'Chicago' (Movie vs Show)

It's funny how discussions like this ome up when 98% of the folks who post here are too young to have seen the original.

If I had seen the original production, I can't imagine that I'd find any room for improvement. Chita, Gwen and Jerry Orbach? In a production directed by Fosse? I think the revival is exceptional, and perhaps still the greatest show on the boards right now. But I'll trust my older friends that the original was impossible to beat and just ahead of its time.

BTW, I think the movie ended up much better than I expected. Knowing how impossible it is to successfully translate musicals to the big screen in our cynical era, Rob Marshall did an amazing job. I think it's the best film musical since Cabaret, some 30 years earlier. Still, it lacks the punch of seeing the show on stage.

Even though the movie was great - brilliant concept, not trying to transfer the stage production to the screen but they found a clever way to incorporate the musical numbers into the story, I still prefer the stage version. The revival, that is. For some reason I felt that a lot of the irony and the sarcasm was lost in the movie version. And I think the stage orchestrations are far better than the movie orchestrations, especially "All That Jazz" and "Cell Block Tango". Renee was the only performer in the movie who I think was a miscast, all the others did a great job at it, especially Catherine Z-J!

Also - I am dissapointed with the movie because they cut too many great songs! "My Own Best Friend", and "Me and My Baby" could've easily worked in the film - with the concept they used. I can see cutting "A Litt Bit of Good", "I Know A Girl", and "When Velma Takes The Stand" - even "Class." We are lucky they atleast filmed "Class." I wish they filmed "My Own Best Friend", and "Me and My Baby." I do feel the movie choreography is lackluster to the revival's choreography.

I do think though - they transfered the plot quite good. I can understand them changing The Trial - because live The Trial is not something that would really happen in the court. In the movie they mad the trial much more realistic. The whole thing with Roxie's diary was okay - not a bad idea. So they really kept the plot similar to the stage show.

Updated On: 7/10/05 at 03:36 PM

Baranski was also great in her bit role as Mary Sunshine. MUCH smaller compared to the stage version.

Dont like the staging of CHICAGO - love the film and the music is what makes the stage and film.

it still bothers me that they swiched the long note in "we both reached for the gun" but i think as well done as the movie is the stage version is the better one

---

Ah, I can't wait to see it in 13 days!!

---

I love all three versions, because I love the show itself, and believe that there is more than one right way to do everything. It is called interpretation. I saw the original on opening night, and let me tell you, it was brilliant. Way ahead of it's time, though. It was scenically and technically thrilling, the costumes were spectacular, and Gwen Verdon, Chita Rivera at the top of their form. and FOSSE. This was his brainchild, and to see his take on the material, and his brilliant choreography was truly amazing. I think the film is a brilliant representation of the show. I remember dreading going to see it for fear that they would ruin the show, as Hollywood has done to a lot of musicals, but this was not the case with the CHICAGO film. It had a wonderful theatricality to it, and I think the reason for that was Rob Marshall. He, up to that point, was a theatre person exclusively, and was very aware of what would make the film work. I also enjoyed the revival very much. A totally different concept totally works, and has really given the show it's longevity. The original opened the same year as A CHORUS LINE, and was totally overlooked at award time, winning NO Tony's at all. It is one of my favorite shows of all time. I hope it runs forever.

---

Updated On: 7/11/05 at 11:58 AM

Whoa. The movie is no way sexier than the revival.