A revival Movie Musicals?

[singtopher]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:42pm

I started thinking about this the other day....

Moulin Rouge, Chicago, Rent, The Producers, Dreamgirls, Hairspray, Sweeny Todd....

Why is America experiencing a revival of the Movie Musical? What is it about Hollywood, and society that is making room for this?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:53pm

Well, really, the success of CHICAGO.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:54pm

Don't know if it has anything to do about society, but it's hit or miss with these things.

MOULIN ROUGE and CHICAGO both made quite a bit of money, hence why those other movie musicals were made, to unsuccessful reception, unfortunately.

Here's hoping the upcoming film adaptions of DREAMGIRLS, HAIRSPRAY and SWEENEY TODD fair better with movie going audiences.

[jess20882]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:58pm

I agree - it's totally hit or miss. There is a huge percentage of the population who will be first in line for tickets to HAIRSPRAY or DREAMGIRLS (as I will!), but there is also a large percentage who wouldn't step into the theatre if someone paid them (although I'm not sure why).

I also think these days, people are lacking in new ideas - think 'Poseidon', 'War of the Worlds', etc...It seems like everything these days - film and theatre alike - is a remake of something already done.

Not that I'm necessarily complaining

[Pippin]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:59pm

I also think that in a post 9-11 world, Americans are looking for more escapist fare. yes, chicago is "dark", and moulin rouge was a drama, but the singing and dancing is in no way grounded in reality, and I think people are looking for something not so "real" right now.

I mean, on tv, we have reality tv, and shows about doctors, detectives and policemen. why do you think American idol is so popular? becuase people want to forget reality more often than not, and people performing can help them keep their minds off other more real and depressing things.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 5:04pm

I don't think 9/11 has a single thing to do with why movie musicals are being made.

If it did, films like CAPOTE, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, SYRIANA, THE CONSTANT GARDENER, and CRASH would have been embraced far less than the likes of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA or RENT.

What it comes down to is quality. Regardless of subject matter or genre, there is a large percentage of theatregoers that will see things because they are supposed to be good.

Those people aren't necessarily the same people that pay $11 to go see POSEIDON and THE BREAK UP, but if a movie is good - regardless of it's subject matter - it will sell.

UNITED 93 and WORLD TRADE CENTER were well received and generally embraced and supported financially by audiences. RENT and THE PRODUCERS were not. I don't think 9/11 has a single thing to do with why movie musicals are being made.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 5:16pm

One reason is that producers realized with Chicago (concurrently on Broadway) that Hollywood films actually help (not hurt) the franchise and boost ticket sales. Even if these films fail domestically, they recoup abroad, and they are perennial in years to come.

I don't have time to list the movie-musicals before Chicago, and post Grease, but there were a few that were very successful and a lot that weren't. If you can count the Disney films, then the movie musical hasn't gone anywhere.

Little Shop of Horrors
American Tail
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
Newsies
Lion King
Pocahontas
Hunback
Tarzan
Dancer in the Dark
A woody Alan movie I can't remember....
and Cinderella was a huge hit on TV.

Now also High School Musical was.

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 5:20pm

The Woody Allen musical was Everyone Says I Love You in 96.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 5:26pm

LOL - No mention of The Phantom of the Opera?

Actually, it all started with THE LITTLE MERMAID in 1989. Was boosted by BEAUTY & THE BEAST. Sustained through several films...and then MOULIN ROUGE! became an international hit. However, CHICAGO would have happened with or without MOULIN ROUGE!

CHICAGO is the reason why studios are greenlighting movie musicals. This is discussed in the revamped MovieMusicals.net which will finally premiere in October coinciding with the release of the new DREAMGIRLS trailer.

