MUSICALS- the film? the stage version? your pick.- Page 2

[Moneyspider]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 11:37am

Chicago the movie is very much designed for an audience raised on MTV, done top-notch, but I have to say I'm not big on these noir musicals. I think it would have been hysterical if Sweeney Todd had looked like Hello Dolly, lol

As for Mamma Mia, I know it's all comfort food and maybe Under Attack messed with the flow of the movie but I think it would've been cool to pop in a little surrealist number- the ballet was the only part of American in Paris I really liked.

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 3:48pm

Nobody's mentioned MARY POPPINS. Infinitely better on screen, n'est-ce pas?

[ggersten]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 4:33pm

I think Funny Girl is better as a film - it took advantage of the film medium and getting the rights to "My Man".
The same with Oliver! and The Sound of Music.

Hair and Cabaret are just two entirely different entities.

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 4:54pm

For all you youngin's who have been championing the movie CHICAGO over the Encores production of Chicago that's been playing on Broadway all these years-- I've just got to say whoa Nelly!

As far as I'm concerned what's been playing on broadway to sold out houses for the last decade is basically a chamber production in glorified rehearsal clothes. You've got to compare the movie to the fully staged and designed 1975 Bob Fosse original for a fair comparison. And frankly, as good as the movie is, it still pales beside the dazzling work of the original creators. Tony Walton's sets, Pat Zipprodt's goose-bumply costumes and Jules Fisher's lighting combined to create a resonant world that the movie only occasionally matches. I've always thought the movie was swell as far as it goes, but that original show was truly one for the ages.

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 5:04pm

Hope it isn't heresy to vote the movie of MY FAIR LADY over the stage show. Sadly I can't compare it to Julie Andrews' original performance in 1956. But who can picture that show onstage without secretly wishing to be surrounded by Gene Allen's lush production design of the film in every scene? And rarely if ever has a stage show transferred to the screen with the entire score so completely intact.

[The Other One]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 8:26pm

I would love to see OLIVER! on stage. I've always heard the film is a vast improvement, but I like the smaller feel of the OBCR and the photos I've seen of the production seem more suitably dark. Also, Oliver himself gets completely lost in the big production numbers in the film. I doubt that would happen as readily in a stage production. I still like the movie very much!

I think the changes in the film of WEST SIDE STORY are all improvements. The only exception might be the omission of the ballet, but SOMEWHERE sung simply by Tony and Maria still carries a lot of weight. The placement of Gee Officer Krupke! and Cool is fine in the stage production, but is far more dramatic in the film. Ditto America, which doesn't seem to be missing anything on stage but which really flies to the skies with the addition of the guys. It also makes more sense for Tony not to join the Jets in making plans for The Rumble in The Quintet, which he does in the play but not in the film, as he has just promised Maria he is going to stop it. I do love it on stage, but the movie will for me always be the greatest version of WEST SIDE STORY.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 10:09pm

Location, location, location is the main cinematic advantage with both West Side Story and the Sound of Music.

I love seeing the original Robbins choreography on stage in WSS, but it almost feels like the dancers are trapped within the confines of the proscenium (which they are). With all that beautiful movement, it's like watching birds flap around inside a cage.

In the film (particularly in the Prologue), they're able to really run in a straight line, cover great distances, leap, and soar into the air, all on the actual streets of NY. It not only adds a fantastic energy and an element of realism, but also surrealism to the visuals. You can't do that on a stage.

Same thing with The Sound of Music. No matter how good a production you see, you'll still end up with some papier mache Alps being dragged downstage to climb. It just ain't the same and never will be. The thrill of the actual locations in the film are unmatchable.

As far as "Chicago" goes, I think the general concept was improved upon in the film. I don't like the entire story being told as a vaudeville. I always felt detached from it and left tired (or cold). I really like the cross-cutting between reality and fantasy in the film, and I love the fantasy taking place in Roxie's mind. It's a stronger narrative, in the end and far more effective a springboard for the numbers. (My opinion, of course.)

As far as Oliver! goes, there was also some terrific shuffling of songs, ala WSS. Particularly the repositioning of Ooom Pa Pa as a device for Nancy to try to rescue Oliver and turn him over to Brownlow. The best thing Columbia Pictures did was hire Carol Reed to direct it. He was sort of a HitchcoCk himself, and knew very well how to build a suspenseful story. That's the biggest improvement in the movie version of Oliver!---the level of suspense and the sense of real danger for the characters. You only get a fraction of that on stage with limited chase scenes. It's just not as effective. Some of it is the writing, and a lot of it is the direction.

