transfers,coincidentally both made in 1968, are great achievements-Finian's Rainbow and Oliver. Both were made by outstanding directors-Carol Reed and Francis Coppola. They made the material come alive cinematically. You forget they were stage musicals. Finian also has Fred Astaire, whose dancing and presence elevates the material. Kind of sad it flopped.

The 1936 film version of Show Boat ought to be showing up on these lists.

Reefer Madness is great, as it took a deeply imperfect but cute show and turned it into a close to perfect cult musical. It's not for nothing that the licensed version of the show is based on the film, not the Off-Broadway version of the show.

Warning: Long Post

I don’t think a movie musical should be slavishly faithful to the original for two reasons: Movies can cut back and forth from one scene to another, and a stage musical requires bang-up pre-intermission and 11-o’clock numbers that may fit better elsewhere in the story.

One thing the Les Mis movie did right was to move “Do You Hear the People Sing” to immediately before the barricade scene, when the men were marching out to take their place. It also successfully captured the grit in the poor neighborhoods of Paris. The new song “Suddenly” filled in a hole in the stage show – it proved that Valjean really loved the idea of being a father, and didn’t just take Cosette in out of a sense of duty. However, I did not like the live, one-take singing, at which even Colm Wilkinson failed. Also, Russell Crowe, SBC, and HBC were awful, in my opinion. Gerard Butler would have been a MUCH better Javert – he has a better voice (although obviously not Broadway quality), and we know he can act the role of a dark, charismatic character.

My Fair Lady and The Phantom of the Opera cut in and out of scenes, taking advantage of the film medium. “A Little Bit of Luck” is in two segments in the MFL movie, but only one (I think) in the stage musical. In POTO, the b&w flash forward scenes were inserted between the past actions. In both cases, the changes worked, even though both movies were otherwise reasonably faithful to the stage productions. Things that did not work in POTO were making Carlotta too over-the-top, putting such a tiny mask on the Phantom in “The Point of No Return” that Christine had to know it was him from the beginning, and cutting away from the hilarious opera “IL Muto.” Also, there was a scene filmed in which the Phantom sang a new song, “No One Would Listen,” with the same tune as the end credits. I think it was a mistake NOT to include this scene instead of the creepy scene where the young Phantom kills his captor in the gypsy camp. Additionally, if the Phantom had lived in the opera house from the time he was a child, he could not have learned all the art forms and science fields at which he was obviously expert. He should have left at some point and returned.

I really liked the POTO rehearsal scene on stage, but it was probably smart not to include it in the movie. What else worked was moving the chandelier crash to the end of the story, and making it truly catastrophic; adding a few snippets to pay homage to the Leroux book; remaining faithful to the design of the bowels of the opera house and the Phantom’s lair; making only one side of the Phantom’s face damaged; and wonderful cinematography.

I was underwhelmed by Sweeney Todd, which cut a bunch of key songs and which should not have cast the hammy SBC. Fiddler on the Roof was ok, but I don’t think Topol was charismatic enough. Also, the show needed the bright colors of the stage production. Shtetls may have looked drab in reality, but the bright colors better represent the vibrancy of Jewish community life and the joy of the Sabbath and the weddings, despite the ever-present fear of anti-Semitism. I did not like Oklahoma because it dubbed both stars and because the hair and make-up screamed forties or fifties movie, rather than the period of the events.

The worst stage to film translation I’ve ever seen was Man of La Mancha. Peter O’Toole and James Coco were fine, but a dubbed Sophia Loren as Dulcinea? Zheesh! Also, once again, the drab reality should have turned bright during the idealized scenes from Don Quixote’s imagination.

I obviously have strong opinions on this topic. I think an analysis of stage to film translations would make a fabulous thesis in a graduate program for a theatre or film degree.

AHLiebross said: "I did not like Oklahomabecause it dubbed both stars"



I've never heard this. Anyone else? Verification?

I did not like Oklahoma because it dubbed both stars and because the hair and make-up screamed forties or fifties movie, rather than the period of the events.

The worst stage to film translation I’ve ever seen was Man of La Mancha. Peter O’Toole and James Coco were fine, but a dubbed Sophia Loren as Dulcinea?



Not a single actor is dubbed in Oklahoma!, and I can't think of a single 50's film in which anyone's hair looks as it looks in the film. I agree with your assessment of the film version of Man of La Mancha, but it is O'Toole who is dubbed, not Loren. And Loren should have been dubbed.