MUSICALS- the film? the stage version? your pick.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 4:10pm

DO any of you out there think there's any film versions of musicals that are better and surpass the stage version??

There's so many musicals on film that don't cut it----
but wondering if any of you have any favorites where you feel the film version is better??


____________

Reason being:

I just bumped into HAIR and watched through the whole thing, which I haven't seen in quite a while.

I think I enjoy the Film version better because they created some plot around the songs as opposed to just the Tribe singing a bunch of songs.

so that got me wondering..



Updated On: 5/13/11 at 04:10 PM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 4:34pm

I think the film version of The Sound of Music is often considered better than the stage version. That's probably why subsequent revivals tend to use elements from the film. I don't feel that way myself, but I know many others that do.

[JP2]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:05pm

Chicago. The film is brilliant from beginning to end. The stage show makes me itch.

With the original ending in tact, I think Little Shop could be better than the show.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:10pm

Hands down stage.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:13pm

Even with the ending restored I don't think I would say that the film of Little Shop is better than the stage version. Equal to, yes. It was a pretty faithful and excellently done adaptation but I don't feel the material was improved for the film (as it is already pretty fantastic to begin with).

I will agree The Sound of Music. I adore the movie but kind of dread having to see the show onstage.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:19pm

I think the West Side Story movie is superior to the stage version because of the changes to the book- the expanded version of "America" especially.

I think the Little Shop movie is an underrated film. It's a very good adaptation, minus the tacked on ending. It streamlines the show and does away with its more extraneous numbers (though I dislike "Some Fun Now", even though it's just a distillation of "Ya Never Know"). It's not BETTER than the stage show, but it does what most adaptations should do: reconfigure the source material for a new medium without losing any of the original's spirit, even if it means cutting or condensing things. And it's noteworthy just for the preservation of Ellen Greene's performance (something we'd never see nowadays).

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:28pm

West Side Story
The Sound of Music
Chicago
Oliver!


EDIT: I agree with you about Hair. Unfortunately, the film was released at the height of the Disco era, and nobody wanted to relive those songs or feelings from the Vietnam Era (just a few years earlier). I loved the film even back then, but it didn't do well. It has aged really well, however, because there was never anything wrong with it from the beginning. It was people's attitudes getting in the way. They weren't ready or waiting for a film adaptation of "Hair."

Updated On: 5/13/11 at 05:28 PM

[suttonfoster]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:34pm

Chicago! and I have to say, Hairspray.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:41pm

best- treat Williams is just tender. beverly D'Angelo- gorgeous.

I am really loving the HAIR film.




and sutton-- HAIRSPRAY??? really?

with that cast? seriously...hmmmmm..
i'll give it another try

[JP2]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:45pm

I actualy think the Hairspray film is equal to the stage.

[AvenueQResident]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:57pm

The Wizard of Oz

[Idiot]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 5:59pm

West Side Story (the film), hands down. But I didn't see the original stage production. I'd imagine that Man of La Mancha is better on stage -- the film version makes me want to poke my eyes out with sporks.

[CromTO]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 6:24pm

I'm happy you beat me to the punch, because I was going to post something along these lines but you conveyed it so much better. That being said, I agree with best12bars:

West Side Story
The Sound of Music
Chicago
Oliver!

I would say those are the best. There's no doubt that I love Sweeney Todd on stage and it's heads above shoulders better than the film; but I love the atmosphere that Tim Burton makes and I love how the Paris production at Le Theatre du Chatelet incorporates elements from the film into their production--simply Stunning!

On another note, I'd really love to see a film version of Company.

[beagle]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 6:40pm

Grease.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 8:05pm

Seconded on Grease

So many people are disappointed when they see the original musical and not essentially the film reenacted on the stage (Pretty sure some productions have incorporated the movie). I also just love Sid Caesar, Joan Blondell, and Eve Arden in their supporting roles.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:22pm

I guess I'm in the minority of liking Chicago more on stage. I do love the movie, but the movie basically puts all of the songs in the vaudeville world and the action in the real world, while the stage version just puts it all in the vaudeville world. The reason I prefer this is because the show was written as a concept piece, and the movie basically just used the concept when unavoidable. It really has a bigger affect when the concept is used throughout the whole thing. Also, the dialogue that was used in the movie sort of had a harder edge, while in the show, it had some more humor, which was lacking a bit in the vaudeville sequences in the movie.

I know I'm about the only person in the world who thinks this, but I find the Phantom movie to be far superior to the stage version. First of all, cutting down the score makes it seem a lot less repetitive, which was the best thing you could do for an Andrew Lloyd-Webber show. Also, what really made it great was that it sort of kept an intensity and creepiness throughout the whole show. In the stage version, the opera sequences are just too much comic relief, and they allow you to really lose all the tension that you had from the previous scene, but by showing what's happening during the operas (like when the phantom chases the guy on the platforms over the stage) you never lose that intensity, and it's really able to build. No, not all of the voices in the show are as good as the ones you might hear on Broadway, but I would take any of the actors in the movie over Sarah Brightman's voice any day.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:25pm

Although I don't think the film storyline of Hair would work too well on stage, and I love the stage piece, I definitely feel the movie is vastly underated.

