Do You Want a FAITHFUL Movie Adaptation or Not? — Page 2

I don't think Chicago wimped out, but I don't like that it sort of put that meme out there that audiences won't accept singing without a "device." "It's as though Congress declared an edict" one magazine article said.

I don't need slavish devotion. Neither Chicago or the just mentioned Sound of Music were and they transcended their stage versions. So many of the changes in ReNT and Dreamgirls were just arbitrary and added little to the story. Did we need the stupid engagement BS in ReNT? No! Did Deena need a mother? No! Did Effie and CC need a father? A bigger NO!

ETA: In no way, shape or form could the film version of ReNT claim to have kept most of the score intact. No way, no how.

---

Updated On: 8/11/07 at 01:59 AM

sleeth - thanks for quoting me and saying my opinion made you sad. But...did you even read what I wrote? Now, I tried to read what you wrote but got confused.

Like I said - HAIRSPRAY let the characters sing.

What works on stage does not necessarily work on film. And, surprise, PHANTOM and RENT were written for the stage. Hard to tell, sometimes, I know.

Like you said - the STAGE version of RENT is musical sequences. You even emphasized stage. They took that and, hell, they made the lyrics into dialogue - so the dialogue rhymed. It was like Dr. Seuss on crack.

A musical, by nature, is larger than life. And film is not so, for the most part.

Look at HAIRSPRAY. A lot was cut. But people were forgiving because it made for a much better piece of FILM art.

But I am so glad you love PHANTOM and RENT. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a shame these movies had so much potential and failed. I actually don't dislike the PHANTOM movie. I dislike the casting of its two leads.

The RENT movie, to me, felt very forced and lacked the rough, well, rock, edge.

"And keeping all the music is not always a good thing. One should expect SOME music to be cut to streamline the film".

How come? Who, exactly decides what songs should be cut? My favorite song from CHICAGO was "Class" - CUT! ONE of my favorite songs from the OBC of ANNIE was "Something Was Missing" - CUT!
Then, of course there are movie versions that ADD a lot of songs! Do you think people who see GREASE on Broadway now will be dissapointed to find out that some of their favorite songs from the movie are not in the actual play? OR have they added them in?

"Class was cut from Chicago because the song would not have worked with the concept of all the other musical numbers. The song would have stood out like a sore thumb (and slowed down the film").

EXACTLY! "Class" was a song that was sung (back & fourth) between two principal characters. They couldn't figure out a way to make THAT song into a "dream", "fantasy".... OR put it on a stage - so they just CUT it!
JERSEY BOYS might make a great movie (since I assume it's a LOT of stage performances by the group), but I TRULY fear for the movie version of Sunset Boulevard (especially if they decide to let Glenn Close take the lead). They'll change it so much that it will resemble nothing at all what the Broadway/London stage versions were (one of Webber's BEST scores ever).
Why worry that far in advance, though? Apparently we have Mamma Mia! sitting under our Christmas tree!! PLEASE let it be faithful... AND as wonderful, funny and touching as the play that's been at the Winter Garden for over 5 years.
At LEAST no one has yet tried to make a movie out of CATS (which I secretly hate). Now THERE is a movie version that could ONLY be better than the play! LOL

It didn't stop it "dead in the tracks" on STAGE! Of course, on STAGE - they weren't trying to put everything into a dream sequence. I had seen CHICAGO twice on stage before I saw the movie. As you can guess, I didn't care for the film version. I was elated when it won the "Best Picture" oscar, though. I thought it meant SUCCESS (!!!) for Broadway shows transfered to film (it had been a long, hard road). Then PHANTOM and RENT got sucked DRY (as did The Producers... God - am I ever glad I didn't pay to see THAT on stage).
I appreciate all your feedback. You're a nice guy. And that "avitar" of yours - ROFLMAO!

Webber has a "greatest" score?

