Movies Closest to Musicals?- Page 3

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 5:12am

Are people talking about the current revival of CHICAGO when they say the movie is better? Because there's no way the film (as much as I liked it) is better than the 1970s original. For one thing, the two leads can neither sing it nor dance it as well as Gwen Verdon and Chita Rivera.

To me, CABARET is the best example of a film that improves on the musical (as it was being performed in 1972).

Both PAJAMA GAME and DAMN YANKEES seem reasonably faithful to the stage originals, even if a few numbers or reprises were dropped.

For a film that leaves the stage original almost completely behind, I love HAIR. I think it's far superior to the mess that was the stage production in the 60s, while preserving the wonderful score. It's really more akin to an old MGM musical, using a flimsy plot to highlight an excellent score.

[theeatah]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 6:28am

The Cabaret movie may have improved the score with the additions of new and/or trunk songs, but I find the removal of the Schneider-Schultz romance (and their songs) inexcusable. They are the emotional heart of the show. The young German lovers, particularly character-free Marisa Berenson, are a pitiful substitute.

Outside of the iconic musical numbers, the Cabaret movie is rather dull and lacks the intelligence of the stage version. I especially hate the pat psychology of "explaining" Sally by introducing her distant (offscreen) father. Bleugh.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 8:49am

Are people talking about the current revival of CHICAGO when they say the movie is better?

In my case, I'm not talking about any specific production. I'm talking about the show itself. I saw the movie before I saw the current revival. I liked it better based on several past productions, including one based on the staging, costumes, etc., from the original Fosse. It was okay, but it left me cold. The movie I thought was brilliant. I still do. The numbers worked so much better than they ever have on stage. (Again, my opinion.)

And theetah, while I miss the Schneider-Shultz romance, I enjoyed all of the additions in the film. Where the stage show feels more like an ensemble piece (Sally is but one of many characters), the movie focused the story and made it stronger, IMO. I think it worked much better. Plus, Fosse's direction is not to be beat.

Updated On: 5/6/12 at 08:49 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 10:07am

I love the revival of CHICAGO. It is justifiably the longest running revival in Broadway history. And Newirth's Velma was one of the greatest musical performances of all time.

But what is remarkable is that Condon and Marshall took a great show that few would think could ever be transformed into even a decent film (because the material is so essentially theatrical, even Brechtian - the revival, if anything, more than the original production) and miraculously made a wonderful movie.

In addition, the major third act innovation of the screenplay in which Velma takes the stand is a huge improvement on the libretto.

Finally, the criminal justice celebrity cult phenomenon was an indelible part of American life at the time of the revival and the movie, much more than it was at the time of the original musical. This presented a fortuitous "back to before," as this theme - which the original straight play Chicago and its movie adaptation, Roxie Hart, drew on with their Front Page style energy - had not merely been culturally reborn, it had exponentially magnified.

The 24 hour news media circus on big trials of both celebrities or people who quickly became them was a great benefit first to Bobbie, and then to Condon and Marshall, all of whom took that ball, ran with it, and scored big time.

I don't love Gere's musical performance (although many do) and I think Latifah and CZJ rendition of Class would have been a great addition to the film, but otherwise every thing about the movie is magnificent.

Updated On: 5/6/12 at 10:07 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 10:32am

Theatah, as much as I love the Schneider/Schultz narrative in the show, it might be noted that their story was an invention of the musical. They are not major characters in Isherwood.

Fosse and Allen wanted the film to be closer to Isherwood. They chose, very wisely, to limit the musical numbers in the film to those in the cabaret and Tomorrow Belongs to Me, a number which plays out as a natural event. Schultz and Schneider, non-performers involved in an extensive musicalized drama in the show, didn't belong in the movie. The movie's choice to instead adapt the Natalia Landauer story from Goodbye to Berlin for its subplot made perfect sense. Berenson's and Wepper's roles were limited but their performances are effective.

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 11:04am

Surprised no-one has mentioned Hal Prince's film of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC as one of the worst film adaptions of a stage musical of all time. Shipped the story off to a whip-cream Viennese fantasyland thereby ruining the Scandinavian white night setting. The rewriting of "The Sun Won't Set" into the execrable "Love Takes Time." Tone deaf Liz Taylor's rendition of "Send In The Clowns." Only Frederika's gorgeous solo reworking of "A Glamorous Life" improves on the original.

And then there's A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM. Oy, has Sondheim had a bad run getting his stage shows turned into movies.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 1:29pm

Back to the original topic, isn't the Russell-Wood Gypsy very much the stage show opened up, irrespective of how well one thinks they accomplished it? As I recall, the score is intact without additions, and all the scenes correspond to those in the book.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 1:49pm

GYPSY is very much the stage show opened up. Although I don't think the stage version has Baby Ruth and Butterfinger product placements and Uncle Jocko and Herbie are not one and the same and he doesn't peddle candy bars on the side.

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 2:04pm

Music Man
My Fair Lady

The Producers is nearly identical. They do add in a few things from the original film that wouldn't have worked as well onstage.

