Movies Closest to Musicals? — Page 3

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.