Academy Award Winning Film ONCE Comes to Broadway in 2010/2011 Season- Page 3

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 10:07pm

My problem isn't with film-to-stage adaptations in general. It's in the recent ugly trend of adapting a film purely for its popularity. So very blatantly. Just looking for a "sure financial bet." These adaptations merely take exactly what you already know, add a few forgettable songs, and sell it to you as "a wonderful, expensive, artistic theatrical experience that you already know." When, in fact, it's nothing more than a touring arena ice show landing in a better Zip code.

Shows like 9 to 5, Shrek, Young Frankenstein, Saturday Night Fever, Footloose, Mary Poppins, Tarzan, Legally Blonde and others offer little more than a Xeroxed screenplay with so-so songs "forced" into them. Hell, they don't even trim the scripts. Many of them just add in the songs, which makes some of them clock in at around 3 hours. Tell me, does the story of "9 to 5" really take around 3 hours to tell?? Is it that epic?? No, it's not. It's just an unimaginative, paint-by-numbers approach to the source material. It's "banal" sold as "Broadway's best."

I don't mean they all have to be obscure films or non-mega-hits, but certainly the reason to adapt the following for the stage would be largely an artistic one, far more than trading in on an established popularity:

Sweet Charity
A Little Night Music
Passion
Nine
Grey Gardens

And sometimes popular films can be adapted (and I mean truly ADAPTED not Xeroxed) for the stage with a fresh, creative vision (like The Lion King).

So, I'm not tired of film-to-stage adaptations in general. Not all of them.

I'm tired of this modern trend of "Xeroxing" a popular movie for Broadway.

It sucks.

Oh... and I don't think "Once" falls into this category of "Ugh, not another one!" It wasn't that popular of a movie. So, I hope they will actually ADAPT it for the stage.

No more Xeroxing, please.

Updated On: 10/16/08 at 10:07 PM

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 10:14pm

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 10:14 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 10:17pm

I absolutely agree, best. And I agree with your last post as well, fromage.

The intentions are important. Are they doing it for art or just to make a buck. The latter is often a disappointment.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 10:18pm

It's trickier when adapting a film musical as a stage musical (rather than a non-musical film), because there isn't nearly as much creative room... unless you throw out the movie songs and start over.

That's why I mentioned The Lion King. It already was a musical, and the creative leap it took was in the direction, design, choreography and overall artistic vision.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 10:29pm

I'd be more interested in seeing film-to-stage adaptations of:

Say Anything
Somewhere In Time
Norma Rae
Defending Your Life
Babette's Feast
Fanny & Alexander
Eve's Bayou
The Joy Luck Club
The Remains of the Day
The Court Jester

[jenna2]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 10:38pm

Say Anything is an idea I can get behind.

My problem with the thought of making Once into a musical is that, although I really, really loved the film, it was rather slow and I'm not entirely sure how one would make it entertaining for the $130-paying Broadway-going audience. I am more than a little afraid that this brilliant little movie might become nothing more than "that movie that got turned into a really bad musical". Perhaps the creative team will be a bunch of geniuses who can make it work wonderfully, (and all the power to them, I think it would be great,) but I honestly can't wrap my head around it.

And this is coming from someone who thought High Fidelity was a good idea -- I think I've just been jaded by ideas that could have been great which fell flat in the wrong hands.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 10:39pm

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 10:39 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 10:51pm

ONCE coming to stage is a bad idea, and I say this completely independent of any argument of small-scale vs. large-scale. Here's why:

The way I see it, the emotional thrust of the story centers around the relationship created by these two people as they write their songs, and the moments they write bring so much life to the screen, especially when compared to their everyday lives. Their everyday lives are markedly non-musical, and they find solace in the few quiet moments when they can be musical.
I think to flesh out the story with even more music would weaken the impact of the musical moments that really matter.

[VonTussleGirl]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 11:02pm

Good point, Pegasus... I see it more as a "play with music," along the lines of Coram Boy.

I think this could be decent. We'll wait and see.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 11:07pm

Can they change the ending? That film was such a downer.

[jwonjy119]

Posted: 10/16/08 at 11:08pm

TOTALLY agree with Pegasus.

I know in terms of music, there might be some situations where like, the stories of aspiring songwriters might be ideal for on stage, since it'll be live, but for what ever reason, I just don't think it will work with Once. Like, Glen and Marketa just made it work so beautifully and I don't think I can see it anywhere else.

Besides, don't they already have Rooms? Not Off-Broadway or anything, but still.

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 10/17/08 at 12:46am

I don't think Once has enough plot or character drive to fill a stage, even a small one. I think this is painfully obvious to anyone who saw Glen and Marketa in concert with songs from the film. They gave beautiful performances, but even in the small venues they played it didn't reach very far because the music is so intimate.

Plus they'd have to had some type of climax, which the film doesn't have. And how many extra characters would they have to add? I say this is a bad idea artistically before we even begin to consider whether people will want to spend $120 on this.

Also, although the film did win an Oscar, very few people have heard of it. It is popular only among hip independent circles and their followers.

[Hest882]

Posted: 10/17/08 at 12:00pm

I agree that this sounds like a terrible idea. The film is so small and intimate that retaining the elements that made it so lovely would make for a horrible Broadway musical, while getting rid of those would just be tossing everything that made the movie so charming and moving.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 10/17/08 at 12:53pm

YAY! More recognizable titles!!

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 10/17/08 at 4:54pm

This seems unecessary and such a strange choice for a Broadway production. I just don't see the point. The film was what it was; leave it at that.


- "I'm tired of this modern trend of "Xeroxing" a popular movie for Broadway."

Me too.