Again, I should add that the stage versions of all of these shows don't "suck" by any means. I have enjoyed them all as live productions. I just think the films are better.

Updated On: 5/14/11 at 10:09 PM

[Marianne2]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 10:59pm

I'm mixed about Hairspray. I thought the movie music sounded a lot better than the cast recording. I actually sort of cringe listening to Marissa Jaret Winokur sing. Nikki Blonsky had a much more pleasant voice. But, I do see where others in the Broadway cast were superior to movie cast members.

(Spoiler for those who don't know Hairspray and don't want to know.)

I guess one thing that annoyed me about the stage show was how both the original movie and the movie of the musical both had Tracy straighten her hair at the end, which served a purpose. Why wouldn't she have done it?

(End Spoiler.)

And the thing I don't understand about Chicago is how Mary Sunshine is always played by a man, in the stage version. But, in the movie, she was a woman and that was it. There was nothing really big about her at all.

[The Other One]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 9:09am

best12bars, the device of Nancy singing "Oom Pah Pah" to distract Bill so she can rescue Oliver is actually used in David Lean's 1949 film of OLIVER TWIST, although of course she uses a different song. I had always assumed Bart wrote "Oom Pah Pah" for that same purpose, and that the song provided that function in the stage version of OLIVER! Am I wrong? I have never seen it on stage.

[spike3]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 10:50am

The Sound of Music-better on film
West Side Story- better on film

The films of both Cabaret and Chicago are so different from the ORIGINAL productions they cannot be compared.
In so far as the film version of Grease? While a good film it too has absolutly nothing to do with the ORIGINAL stage version of the show

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 11:01am

In so far as the film version of Grease? While a good film it too has absolutly nothing to do with the ORIGINAL stage version of the show...

Why? Because the producers jettisoned some songs, replaced some with others, moved the locale from the inner city to the California suburbs and sanitized it a bit.

The film version of GREASE has the same basic plot and core songs as it's stage predecessor. It wasn't a re-invention along the lines of CABARET or CHICAGO. Not by a long shot.

[JP2]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 11:45am

You can argue that Cabaret the film and show are too different to compare, but Chicago? Nah... It's the same characters and plot. The movie just happens to be better.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 12:11pm

"best12bars, the device of Nancy singing "Oom Pah Pah" to distract Bill so she can rescue Oliver is actually used in David Lean's 1949 film of OLIVER TWIST, although of course she uses a different song. I had always assumed Bart wrote "Oom Pah Pah" for that same purpose, and that the song provided that function in the stage version of OLIVER! Am I wrong? I have never seen it on stage."

No, in the stage version "Oom Pah Pah" is a rather non-sequitur Act 2 opener. It could be excised from the show with no effect to the plot.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 12:34pm

I think the best example of a stage musical being improved on film is Oliver! The film is a classic and still stands the test of time. As best12bars said, Carol Reed did a brilliant job of adding suspense and danger, but he also created a world where singing and dancing were acceptable. Some people complain that his vision of London isn't gritty or dirty enough, but I disagree. I think that it's the perfect degree of grittiness while still maintaining the musical atmosphere. The only issue I have with the movie is Oliver's singing voice. There's still a debate over whose voice it actually is, but all I know is that I don't care for it. Shame, as the actor playing Oliver has the perfect look and was able to emote so much and so well for such a young actor.

Other improved properties were already mentioned, but just to reiterate: West Side Story, Sound of Music, Chicago, Grease and Funny Girl (not a great film, but an improvement over the stage version). Also a special mention to 1776, which isn't a better film than show (how can it be? The show is too good), but the film does an excellent job of being faithful to the source material while still holding its own as a film.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 12:34pm

Double post

Updated On: 5/17/11 at 12:34 PM

[JP2]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 12:47pm

While I think the Haurspray show and film are on par with one another, I do think there are certain things the movie does better.

Moving the protest from 'Big Blonde and Beautiful' to 'I Know Where I've Been' just makes complete sence. I honestly don't understand why is wasn't always like that. I also think "You're Timeless To Me" actually has a purpose in the film, which it doesn't really in the show. Also, SHOWING Negro day for the first time was another great choice.
Updated On: 5/17/11 at 12:47 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 2:34pm

Couldn't agree more about Besty's take on the CHICAGO film, the whole concept of Roxy's fantasy works so well and it really allows the film to go back and forth between reality and fantasy. I think it's a fantastic movie musical, and I love the way the actors play it, they all have so much chemistry. Catherine Zeta-Jones' Velma is iconic the second she comes out from the trapdoor and subtly moves her head to attract the spotlight. Love it.

