I don't think everyone should judge the stage show of Oliver! by a single, lifeless revival.
EDIT: Oliver! is a musical that demands interesting, creative staging, with energetic direction, and a larger-than-life cast. The revival had none of those, including LuPone and Moody. Patti may have been the highlight of the revival, but she's dreadful in that bootleg circulating. If she's the highlight, that says everything about the poor quality of that production, not of the show itself.
And yes, there are many changes in the film that improve the material. As much as Onna White's staging adds to the film, I think the biggest asset was having Sir Carol Reed direct it. His forte was suspense films. He was another Hitchcock, primarily, and an odd choice for Oliver! But he added it a level of mounting tension to many scenes from the pickpocket/chase scene where Oliver is arrested, to Oom-Pah-Pah (which was moved to a new plot location in the movie), to the finale/chase with Oliver and Bill Sykes that are very difficult to match on any stage.
Difficult, but not impossible.
You need a great cast, director, and choreographer to pull it off. The worst mistake that can be made is handing this material to a paint-by-numbers hack who thinks the material can pretty much drive and sell itself if the director just "directs the traffic" and the actors just "say the lines" and "sing the songs." First of all, anybody who feels that way about any musical or play should be shot, and second of all, you will never get away with that in Oliver!
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 1/7/14 at 06:19 AM