The Bette Midler GYPSY is basically identical. Arthur Laurents, contractually, would not allow any additions, alterations, or cuts, if I recall correctly.

[MattDean]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 2:47pm

Re Gypsy:

I believe, although filmed, Together Wherever We Go is not in the film and a reprise or two were cut.

I still love the film - yes, even with RR miming - she's a fantastic Rose!

Just my opinion of course:)

Matt



Updated On: 5/6/12 at 02:47 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 11:56am

Good point, Matt. I actually like the movie and love Russell in the role as well.

Here's Russell, Wood and Malden in the filmed but cut "Together Wherever We Go"
Together on the Cutting Room Floor

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 12:05pm

As much as I love Malden, Russell (and especially) Natalie Wood, that clip is clear evidence as to why it was the right decision to cut that number...it doesn't do the song or the actors any favors, to put it kindly.

[Overkill]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 12:51pm

THE PRODUCERS is nearly word for word, but they cut out "The King of Old Broadway", "In Old Barvaria", "That Face (Reprise)" - All of which were filmed. "King of Old Broadway" was an unfortunate cut, but it's understandable. Film needs to move quicker, and they set up his character's back story just fine with the scene that follows. It's in the deleted scenes on the dvd and it's GREAT.

Also, most of the original (and past) members of the Broadway cast came back to reprise their roles and make cameos. Minus Brad Oscar as Franz (replaced successfully by Will Ferrell) and Cady Huffman as Ulla (replaced unsuccessfully by Uma Thurman). But Brad still made a cameo as a cab driver.

It's biggest criticism though, was that it was too faithful to the stage adaptation. But I think Nathan Lane put it best:

“We’re not doing Capote. It’s a big, splashy Broadway musical and it’s not suddenly going to become an independent film, get gritty and dark. It is what it is and either you embrace that or go to see another movie. All of the same acting rules apply. It’s not a secret formula. It’s a matter of size. I think it’s the best version of what it could be because it wasn’t suddenly going to be transformed. It is what it is: it’s an entertainment machine.”

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM is just such an unfortunate shell of a movie that could have been. If they had kept the whole score instead of throwing out 2/3 of it, cut out the boring, unfunny added dialouge and kept the same tone, setting and cast, it would have been something great. It's just an odd little movie now... the stage show is so much better. How can you cut "Free"??? This is one I'd like to see remade...

THE BEST LITTLE WHOREHOUSE IN TEXAS is pretty different from the stage version. It cuts out 1/3 of the score and replaces it with original Dolly Parton tunes (minus "I Will Always Love You"...), cuts and adds characters... I think it really worked out, though. I love both the movie and stage show. Dolly is so charming in everything she does, especially this. Dom DeLuise was a perfect Melvin P. Thorpe, too.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:42pm

Personally, I thought Dom DeLuise was the worst thing about the Whorehouse film. But that's probably because I grew up around the image of the original Melvin P. Thorpe (Marvin Zindler) and the film interpretation of the character was far more removed than even the Broadway Thorpe was from Zindler. The whole reason the character carried any influence at all was that he was charismatic and flashy, not flat-out grotesque. Thorpe should closely resemble the conservative evangelicals, not a mentally challenged used car salesman. That image was conjured up for the actor, not the character. I do wish they would remake this film starring Reba.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/7/12 at 4:13pm

While I think the Chicago movie is "better than OK", I still feel even the revival works better--for me. One big reason is the choreography--Rob Marshall has never really been a brilliant choreographer and I find his work in Chicago just really kinda not disctinctive--it's not bad but... While I think Anne Reinking is not a brilliant choreographer either (check out the "dancing" in the TV movie of Bye Bye Birdie), when she works with the Fosse vocabulary it really comes together.

Cabaret is something where I see both versions as almost completely different works, though I appreciate that the movie skipped I Am a Camera as a source and went back to the Berlin Stories (even if Isherwood was fairly mixed on the film--saying that they treated Brian's homosexuality as a silly little problem closer to bed wetting). Speaking of Julie Harris, who Isherwood said was perfect for Sally Bowles, must have really impressed on stage in I Am a Camera because the play on paper, and in the not good at all film version *sucks*--I can see why Hal Prince apparently thought it wasn't very good, they don't get one drop of the tone of Isherwood. As Henrik pointed out of course the whole Schneider/Schultz subplot came from I Am a Camera not the books, although Schneider does have an important role in the stories as the land lady, there's no real talk of a romance, etc.

It's too bad that the new song Sondheim wrote for the Forum movie, that's in FInishing the Hat, which he elaborately staged to make the best use of film technique was never filmed... I think the bloated movie kinda works as one of those over the top late 60s broad comedies (even if it's far from Lester's best work), but as an adaptation it is pretty flimsy.

But what do I know--while extremely flawed, I actually genuinely kinda enjoy the A Little Night Music film, a view I seem utterly alone with. LOL It is telling too that the two best sequences were apparently scripted out (in terms of when to cut, what to show, etc) by Sondheim himself--the new Glamorous Life and A Weekend in the Country. Apparently he wanted more filmic takes on a number of songs but was told there wasn't enough time.