Cases where the Film was better than the Musical.- Page 4

[justoldbill]

Posted: 7/31/13 at 11:25pm

FLOWER DRUM SONG (Better than both stage versions, actually.)

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 7/31/13 at 11:51pm

"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 forgot to mention this earlier. Mary Poppins the stage show was decided un-magical compared to the movie. It just should have been so much better than it was.

I never could understand why when the idea of live action and cartoon was so impressive in the movie, why they couldn't reproduce that on stage. With today's technology, there could easily be some type of projection on stage. It would have been so cool. Instead, we got those dancing statues which were... no offense to the dancers who portrayed them..absolutely creepy.

[jackieoh]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 12:19am

Les Mis is a tough one for me. I think the stage show is brilliant. I've seen it so many times and I've even performed in productions of it and I am constantly blown away by how powerful it can be provided that the cast can deliver. However, the film was like a punch in the gut. It was raw. Visiting the material in that medium was a transcendent experience and Hathaway and Jackman gave screen performances of a lifetime. I won't necessarily say that the film is better, but I would say that it is as good as the stage show.

I liked Billy Elliot; it was certainly a spectacle fit for the stage. I LOVED the Billy Elliot film. It was quiet and real and I sobbed like a baby when Billy's dad crossed the picket line. One of my all-time favorite movies.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 12:47am

"I never could understand why when the idea of live action and cartoon was so impressive in the movie, why they couldn't reproduce that on stage."

I just read an article about this the other day. With the upcoming film "Saving Mr. Banks" I am sure it will come up in other articles. It seems Ms. Travers detested the animation sequence. Her estate was very particular about what aspects of the movie would be aloud in the stage adaption of her novels.

[Movidude742]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 7:27am

"I would argue Rock of Ages"

dem's fighting words

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 8:30am

Hello, Dolly! and Flower Drum Song are two movie musicals that I feel have aged really well.

Others were better reviewed and better received back in their day, and many of them have faded or lost impact over the decades.

I think the opposite is true with Dolly and Drum Song. Their scores, plots, characters, performances, sentiments, humor, and everything else seem more vibrant today. Yes, they are period pieces and products of their own time. They both have themes of "arranged marriages" and people stuck in their old ways, trying to look to the future and put the past behind them. Neither one could be considered "realistic" or "serious," but their themes resonate nonetheless. And the music!

I would say that Flower Drum Song is quickly becoming my favorite R&H movie, right behind Sound of Music and The King and I. I would place it solidly third. Love that cast and that score!

[MimiJudith]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 8:39am

One of my favorite movies is "The Boy Friend." I didn't see the original stage version but I did see a local production of it, which was horrible.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 9:29am

Besty I have to agree with you about both Dolly! and Drum Song. Especially Drum Song...I just screened it on last Sunday and it hasn't lost one ounce of it's charm.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 9:46am

How do you guys feel about Phantom film vs the musical? I haven't seen anyone bring it up yet.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 9:51am

I shudder for the poor soul who would argue that the film is better than the staged musical.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 10:04am

I agree. The film version of Phantom is unwatchable to me. And there's one giant reason why, and it's probably not what you would guess.

I think the musical direction is horrible. Every song and particularly every recitative section is under tempo. So much so that it sabotages the performances. It drags so much that it doesn't allow for any (seemingly) spontaneous acting choices from the cast.

Then there's the one exception: Masquerade, where the tempo is jarringly fast.

What the HELL were they thinking?? I can't believe Lloyd Webber let it slide and didn't understand what was happening.

Those musical tempo choices, above all other issues, killed this film. It makes it dull, lifeless, morose, and ponderous.

Add to it that Christine can't sing, in a role that demands a brilliant singer, and you've lost me completely.

No chance of this one "growing on me" in the future, unless you mean like a fungus.

I will say that I thoroughly enjoyed the Albert Hall anniversary performance on Blu-ray. I own it, and have seen it several times. There is only one thing it's lacking ... Michael Crawford. No one has matched his brilliant performance as the Phantom. They may have great voices, but they lack that "other worldly" quality he had.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 10:17am

In addition to the voices the casting of the leading trio was very problematic in the huge age discrepancies. Two grown men, both old enough to be her father, fighting over a 16 year old girl added a creepy ick factor that I have not seen in any other version of the Phantom story.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 10:28am

Idk, I thought Gerald looked young enough to be her suitor. I had no problem with Emmy's Voice. Phantom just bored me to tears. It was a very uninspired film that really didn't take any chances. It was basically just the stage show show on film. Boring.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 10:38am

The only way to improve the Phantom film is to go back to the Las Vegas edition, which it substantially resembles, and make all the cuts to the script and score that were in that version. It'd still be a slog, but a faster slog.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 11:07am

Many of you whose opinions I value almost make me want to screen "Hello, Dolly" again to check if I now agree with you on its hitherto (to me) latent merits or if I'll once again find it the same overblown mess of a movie, at least as faux-atavistic (not lovingly recalling a golden age of movie musicals, but delivering the insipid and overbearing schlock that people in 1969 mistakenly ascribed to a golden age of movie musicals) in 2013 as it was in 1969, and with Streisand's Dolly still lacking in everything the role demands: warmth, vulnerability and charm (Pauline Kael's admiration for Streisand's performance also makes me want to revisit it - still, it's hardly the only time I've strongly disagreed with Kael (Shampoo is a great sophisticated comedy? REALLY?).

