MUSICALS- the film? the stage version? your pick.- Page 3

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 5/30/11 at 6:06pm

broadway baby, Totally agree about the movie of Fiddler on the Roof adding magnificently to the beauty that was onstage-- including all those goose-bump shots of the Shul Interiors. I really don't much like Topol's performance, nor the weird mix of faces and acting styles making up Tevye's wife and kids. Still we gain a stunning record of a lost world onscreen.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 8:05pm

"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."

I thought Audrey Hepburn was wonderful in "My Fair Lady." I believed in the transformation she made from a poor flower selling girl to the elegant lady she was when she attended the embasy ball. She was robbed of an Oscar nomination.

[pinoyidol2006]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 8:50pm

I've never seen the original production of MY FAIR LADY, but I enjoyed the movie much more than the last London revival (with Jonathan Pryce). How I wish Julie played Eliza in the film.

And since I'm on that track anyhow, I liked Mary Poppins the Movie more. Though I still enjoyed the stage show.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 9:00pm

What's always fascinating to me is how poorly things work in the opposite direction: film to stage. CALAMITY JANE? SEVEN BRIDES? They werent approached as theatre pieces when the adaptations were made, and it shows. When I was working on CALAMITY, I got to the end of the first act and thought, "Hmm. Well, nothing there for the audience to come back for." And this is why I get nervous when folks talk about a stage version of MOULIN ROUGE. I just dont think it could work, because it's not structured for stage.

But my guilty pleasure as a film? THE FANTASTICKS. I dont think it's anywhere near as awful as folks say. It has some wonderful little touches.

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 9:32pm

Gotta add one more terrific stage-to-screen transfer to this list-- Ken Russell's film of The Boyfriend.

Just saw it in a fresh full-length print a week ago in LA. Tony Walton, it's brilliant production designer, held a dazzling Q&A spelling out exactly how insane the production process was with the lunatic Russell at the helm. Turns out the whole conceit of staging the show in a flea-bitten seaside provincial theater was a brainstorm Ken sprang on the crew TWO WEEKS BEFORE SHOOTING WAS TO COMMENCE!

There's never been a more magnificent representation of 20's stage set design put onscreen as far as I can tell. Sure the endless fantasy sequences wear out their welcome but oh, the genius on display until they do. And Tommy Tune and Twiggy in their prime-- just stunning.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/9/11 at 10:01pm

^^ Amen. I have a near pristene transfer from a laser disc, and it's one of my all time favs. His wife incidently made all the costumes; God knows what that must have been like.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:43am

I have to start by saying that I come to this discussion by having a distinct prejudice for liking stage productions of musicals more than their film versions. In a general way, stage productions are tighter, the orchestrations are more exciting than the lush, overblown film orchestrations, and most importantly for me, the suspension of disbelief is so much more effective with the stage production than it can be with the "real" film version. Now to specifics:

I am the only person on this Board and maybe in the whole wide world that has never seen the film of THE SOUND OF MUSIC, so I obviously cannot compare. I went to the Lunt Fontanne to see Mary Martin in THE SOUND OF MUSIC in 1960 expecting little, some of which was due to my anger in its winning best musical Tony and best actress in a musical over GYPSY and Ethel Merman. But I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the Rodgers & Hammerstein musical. It is a very well constructed show, with the mountains being referred to, but not appearing as any painted set. Most of the music is good, especially the two songs for second (excellent) leads Kurt Kazner and Marion Marlowe. The actors were all very good, of course Mary Martin but also Theodore Bikel whose singing of "Edelweiss" ( Hammstein's final lyric writing ever), accompanying himself by playing guitar, was exquisite. True, there are the two sugary songs,"Doe, a Deer..." and "My Favorite Things" that I could do without, but the rest of the score holds up well. The excellent Patricia Neway as the Mother Superior sings the anthem "Climb Every Mountain" with great authority.

I loved the stage production of OLIVER which I saw in its Broadway debut with a very good Clive Revill as Fagin and Georgia Brown as Nancy. This production boasted the innovative unit set on a large turntable which allowed for fast scene changes and actual chases through the London streets. Englishman Sean Kenny was the brilliant set designer. There has been much talk of the film version on this Board and its superiority over the stage version. I liked it when I saw it in a movie theater back in the 1960's, but felt its large ensemble numbers were typically overblown. However, I shall have to buy the DVD and take a closer look since so many here have pointed out the film's virtues.

I was fortunate in seeing the entire original cast of MY FAIR LADY in 1957, at the ornate Mark Hellinger. As a Broadway show it works perfectly. The film is good, but it moves slowly for me, unlike the tighter stage musical. And, frankly I have a problem with actors being dubbed in films--there is something dishonest about it. It was a joy to hear a very young Julie Andrews singing on stage, although I have not enjoyed her film work.

