Best movie based on a musical- Page 2

[snarkywannabedreamer]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 7:18pm

you are wrong about the MUSICAL version of "Little Shop." the off-broadway show came out before the film... HOWEVER, the show is based on a non-musical 60's Corman horror film starring Jack Nicholson... maybe that is what you are thinking of.

[dented146]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 7:22pm

I thought Chicago was brilliant. I don't see how Rob Marshall could have done better. Also:

The Sound of Music and The King and I.

I also feel that Gigi would be on this list under normal circumstances.

[Edna Turnblad]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 7:41pm

I must say, I love Bette Midler's 'Gypsy'. She, for me, was perfection, and the musical worked so well on screen. I saw 'The Sound of Music' a few years ago on stage for first time. It was well performed, but I felt that the changes made for the movie were well done. The same goes for 'West Side Story'. Moving a few songs around really helped it. But I still thought it was too long. I can hardly sit through it without a break half way through.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 7:43pm

Well the Gigi stage show is based on the movie. It's the opposite situation.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 7:44pm

It's actually probably Reefer Madness: The Movie Musical. Great singing, entertaining, the numbers were directed well, good cast, etc.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 7:55pm

This is a tough one, but I would go with "The Sound of Music."

It was better than the Broadway show, sure, as were others (Oliver, West Side Story, Chicago), but it was such a cinematic phenomenon. Not just talking about the box office, either.

Every change they made was an improvement.

And oh, those Alps!

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 8:43pm

No love for THE PAJAMA GAME?

[binau]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 8:59pm

Sweeney Todd without any doubt..Sondheim's opinion of it makes me feel even better about it :p.

Surprised about Midler Gypsy love - I found it
uncomfortable to watch her eyes almost pop out of her head.

[snl89]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 9:10pm

For me, it's Chicago. It's the only movie musical that I've actually enjoyed BETTER than the stage musical! I thought everything about it was brilliant

[James885]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 9:11pm

My problem with the Bette Midler Gypsy is that she played Rose as if she were playing it on stage. It was completely over the top and way too big for TV.

Also I thought Peter Riegert's Herbie was awful.

Updated On: 8/22/09 at 09:11 PM

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 9:13pm

Cynthia Gibb makes that film unwatchable.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 9:42pm

Easily Sweeney Todd...it actually plays brilliantly as a MOVIE, not just a musical I love. So many of the movie musicals just feel like show tapings, but they invariably lose something being recreated out of their intended format. The best examples of that I can think of are The Producers and the Bette Middler Gypsy.

[James885]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 9:44pm

Also regarding the Gypsy film, I'm not a fan of Arthur Laurents by any stretch but I agree with him when, in an interview, he said that neither of the two Gypsy movies were cinematic. I haven't seen the 1962 film in its entirety, but I agree that the 1993 film wasn't cinematic at all. It slavishly followed the stage show.

Take "Rose's Turn", for example. In both movies it's filmed with Rose singing on an empty stage in an empty theater, just like in the stage show. Now if any number in Gypsy is screaming to filmed as a fantasy song, its this one.

It could be done with Rose delivering the first part of the song to a packed, cheering house. We could see Rose strutting her stuff and then periodically cut to Rose doing the same moves in the empty theater, to let the audience know that it's all in her head. The second half, the part with the breakdown, could be delivered in reality on the bare stage. Then during the "everything's coming up Roses" part, it could cut back to the fantasy and Rose singing to a packed house. That's when we would see the gigantic ROSE sign, etc.

Then at the conclusion of the number, we could see the audience applauding and Rose taking her bows, then cut back to reality with Rose bowing to an empty theater but still hearing the applause. Then applause could fade out, replaced by the single solitary sound of Louise clapping from the wings.

Hopefully if Gypsy is ever remade, it'll be done with a director and writer who won't treat the source material like an ancient relic.

Also if I've threadjacked, I apologize.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 9:49pm

They're uncinematic, but I don't believe the Rose's Turn numbers are a good example of why. I really can't see it taking place in any other setting than an empty theater. It's too perfect.

As for the possibility of a future film: it's rumored Mike Nichols has been trying to get a Meryl Streep Gypsy made for like ever.

[alliez92092]

Posted: 8/22/09 at 11:05pm

Yes it is, thanks Snarky.

[claudioislove]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 12:44am

Love Chicago, Sweeney, and The Sound of Music, partly because I think I was raised on the Sound of Music.

Hate Hairspray so so so so much. Not too big of a fan of WSS.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 12:52am

Chicago

[peerrjb]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 1:08am

Interesting threads. Especially the ones talking at length about films they've not seen completely. I guess it's partially a problem when one can discuss a film in relationship to a show that was perhaps only listened-to, seen in "community" spaces, or only "heard about".... or worse, in one of the lacklustre revivals most of the classics have been forced to foist on the public.