OK, fire away!

[veronicamae]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 11:12am

Chicago.

I haven't read all 4 pages here but I'm sure I"m not the first to have that opinion.

[justincharacter]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 11:27am

I was a bit young when I first watched Phantom and I absolutely adored it. After not watching it for years as I'm much older now, I decided to watch the DVD again. Wasn't I in for a surprise? I realized that Gerald Butler's singing was TERRIBLE. But, I thought Emmy Rossum did well as Christine, vocally and acting wise. I'm still being hopeful for that remake in the future with Anne Hathaway, would Hugh be too old for the Phantom now?

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 11:30am

No "firing away," henrik.

My affection for the Dolly film was an acquired one. It was not "love at first sight."

I initially couldn't see or embrace the "overblown, affected charm" of the movie.

I now see it as a highly stylized "painting" of that era. There is nothing realistic about it. It's a surrealistic reflection of that era (that never was).

I really love the movie now, including Streisand's performance, especially in her scenes with Matthau, and any time she sings. The staging, direction, locations, costumes, all first-rate.

It's like eating a bowl of brightly-colored sherbet. If you're not in the mood for that, or if you like less sweet desserts, then by all means avoid it. But if you're in the mood, especially as a "summer escape" movie, it's definitely one of my favorites now.

As for Phantom ...

Idk, I thought Gerald looked young enough to be her suitor.

... and therein lies my entire problem with what Webber's Phantom has become. He's not supposed to be "her suitor," he is a monster! It's a horror story. He should be older, ugly, and frightening. There should be nothing that doesn't make us recoil from him to look at or think about. That's the way Michael Crawford approached it.

The "love story" happens because we understand the monster's torment, not because we secretly think he's "hot." Good god. I really can't stand the way the part is now cast. It ruins it for me, and it completely weakens the story and turns Christine (and the audience) into a bunch of helpless fangirls. This is a "beauty and the beast" story, not a "beauty and the hot, misunderstood outcast" story.

I hate that so much.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 11:41am

"I'm still being hopeful for that remake in the future with Anne Hathaway"

No.




"would Hugh be too old for the Phantom now?"

No.

Updated On: 8/1/13 at 11:41 AM

[justincharacter]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 11:54am

It's only a matter of time before they remake Phantom.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 12:11pm

I doubt that. Even if they did remake it, the film came out only 10 years ago. You won't see a remake for a LOOOONG time and by that time Hatheway will be too old.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 12:15pm

"I now see it as a highly stylized "painting" of that era. There is nothing realistic about it. It's a surrealistic reflection of that era (that never was)."

Best12, thanks, again its your and others' championing of the movie of Dolly (which for me is certainly not better than the show) that makes me want to give it another chance.

But to be clear I have nothing against a highly stylized "painting" of that era with nothing realistic about it, and no qualms with a musical which is a surrealistic romanticized reflection of that time.

"Meet Me in St. Louis" is precisely that and is perhaps my favorite movie musical.

Updated On: 8/1/13 at 12:15 PM

[jnb9872]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 12:28pm

The best argument for HELLO, DOLLY! is probably WALL•E

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 1:16pm

I agree that Wall-E definitely boosted interest and love for the Dolly movie. I was already won over by that point, but I'm sure having it play such an emotionally impacting role in a modern, 3D, sci-fi movie helped many people who might not even think of renting or buying Dolly get a copy of the film.

I think the opening sequence is as powerful as that love scene, jnb9872. At the time, when I first saw Wall-E, I wasn't prepared for it. Suddenly hearing Michael Crawford and that score ... I momentarily thought I was in the wrong theatre in the wrong world. You sit back and prepare for a sci-fi movie and get Jerry Herman!

Opening scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx-4Hz_W-TY

I think the reason it's so powerful is seeing this post-apocalyptical world set against the unabashed innocence of the song and Crawford's "hopeful" voice.

Maybe that's one of the reasons the Dolly movie has grown on me over the years. The further away we get from any world that might have resembled the "Yonkers" of Dollyland, the further we have to reach for that cartoonish soda shop of a life, the more power and effect it actually has, at least on me.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 8/1/13 at 1:24pm

Haha yes! The opening scene took me by complete surprise the first time I saw it, and it still does. It's so sudden, so immediate, and so exactly opposite what I was prepared for. I had actually thought there was a problem with the film reel for a split second when I saw it in the theater.