Sleeth, if you want to see a GOOD movie musical, things need to be cut and changed. It is a different medium and every project responds differently to said medium. There cannot be a set way to do all movie musicals. for example with Chicago: In the show there are character songs and there are songs woven through in which (in the original production anyways)the characters talked to the audience as a sort of staged vaudeville act. You can put both types of songs on a stage and it works fine because it's a stage musical. In film it wouldn't work, it's just a different medium.

"Sound of Music the movie kicks Sound of Music the musicals' ass".

Oh! It's been a hundred years since that show played in NY... bet they could sure do justice to it now! Maybe with that WICKED lady that everyone loves as Maria!
So how "faithful" does everyone want Mamma Mia! to be??? Surely it will have more SETS! LOL (No offense intended... I love it!)

.

---

Updated On: 8/11/07 at 03:55 AM

Dreamgirls did not wimp out and try to make devices to detract from the fact that it's a movie-musical....pretty much all of the songs that took place on stage are also in line within the context that they're performed in the show.

The show is a backstage musical about a group that often performs on stage. How could the movie have done that any other way????

***

And there's no way Chicago would have worked on film if it was presented the way they do it on stage. They needed a reason for the songs to be presented. To have it all be in Roxie's head (minus the finale) was genius in how it solved that problem, in my opinion.

Updated On: 8/11/07 at 11:15 AM

What material do you think should have been cut in Dreamgirls? I think that "Family" stuck out like a sore thumb, but it did serve a purpose. If "It's All Over/And I Am Telling You" had been the first time in the film that the characters broke into song, I don't think that would have worked as well. "Family" eased the audience into the idea.

"When I First Saw You" and "Lorrell Loves Jimmy" could have been, I suppose, but I love both songs and I'm glad they at least let Anika sing a little solo since they cut out "Ain't No Party."

***

Anyways, my main point is that I don't see how Dreamgirls shied away from being a movie-musical at all. Most of the musical numbers were done with the group performing them on stage as if it were a real-live performance, which is exactly in line with what happened in the stage show. So where's the gimmick or device in that? There isn't one....

Well, yeah, although except for Grease, all those musicals you mentined were made prior to 1965. The line is that modern audiences won't accept spontaneous breaking out into song.

I think that "Family" stuck out like a sore thumb, but it did serve a purpose.

Eh, it didn't serve much purpose, especially since the lyrics were rendered nonsensical with the inclusion of Effie and CC's father.

"When I First Saw You" and "Stepping the Bad Side" took place outside the confines of a stage, thereby by negating the allegedly "all the songs take place on a stage or a near a stage" thing. The "concept" doesn't work because Condon never committed to the concept. It tried to hard to straddle the line, which I think is one of the reason the bloom fell off that rose not long after its release, that and the relentless media blitz that I think eventually just made people tired of hearing about it. Under scrutiny, the film doesn't hold up.

---

I agree with best. I don't need a literal translation, either, but when arbitrary changes are made that don't add to the story (and in many cases detract) there's a problem. Like I've said before, the addition of a father for Effie and CC in Dreamgirls is problematic for several reasons. The first of which is that all CC's crooning about how "we're not alone anymore" and now we're a family makes no sense. They've already got a family. Having Effie in close contact with this father while she's exiled from the Dreams makes no sense.

The arbitrary ReNt changes don't serve that, either. Stretching that first act into three days just slowed everything down to a snail's pace in the film. There was no urgency driving the first half, because they were just meandering towards Maureen's performance which was to happen in a few hours on stage and not for three days on film. And then there's that whole asinine gay marriage thing.

BOTH films cut huge chunks of recicative from the score and replaced it with material that wasn't up to par. "Heavy" takes on almost operatic proportions on stage and it's distilled down to a about a five line exchange in the film. With the film's official line about "on a stage or near a stage" there's no reason "Heavy" couldn't have stayed, since that entire sequence takes place on or near a stage.

"Dreamagirls" also suffers from the relentless "THIS IS REALLY ABOUT THE SUPREMES" stuff too, but that's another story.

---