I disagree about MY FAIR LADY though, I absolutely cannot stand the movie. Audrey Hepburn is just so hammy and entirely miscast as Eliza, at no point do you doubt that she'll eventually become the beautiful, elegant girl, she's utterly unconvincing in the first part of the movie. Not to mention that she overacts the whole thing. The whole production also feels so stagey in ways that I don't think something like WEST SIDE STORY, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, or THE KING & I do.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 3:32pm

The Other One---as Kad said, "Oom Pah Pah" is a throw-away bar song to open Act 2. It had none of the emotional levels in the stage show. It's not a tension-builder or a plot device. It's just a clever bar song "opener" for atmosphere.

It's actually my favorite moment in the film. I love seeing the glimpses of fear and desperation on Nancy's face while she "sells" the song to the crowd, and the way she has to struggle with them to get them motivated. It's a brilliant scene.

I also think the musical staging and choreography (by Onna White) is among the best in any movie musical.

Heres' the trailer for a reminder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDIRNqNdsTI

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 5/17/11 at 3:41pm

Onna White is very underrated as a choreographer. I've rarely hear mention of her name alongside people like Kidd, Kelly, Bennett, Robbins or Fosse.

She won a much deserved Academy Award for her work in OLIVER! She also did some great work for the film versions of THE MUSIC MAN [1962] and BYE BYE BIRDIE [1963].

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/18/11 at 1:07am

Just to be very clear, my comment about A Chorus Line was meant to be 100% sarcastic... (Wow, I didn't think I'd have to explain that but I guess I can be unclear)

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/18/11 at 1:14am

The Other One--you prefer everything in the movie of WSS? Even the (OK, minor) censorship of lines and lyrics? I do liek the boys dancing in America (as apparently they originally were going to do before it was decided the boys needed a break from dancing to rest...) and the new lyrics. I'm mixed on the setting. For me, in many ways it's easier to accept the stylized dancing, and, well stylized everything on a stylized set. Throwing it into a real city, while often striking also makes it a bit harder to suspend disbelief.

I admit a huge huge part of my gripe with Chicago the film is I think the Marshall choreography is siomply, decent to good. Both Fosse's original and Reinking's are much much better--and a big draw for the piece for me is the dancing.

[The Other One]

Posted: 5/18/11 at 7:00am

Eric, most of the original raunchy lyrics in WEST SIDE STORY are so quaint by today's standards you almost can't tell which came first, the film's lyrics or the stage version's. I guess if you press me I prefer the originals, but not by much.

OK, I prefer "sperm to worm" to "birth to earth"!

I also prefer the original version of A Boy Like That/I Have A Love, in which Maria and Anita sing counterpoint before the second song actually begins. I guess it was removed to tighten the scene up.

But overall, yes, I prefer the movie even though I love the show.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/18/11 at 7:27pm

i kinda have to agree that Chicago the film is better in some ways but overall i hated it....for reasons like not doing Mary Sunshine in Drag--or making the mistake to cast Miss expressionless-one noted- Queen Latifah as Mama was a a huge mistake. Rene and Catherine were passable in my opinion but I really didn't care for Richard Gere.
Visually stunning-yes. choreography..dynamite.
but i hate that the music sequences were not done in a musical form--but rather a dream---as if to avoid any fact thereof that it was a musical.

and for that reason alone i couldn't take it. It wasn't unapologetically saying 'i'm a musical' the way Hairspray approached it-bursting in song. Or even the way Evita approached it.


Speaking of---i think i enjoy Evita the movie more than the actual show.

It depends---some of these films are REALLY aging better with time.
HAIR is so much fun to watch now---and so is EVITA.


One film that bores me to death now---CABARET.
WHich I loved way back then.

i know.... sacrilege to some.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/30/11 at 4:25pm

I guess Grease on film is better than the stage version.

Although I hate the fact that songs like All Shook Up and Raining On Prom Night and Freddy My Love were discarded for the film. I find those songs to be cornerstone for the show.

[broadwaybabywannabe]

Posted: 5/30/11 at 5:22pm

FIDDLER ON THE ROOF...the movie is way better as the cinematography makes it beautiful to look at, and the dream/nighmare sequence is a more cinematic creation...plus LITTLE BIRD, LITTLE CHAVELEH is so moving on the screen the way it is shot...

CHICAGO...and while i have seen and liked both the original production on Broadway, and the revival in touring...i love the movie version much better...the musical numbers become jaw-dropping amazing, and the whole idea of ROXIE seeing these in her mind's-eye is a great way to make the muscial work on film...