Anyhoo....
"Oliver!" is, in my experience, the most honest opening-up of a stage piece to film. Although, if you are old enough to have seen the original Sean Kenny death-defying-double-turntable set, you'd have to admit it was pretty stunning.

"West Side Story" wasn't made to be seen on DVD, TV or your phone. In Panavision 70 on a screen as wide as Texas, it was a "first", and the soundmix was phenomenal. If you've not seen it on a big screen, you've simply not seen it. (Movies were made, remember, to be seen in Movie Houses.)

I'd also have to agree with the voices mentioning "The Music Man" -- that is, the 1962 nominated-for-"Best-Picture" version with Preston. Morton daCosta, a really crappy film director, actually managed to recreate his finely-textured imagery. And thank God, they let Onna White recreate the true-to-period dances.

And one, odd, other adaptation. James ("Gods and Monsters") Whale's "Show Boat" with Irene Dunne, is pretty frigging amazing. Cut to smithereens, of course, but then, this WAS the early 1930's.... but oh my LORD. If you say you are a lover of Music Theatre, and of Film, and have not seen this.... do yourself a favor and check it out. Really. If you really don't like it, then ok. But I'd have to question whether you really like Music Theatre, or just like what's "out there now".
Having had a relationship to the original "Sweeney", and also personally discounting Sondheim's rambling agreements with Tim Burton trying to make the film look like every OTHER Tim Burton film (I think Mr.S was just glad that a show of his was being FILMED), I am really surprised that on a THEATRE site, so many people have contended that the film is a great "transfer". It's totally lacking in humor (the leavening-point of the show), is reMARKably empty of sub-text (particularly in the performance of Mr. Burton's squeeze, Ms. B-C), does great disservice to the score through the useless voices of Anthony and Johanna (although the orchestrations are wonderful) -- to say nothing of trying to turn Sweeney into a cranky Edward Scissorhands.

[binau]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 1:15am

" If you've not seen it on a big screen, you've simply not seen it."

Yeah, I really really really want to see some of the old movies in a cinema. But have no idea how; they'd probably look very different (I guess Blu-Ray releases are the closet to that, but I haven't seen any older movies on Blu-Ray yet either).

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 1:25am

I obviously (as I sung the praises of the film earlier) totally disagree with your assessment of the Sweeney Todd film, peerrjb. The humor is definitely there (I think it's probably funnier than a good chunk of film comedies that come out in a given year), the subtext of the characters are there (what's really different character wise between the film and stage Mrs. Lovett?), and the singing is as expressionistic as the art direction.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 2:21am

What I think Sondheim loved most about the film is that Burton honored Sondheim's original intention with the piece: he made it a horror musical. The one thing I don't like about the musical Sweeney Todd, and even Sondheim admitted that this was tacked on so that Hal Prince would direct it, is the blunt insertions of "Sweeney is everywhere. We are ALL Sweeney" during the reprises of the Ballad and in the Epilogue. I, personally, think that the actual theme of "Sweeney is everywhere" would be more chilling if we weren't LITERALLY told that he is everywhere. I may be in the minority, but that's just my opinion. What Burton did was merely tell the story straight, and it produced a chilling effect. The Sweeney movie isn't a transfer of the stage show, it's an interpretation. One that, I think, works wonderfully.

[Steffie2]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 3:37am

I know it is a minority opinion but I absolutely love the 1958 film of South Pacific, which I viewed on DVD after seeing the current Lincoln Center revival. It is a very faithful adaptation of the stage version opened up with gorgeous location scenery and while it's true that all of the principal singers are dubbed except Mitzi Gaynor & Ray Walston, the singing is excellent, especially Bill Lee as Lt. Cable. His vocal of Younger than Springtime is the most beautiful and moving I have ever heard, way better than Matthew Morrison in the current stage revival. And that orchestra and chorus with all the exotic instruments! If you think the 35 piece orchestra used in the current revival creates a big sound, the film orchestrations are played by an orchestra more than double that size and Richard Rodgers' music takes on an atmosphere and dimension that literally blows away any other recording of South Pacific. Filters and all, I love this movie!
Updated On: 8/23/09 at 03:37 AM

[binau]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 3:59am

What I can't stand about "South Pacific", is the strange acid-trip when ever someone sings.

[heo1128]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 4:05am

I almost like the movie of Chicago better than the onstage production.

[thebroadwaydreamer]

Posted: 8/23/09 at 8:51am

The sound of music.. is the best for me..