Cases where the Film was better than the Musical. — Page 3

Oh yes, STATE FAIR. But that's a case where the stage version came after the film version. STATE FAIR was Rodgers & Hammerstein's first original film musical.

I love both versions of the film and the 1962 version has a slight edge over the original version because of Bobby Darin, Ann-Margret and Pamela Tiffin. I can't stand Pat Boone though.

I enjoyed the 80's Annie more than the recent revival. I'm sure I would feel differently if I saw Loudon.

The film version of Grease is better than the musical, by a long shot.

Carrie is better as a movie, and so is Ghost.

Thank you, Gav, for articulating what I could not. Though I am not of either time, I have much love for the original R-rated Grease that successfully played Broadway and briefly surpassed Fiddler... as longest-running musical.

---

The cool thing I like about GREASE on stage is that (almost) every character gets a defining song. Doody gets "Those Magic Changes", Marty gets "Freddy, My Love", Jan and Sonny get "Mooning", Kenickie - "Greased Lightning", Rizzo - "There Are Worse Things I Could Do". The movie jettisoned that concept and then took out "Changes", "Freddy" and "Mooning", gave "Greased Lightning" to Danny. They almost cut "There Are Worse Things I Could Do" but kept it in because Stockard Channing fought for it to stay in.

Updated On: 7/30/13 at 07:33 PM

Yeah, they're in California but most of them talk with BROOKLYN ACCENTS. You really do have to suspend belief when you watch the film version of GREASE because it's not so much a parody but a fantasy. The flying car at the end solidifies that.

I think recently, "Far From Heaven"

Older: I would take "Young Frankenstein", The Adams Family" and of all time I'd say "Grease" & WSS

---

A Little Night Music! What a masterpiece. Way better than that clunky old Hal Prince claptrap.




...just kidding. Though the Bergman film is astounding.

Rock of Ages?

Cause Tom Cruise is in it.

The point of the Kubrick lists that was most interesting to me was that he hated The Wizard of Oz (and it was the only one listed under the hated category). Wonder what his reason was for this as it's very curious to me.

The Sound of Music and West Side Story are definitely better films than stage. Chicago ties. Rent, Producers, Hairspray, Nine, Gypsy, A Chorus Line are all better on stage (I'm not taking into account the original Hairspray and Producers movies which are both much better than their musical stage and film incarnations).

Except for The Sound of Music, I think any Rodgers and Hammerstein musical is better on stage than the movie particularly the latest Broadway production of South Pacific (the two movie versions left a TON to be desired in my opinion).

"On the stage Oliver! was an undistinguished musical that people took their children to, dutifully; it was an English variant of Broadway Americana. The movie transforms the material; it's not only a musical entertainment but an imaginative version of the novel as a lyrical, macabre fable. The tone is set in the opening sequence, in the children's workhouse, when Oliver's "Please, sir, I want some more" leads into a choreographed children's riot. The stylization seems to put quotation marks around everything Dickensian, in a way that makes you more aware of the qualities of Dickens' art. It's as if the movie set out to be a tribute to Dickens and a comment on his melodramatic art as well as to tell the story of Oliver Twist. The songs (by Lionel Bart) provide the distancing that enables us to appreciate Dickens' pathos intellectually, and the director, Carol Reed, gives a superb demonstration of intelligent craftsmanship; he doesn't urge us to tears--he leaves us our pride. Typically, the best moment is a quiet one. Oliver (Mark Lester), who has been listening to "Who Will Buy?," the lovely early-morning song of the tradespeople in Bloomsbury, walks along singing a few bars to himself, and it is probably the most delicately beautiful reprise in movie-musical history. The score isn't great, but it's certainly well sung. With Ron Moody as Fagin; Harry Secombe as Mr. Bumble; Shani Wallis as Nancy; Oliver Reed, who finds the right outlet for his peculiar talents as Bill Sikes; and Jack Wild as the Artful Dodger. The musical sequences were choreographed by Onna White; the cinematography is by Oswald Morris; the set designs are by John Box; the screenplay is by Vernon Harris. Produced by John Woolf."

Pauline Kael

"mc, The Addams Family the musical has little to do with the movie, except that they both can be traced back to Charles Addams's cartoons."

I still like to think that if they had adapted the first movie and had Marc Shaiman expand upon his film score for the stage The Addams Family would still be running. Andrea Martin would have made a fantastic Dr. Pinderschloss.

I love both versions of the film and the 1962 version has a slight edge over the original version because of Bobby Darin, Ann-Margret and Pamela Tiffin.

Personally, I find the 1945 version much more charming. Ann-Margret is unintentionally hilarious doing her hip jazz kitten thing in that particular story. Thank God her character never had to try and throw away a wad of paper.

---

I disagree that "Fiddler on the Roof" was better in the movies. The stage musical always makes me feel the warmth of the characters, whereas the more realistic movie setting was just too grim.

I thought "Les Mis" was an incredible film, and definitely agreed with the change in the order of the songs. Here, the grittiness of the first scene was a boost to the story, because of the contrast to JVJ's later life.I also liked the new scene with the new song, "Suddenly," because it made clear what is ambiguous in the stage show: Is JVJ just trying to fulfill his promise to Fantine or does he feel like a father to Cosette? On the other hand, the presence of Monsieur Crowe as Javert was, shall we say, not as successful as much of the movie.

I think the "Mary Poppins" movie was superior to the stage show, despite the incredible dance scene with the magnetic boots up the side of the stage and across the top. The mixture of live action and cartoon in the 1964 movie was revolutionary. I also thought the addition of the first nanny in the stage show was obnoxious, which diminished the performance for me.

I think the original stage version of "My Fair Lady" and the 1964 movie are about equal, possibly because of the almost identical translation from stage to screen, and the repeat casting of Higgins and Alfred P. Doolittle, as well as Cecil Beaton's return. I'm not as enamored of recent stagings of "My Fair Lady." Eliza's new Ascot hat is looney -- almost as unusual as the Royal Family's 21st century hats. Also, the addition of the subway, which replaces the taxi when Eliza returns to Covent Garden, is odd -- Freddy still arrives in a taxi, so how does he know where to find her? I do like the idea of Freddy being drunk, instead of just love-besotted. But, as I've complained numerous times on this board, what's with the ancient, professorial Higgins? The new casting just doesn't compare to the forty-something "Sexy Rexy."

I've heard that Keira Knightly was taking singing lessons for a My Fair Lady remake that was supposed to be more gritty than the 1964 version. No thank you on the gritty part. If Keira can pull off "I Could Have Danced All Night," without being dubbed, she'd be a good choice. I'm not sure what happened to that project. It may have fizzled.

---