As for WEST SIDE STORY, I was fortunate to see the original Broadway cast (minus an ailing Carol Lawrence) at the Winter Garden in 1958 and also saw it after it toured when it returned to the Broadway Theatre on 1960 ( also minus an ailing Carol Lawrence!) I agree with Eric Montreal that it is easier to suspend disbelief seeing the electric dancing on stage than it is on film on the actual streets of NYC. Also, being able to see the charismatic Chita Rivera singing and dancing "America" was a privilege. She will always be Anita to me. But the biggest single failure of the film for me was the casting of Tony. Richard Beymer comes across as effeminate in contrast to the solid Larry Kert on stage. Kert's singing is also superior to Beymer's singing (whether it is Beymer's actual voice or a dubbed voice is immaterial to me). And I liked and appreciated the "Somewhere" ballet in the stage version.

I am trying to think of a movie musical that for me was superior to the stage version and can think of none. But just to show that I am not against movie musicals totally I would like to mention SINGING IN THE RAIN which I never tire of watching, and THE BAND WAGON which is very funny and tuneful, based loosely on the stage revue from the 1930's. And, as I said, I will take another look at OLIVER.

I cannot end this post without mentioning the 1962 film version of GYPSY, which despite the always charming Natalie Wood and stage holdovers from the OBC dancer Paul Wallace and the stripper with the trumpet Faith Dane, is so awful especially Rosalind Russell and Karl Maldin. I will not allow this film in my house--it is sacrilege.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:55am

GYPSY is one of those WTF moments of filmmaking, IMHO. Just another in a long line of projects that should have been bullet proof and arrived DOA. There are so many one could add to that list: I've always thought FORUM was one of the most egregious.

I certainly agree with your takes on SINGING IN THE RAIN and BAND WAGON. Interestingly enough, I was watching AMERICAN IN PARIS a few weeks ago and couldnt help but think how much I really did not like the two main characters, especially Gene, by the end of the film. Love the music (sheesshh, it's Gershwin, who wouldnt?), love the production design, love just about everything... but the way those two treat their partners just leaves everything with a bad taste.

Oh, and speaking of film musicals of the period, may I give a shout out to STRIKE UP THE BAND, which again is up there in the absolute worst transition form stage to screen.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 7:27am

Cabaret, especially in its revival form, is a a very fine stage musical. But Fosse's film is one of the greatest movies ever made.

Funny Girl is a great movie from a good but not great stage musical.

I've never seen Oliver on stage, but I love the movie.

[PennybankBill]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:33pm

Ken Russell's TOMMY is kilometers better than the Broadway Musical. The musical cannot hold a candle to the amazing cast, stellar visuals, and pure mastery of the Score. Every moment is a painting, every note of music a symphony. It is something that I think could never be replicated again on screen or stage. I just wish it had a better DVD release!!!!

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:45pm

Penny: supposedly it's on Criterion's list of upcoming projects for BluRay.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:48pm

I always felt the reverse about Tommy. I find the film almost unwatchable, but I loved everything about the stage production.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 10:55pm

charlesjguiteau is right about "Chicago." I thought the film was surprisingly good, but it doesn't compare to the original, fully produced version. Gwen Verdon/Chita Rivera/Jerry Orbach v. the movie cast? Come on (and I thought the movie stars were perfectly adequate).

I can't second enough the nods to the movie "Hair." I've seen it 80 or 90 times and I think Milos Forman's film can hold its own with the great movie musicals of the "Golden Age." And, yes, I saw the original show on Broadway and in that day and age, it was very exciting to hear rock music on Broadway. But the show was always a hot mess.

Thirdly, I agree that the stage show and film of "Cabaret" are very different. But I doubt there's ever been a stage production that can touch the film. In the original, Harold Prince's insistence that Sally Bowles must literally be played by a third-rate singer did the score no favors. In the film, Sally's a great singer, but her personal choices keep her in that dump. That's both more interesting AND a lot easier on the ear.

Finally, I also like the film of "Hairspray" better and have gotten used to Travolta. On the whole, I think it has more heart than the stage musical.

[wickedwitch2]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 1:06am

The Wizard of Oz.

The moment where Dorothy steps out of the house into Oz and everything goes from black and white to colors is my favorite moment, and it obviously can't be recreated on stage.

[dented146]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 2:00am

Chicago for sure.
Maybe West Side Story and The Sound of Music, and The King and I

But the hands down winner Gigi.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 2:05am

>> The moment where Dorothy steps out of the house into Oz and everything goes from black and white to colors is my favorite moment, and it obviously can't be recreated on stage.

Actually.... yes it can. I've done it: Kansas, the farmhouse, everyone in those scenes -- all black and white. Arrival in Oz -- full colour. It's not easy, but the effect is worth it.