I can't believe some have said the Chicago movie is better than on stage--for me the movie is just *ok* and nothing more, and pales in comparison. OK, if it only existed as a film I'd prob think it was pretty great, but... WSS is as great a movie as we could have expected at the time (ie the lyric censorship, etc) and a fave, but I also think it's not nearly as good as the original production (well as I've seen it in revivals anyway...)

Jesus Christ Superstar is one that immediately comes to mind for me. I think partly cuz it started as a record album and unlike Evita was never really changed or adapted for stage, it has never fully worked on stage for me despite seeing some good productions. I know many find the film so dated that it's hard to watch, but that's part of the charm IMHO and I think just because of how films are made, it flows much better.

Oliver might be on my list... I think Sound of Music's libretto is a bit creaky (perhaps partly cuz Hammerstein didn't help write it), and the film improved on that aspect but I do miss the two cynical songs from the show.

There are a lot of somewhat underated movie adaptations. The 1936 Show Boat by James Whale and Hammerstein could never compare to the brilliant, epic stage version (at least in its better versions) but is a truly awesome film, maybe my fave 1930s movie musical (ok with Oz), black face and all. (Where's that long promised DVD??)

Then again I tend to have a soft spot for a lot of disliked movie musical adaptations--like Sweet Charity which I love although I don't think it compares to what Fosse did on stage... Hell I'm the only defender of the Night Music film I know in the world (don't get me wrong, I know it's massively flawed...)

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 9:31pm

I saw the film version of Chicago first, then on stage. And I feel like the movie does nothing. I love the play over the film. The show just looses something once everything is taken out of the literal "black box".

I know its not a musical, but I felt the same way about Doubt. Once the film moved from the plays 3 sets, and 4 person cast, it lost something that the play had. It was all uniform in my opinion.

[chewy5000]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:41pm

A Chorus Line

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:48pm

Add me to those who prefer the CHICAGO film to the stage version. I actually prefer the darker edge of the film to the sort of vaudeville style of acting that the stage show calls throughout the whole show. Not to say I don't love CHICAGO the musical on stage, but I do love the movie with that fantastic cast, a great screenplay and the numbers. I only wish they hadn't cut "My Own Best Friend" and "Me and My Baby."

Definitely those others have mentioned: GREASE, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, WEST SIDE STORY.

I also like CABARET better on film, though those are almost impossible to compare given how vastly different they are from each other. But 1970s Fosse and Liza can't be matched.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 11:03pm

I think Mamma Mia! is way better onstage than the movie. The movie was kind of painful...

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 11:22pm

A big prob for me with Chicago I admit is the choreography. Rob Marshall's stuff is sleek and so so bland--I can't believe he used so little of the Fosse vocabulary and didn't even use Fosse's Hot Honey Rag which more and more is kept intact in every stage version...

Why do people prefer WSS on screen? I just think the stylized piece works better on stage, you never have that "they're dancing on a real street" thought--and I hate the (admittedly minor) censorship, as well as some casting.

Cabaret I do kinda just take as two different entities, but the film of course is one of my fave movie musicals (yes I think it's a musical, I know some film snobs disagree).

And Chewy is spot on--A Chorus Line has SO SO much more power on screen.

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 1:13am

Really? A Chorus Line?

Oh. Dear. God.

[CromTO]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 9:41am

@ fashionguru_23

Thank you. Thank you so much. You echoed my sentiments exactly. I like the cheesiness of the film version A Chorus Line; but when juxtaposed with the stage version it isn't even in the same league. Maybe it's because of what they did to the score. It's so--80's (i.e. too many synthesizers.) I liked the documentary of the revival, and if they were to remake the film I think that they should do it somewhat along the lines of that or Modern Family and The Office, a documentary-style movie, now that would be interesting.

Also, I agree with everyone on Grease, it works so much better on the screen and as per WSS; there are so many ways that it's better than the stage version. Some minor changes (some that work and some that don't) but once you hit the Gym Mambo and America I think there's no going back. I was hooked from then on. Rita Moreno will be the definitive Anita in my mind.

[darquegk]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 10:16am

Reefer Madness the movie musical, was considered to be a lot better than the stage version, to the point that the musical was retconned to bring as many of the film's changes as possible into the play, such as the new song "Mary Jane, Mary Lane," the "happy propaganda ending" instead of the "everyone dies ending" and replacing Jack's swing dance lessons with his mambo break instead.