Did a Film Version Ever Improve Upon Original?- Page 2

[musicaljen]

Posted: 6/1/14 at 8:50pm

I don't believe that a cinematographic version can ever beat the original stage
production. As much as I love the sound of music on stage, I just loathe the
film. That being said my favourite movie musical has to be Les Miserables. I lost
count on how many times I watched it and I personally feel that if you go to see
the theatrical production without knowing the story, you won't understand what is
going on but if you watch the movie you will understand the show better.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 6/1/14 at 9:17pm

I am one who also thinks Hair! suffered in the film version. The linear story is NOT the esscence of the piece. The play itself is as organised as a Be-In was. The storyline was changed way too much and it seemed false for the movie.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 6/1/14 at 9:21pm

Chicago should never be on this list, the film sucked all the life and black comedy out of that show.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/1/14 at 10:36pm

I can't disagree more, SNAFU, even while conceding that you are right about the particulars.

HAIR on stage was based on avant-garde "happenings". The stage directions even tell the director to let the actors wander at random and occasionally improvise.

HAIR on film was based on MGM musicals. How would you ever get the spontaneity of a happening in a canned medium such as film? So Forman wisely re-conceived the piece in terms of cinematic technique and history.

I think Forman's HAIR may be the most underrated movie musical of all time. But, as I said, you are absolutely right that it has different intentions than the stage musical.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/1/14 at 11:00pm

I actually think that the film version of Rock of Ages fixed a lot of story issues, particularly the gross "friend zone" storyline with Drew and Sherrie.

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 12:16am

Chicago
Mamma Mia
Les Miserables (I know, I know, shoot me. I just felt that the emotions were displayed better in a movie setting.)

Updated On: 6/2/14 at 12:16 AM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 6:47am

Les Miserables (I know, I know, shoot me. I just felt that the emotions were displayed better in a movie setting.)

Don't ever apologize for your opinion my friend. You are entitled to it.

[Theatrical Landladies]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 8:34am

Sorry but I can't agree about the movie Hairspray improving on the show. John Travolta ruined the role of Edna for me. The film overall is really enjoyable but Harvey should have reprised his Broadway performance. JMO

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 9:13am

"Sorry but I can't agree about the movie Hairspray improving on the show. John Travolta ruined the role of Edna for me. The film overall is really enjoyable but Harvey should have reprised his Broadway performance. JMO"

Please keep in mind that the movie wasn't trying to mimic the Broadway show, it was trying to be a bit more realistic, if you don't like, sometimes the truth hurts!

[BroadwayStar4]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 9:34am

Chicago should never be on this list, the film sucked all the life and black comedy out of that show.

Chicago on stage was all black, the costumes were black, the settings were black and simple, etc. Chicago on film has more color, glitz, glamour and more pizzazz! I think that's why most people like the movie version better, and I agree with them.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 9:41am

"I am one who also thinks Hair! suffered in the film version. The linear story is NOT the esscence of the piece. The play itself is as organised as a Be-In was. The storyline was changed way too much and it seemed false for the movie."

I understand what you're saying, but Hair doesn't really work onstage anymore. That Margaret Mead section is just stupid. And the tribe idea never really worked for me. You're in a "tribe" and someone is singing "Easy To Be Hard" all the while scorning the culture that came before yours. It all seems so hypocritical.

[Patash]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 9:52am

Speaking of Chicago, I went to the film KNOWING I'd hate it as it couldn't possibly achieve that great sense of "theatricality" that the stage version has. But I left the film being overwhelmed. They actually made it even MORE theatrical. Things like seeing the marionettes being manipulated from above, the double filming of two versions of numbers being interspersed, and so much more.

But back to your question -- Sound of Music, definitely. I think the film has made it hard to watch the stage version which is just so DULL by comparison, regardless of the performers.

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

Posted: 6/2/14 at 10:00am

I understand what you're saying, but Hair doesn't really work onstage anymore. That Margaret Mead section is just stupid. And the tribe idea never really worked for me. You're in a "tribe" and someone is singing "Easy To Be Hard" all the while scorning the culture that came before yours. It all seems so hypocritical.

...really? It's escaped you all this time? Okay, I'll clue you in:

THAT'S THE MOTHERF*CKING POINT. That these kids were trying to make a better world, but couldn't, because they were flawed, just like every generation that tries to stand apart from the pack. Hair was a warning.

