Film adaptations vs film of stage performance?

[Baylink]

Posted: 2/22/10 at 11:50am

I know this is probably the wrong audience to ask, cause you'll probably skew a different way than the general public, but...

What are your opinions on the filming of actual stage performances of hit Broadway shows -- as was done with CATS -- as opposed to just the creation of a traditional film based on the performance script -- as was done with Phantom?

[greensgreens]

Posted: 2/22/10 at 12:20pm

I'm personally a big believer that if you're going to adapt a stage play or musical for the screen, you have to have a good reason to do so. If the work isn't "opened up" and capitalizes on the advantages of the medium, what's the point?

Die, Mommie, Die! is a wonderful example of how a good play can be transformed into a masterful film. Chicago is another. Both really capitalized on the affordances you could only really have in film.

Phantom and Rent were disasterous because they brought absolutely nothing new to the work. They took no advantage of the medium to add new depth or nuance. As was proven by the later filming of the stage production of Rent, a well-filmed live performance is heaps better than a basic replica of the work on film. Sure, the production values may increase slightly, but those are just superficial improvements, not substantial enough to warrant making the film in the first place.

[tellybox]

Posted: 2/22/10 at 12:28pm

I tend to like filmed stage performances better, but it really depends on how it is filmed. I found the recording of Rent to be exciting, with all of the energy of the last show translating well to the home viewer. Same thing goes for Company. Whereas a show like Sunday in the Park with George can come across as flat and boring (and before I get lampooned let me say that I'm a big Sunday fan).

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 2/22/10 at 12:34pm

The Producers might as well have been a film of a stage performance. Lord knows, it would have been cheaper.

[binau]

Posted: 2/22/10 at 2:14pm

I enjoy both...I think we are privileged to have recordings of the Sweeney Todd 1982 tour with Lansbury's performance, and the ITW, SITPWG, PO OBC and things - for those who never had the chance to see these productions we get more than a taste of the original cast and production.

But say the Sweeney Todd film is also extremely entertaining, which is genuinely thrilling at points thanks to the use of film-techniques etc.

[BroadwayBenny]

Posted: 2/22/10 at 2:51pm

Count me in the "BOTH" category as well. Sweeney is a great example of the formats working great and complimenting each other.

I would KILL for a great filming of Phantom at "Her Majesty's" to be released. Like RENT it would be a more welcomed consolation for us fans who hated the movie.

[Baylink]

Posted: 2/22/10 at 4:36pm

Interesting.

I actually didn't even expect a broadway crowd to like the idea of filming a performance -- though I myself think that, done properly, it's a great idea; I would have *loved* it had they had the foresight to record the original Bway Wicked cast, and just leave it in the can for a few years, for example.

I hadn't actually realized it was a common as it apparently is. I knew about RENT, and had heard about CATS, but forgot until just today when Amazon reminded me in a search.

I did *not* know they'd done that with Phantom, though.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 2/23/10 at 11:19am

In terms of the filmed stage performance, it really depends on the production. To use my frequent JCS example...

2000 film: Never should have been made. Total mish-mash of ideas and concepts that was poorly thought out and cast.
2006 benefit: Had the original leads from the far superior 1973 film (Ted Neeley, Yvonne Elliman, Barry Dennen), Broadway stars (Ben Vereen), and name talent (Jack Black, Clint Holmes), and was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

So the axe swings both ways. It could be great (in which case I'd favor it), and it could be terrible (in which case I wouldn't).

Updated On: 2/23/10 at 11:19 AM