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 10:17pm

I think it's just a lack of originality. Movies used to be so original, and now almost every week, we're getting a new film that's either:
-a franchise book series
-based on a comic book superhero
-a remake
-a sequel

I think movie musicals are the next logical step in 'new movies.' It's not so much a genuine Hollywood interest as it is a way to exploit another genre and beat it to death. Of course, WE will all continue interest, but after a while, Joe Moviegoer is going to hate anything and everything movie musical.

[TheaterAddict7652]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:28pm

The thing with Chicago, was that it was such a successful film both in the box office and during the awards season. It really hit the jackpot. And what makes it different from Moulin Rouge!is that Moulin Rouge! was an original musical, while Chicago is not only based off the musical, it was released while the revival was running on Broadway.
After the movie became such a sucess, ticket sales boosted for the revival. I think a lot of producers noticed that and they wanted their show to make money as well, which (this is just what I think) there is suddenly a bunch of movie musicals which are released while their Broadway counterpart is still running. (Phantom, Rent, Producers, Hairspray)

[actor]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:31pm

I completely agree with thevolleyballer.

What happened to the Alfred Hitchcock creativity??

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:40pm

CHICAGO and MOULIN ROUGE may have re-opened the door, but PHANTOM, RENT, and THE PRODUCERS may have slammed it shut yet again. DREAMGIRLS is getting some good buzz abroad, but after the relative failure of IDYLWILD, coming at the end of this production season, I doubt many studios will green light many more of these.

Insofar as what happened to Hitchcock originality... well, it's still out there. You just have to look harder to find it.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 12:01am

I wouldn't count IDLEWILD as shutting the door at all. It just simply wasn't that kind of movie, despite it being a musical.

DREAMGIRLS will restore what was lost with RENT, THE PRODUCERS, and PHANTOM (all three solid yet flawed films). HAIRSPRAY will be a hit or miss. SWEENEY TODD will either be a major hit or a huge bomb.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 12:07am

What old classic movies were totally original?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 12:08am

IMHO, those were not "solid yet flawed". They were complete misfires. The only good thing about THE PRODUCERS was Will Farrell's "audition" scene, which says a lot right there -- when that number trumps "Springtime for Hitler", you *know* you're in trouble. PHANTOM rewrote a good chunk of the script to make it more "cinematic" and in the process made it more confusing as a whole. And RENT was about as close to the original's rawness as *that* was to its source material, LA BOHEME. And IDYLWILD -- well, the less said there, the better.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 12:16am

I respect your humble opinion, here's mine:

RENT - loved it, however the adaptation and direction made for a horrible film. For some, the story overpowers these flaws. For others, it's unforgiveable.

THE PRODUCERS - might as well have filmed the stage production. They tried too hard to recreate the magic that happens on stage for a cinematic version.

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA - at least there WAS a vision and adaptation. Translated well on screen, however there were some weak elements to the script...and rather undesirable acting.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 11:36am

What is original anyway? Part of the problem today in all media is that there is a mass outlet for content great and small. (If this is a problem.) Things are copied, repurposed and reused. Remember the saying, "there is nothing new under the sun."

I don't think Hollywood has nearly the same problem as Broadway does right now. Talk about a lack of creativity. Most of the work on Broadway right now is down right shameful. At the soon to be price of $120, one might think they are seeing something special.

I don’t have a problem with producers trying to cater to the masses. Tarzan is a perfectly good story to adapt into a show. It has every ounce of potential to be something quite special and important. What we got too many chefs and ended up with slop.

[landryjames2]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 12:08pm

I agree with Munk. There is this pervasive feeling out there that classic or old movies were so original in a way they are not now. Really? Not really. A large percentage of films from all time periods were not completely original. Most were book, Broadway musical, or play adaptations. Actually, with the insurgence the last decade or two of independent movies, there have been more original screenplays than ever before.

Not to continue the ever steady PHANTOM, RENT, PRODUCERS discussion, but for me--it simply comes down to shoddy directing in all instances.

I, for one, am so happy that movie musicals seem to be on the rise. I do hope the next three are better than the three mentioned above.