And Hair is still relevant because there will always be unpopular presidents. There will always be unjust wars. There will always be a cross-section of young people who band together, find their own natural aesthetic, and try to change the world they live in. Kids who question authority, and the society they're living in. Kids who yearn to change the world, and seek to find a new way, and start by recreating themselves. Unkempt, wild, free, deep, unique, colorful, original, beautiful, hip. They will always tune in, turn on and drop out; they will hang out in self-made clouds, maybe not of incense and grass, but of blissful escape (technology, for example, claims to bring us closer together whilst really isolating us from the world in our own self-made cloud, and allowing us to hide from reality). They will always laugh and cavort and find a new camaraderie and freedom of expression. They will commune and join hands in both protest and song. They will miss the forest for the trees, wrapped in their drugs and protests and trends and radical politics, until it's too late.

Hair was never so much an exploration and celebration of the hippie ethos; that came later, when the world looked back on the Sixties with somewhat rose-colored glasses of nostalgia. Every description of the writing process that I've ever read indicates to me that it was an anthropological project -- three artists descend into the heart of hippiedom to interpret what they find through the lens of their own artistic bent. And they found a lot worth celebrating, and a lot worth exposing. An original cast member of Hair once described the main point in what I feel is still the most concise and powerful way it's ever been described: "Who needs power when you can have freedom? Who needs war when you can have love and LSD? Come with us, burn your draft card - we won't fight, we won't be tied down, we won't... face what's really happening."

Updated On: 6/2/14 at 10:00 AM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 10:01am

These youngins have no clue that.the original production of CHICAGO was not.performed in a.black box setting with all black costumes. The original had costumes and sets

Updated On: 6/2/14 at 10:01 AM

[theatregeek6]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 12:11pm

For those saying Grease. I agree the film is better than what is presented now as Grease. But the original was grittier, more satirical and just more fun than the movie

I agree with SOM and WSS.

[dreaming]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 12:15pm

The Sound of Music and Chicago (maybe-although I still like the stage version).

Hedwig is a better live theatrical experience than a film. I love the film, but the musical, in the right hands, is really an incredible live experience. The interplay between Hedwig and the audience keeps it going. You lose that in the film. There is also more of an emotional connection to that character I think when it is experienced in a live setting.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 12:50pm

"For those saying Grease. I agree the film is better than what is presented now as Grease. But the original was grittier, more satirical and just more fun than the movie"

It's a travesty what the revivals have done to the intent of the original.

[bdn223]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 1:16pm

Mamma Mia's film adaptation is way better than the stage version and that is not just because Meryl Streep in in it.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 7:18pm

West Side Story definitely

Chicago cut too many songs to have improved on the original . Ditto for Nine.

[Nateben2]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 8:06pm

I thought Evita improved on the stage version ONLY in that I got a sense of the history going on around it which gave some more weight to the show.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 8:52pm

For those saying Grease. I agree the film is better than what is presented now as Grease. But the original was grittier, more satirical and just more fun than the movie

So true. The current GREASEs are so bland and lifeless, losing most of what made the original version (and even the movie) any decent. Even the movie is pretty blanded out, although not to such a high degree. And it has those completely out of place 70's style songs that drive me crazy. I also think it's just as cheesy and corny as XANADU, although it's a thousand times more popular with fewer hit songs.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 10:32pm

In regard to OLIVER! (the movie) and its use of Oom-pah-pah as a diversion so Nancy can sneak Oliver out of the Three Cripples, I think this is a brilliant use of a (non-plot related) song. I have always wondered if it could be used in the same manner on stage. The stage show gets very song-heavy upon Nancy's arrival in Act 1 with "It's a Fine Life". I'd Do Anything" and "Be Back Soon" coming very close together. So, what if you took "It's a Fine Life" and stuck it where "Oom-Pah-Pah" is at the beginning of Act 2? Then you could move "Oom-Pah-Pah" to where it is in the movie. Not sure if that is doable onstage. I believe it was done back in the late 70s when Shane Wallis did a production out on the west coast. It is certainly worth a try.

[The Other One]

Posted: 6/2/14 at 11:57pm

David Lean had Nancy use a pub song to distract Sykes while she escaped with Oliver in his film version of "Oliver Twist." I am sure that's where Carol Reed got the idea from when he filmed the musical version. I'm surprised that Lionel Bart did not pick up on that himself.

Updated On: 6/3/14 at 11:57 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/3/14 at 12:18pm

David Lean had Nancy use a pub song to distract Sykes while she escaped with Oliver in his film version of "Oliver Twist." I am sure that's where Carol Reed got the idea from when he filmed the musical version. I'm surprised that Lionel Bart did not pick up on that himself.

I think in the original stage musical, the placement of the song had more to do with scenery and cast movement than with what worked for the plot. Oom-pah-pah has to be sung in the pub and I suspect that in the original they wanted intermission time to get everything and everyone in place.