With so many shows this season based on movies and/or books, I have to ask, do you guys usually watch the movie or read the book before seeing the show? Or do you do so after? (Kinky Boots, Matilda, A Christmas Story, Wicked, etc.?)
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/5/09
It depends. Matilda and A Christmas Story I just happened to see before seeing the show. Kinky Boots I've never heard until now. And I read the Wicked book after I saw the show. I don't really like to on purpose watch the movie or read the book before I go because I feel like it ruins the show for me in some ways. It's like I already know what happens. After I see the show if I liked it enough I will watch the movie or read the book if I choose to.
Chorus Member Joined: 6/1/11
I read the book for Wicked before seeing the show and it really helped! Otherwise, not usually: the B'way version will be too different from the source material.
I tried reading Les Mis after I saw the musical, and I couldn't even get to the middle of it. The problem with that particular book is that what you hear about in the musical in a three minute song take pages and pages and pages in the book. I think I read about 50 pages and I was still in Valejan's soliloquy. It was a long time ago so I migh be exaggerating though.
I'm was thinking about reading Phantom, but was discouraged by my experience with Les Mis. I'm now thinking about reading Christopher Isherwood's Berlin Stories.
It depends for me, honestly. I was much more interested in seeing Smiles of a Summer Night after becoming more familiar with A Little Night Music, and I was much more interested in seeing Billy Elliot because I had already seen and enjoyed the movie. I enjoy comparing the adaptation to its source material, honestly.
I saw the original Hairspray film after I saw the musical and it was quite the disappointment.
I think I just felt Victor Hugo rolling over in his grave.
I'm was thinking about reading Phantom, but was discouraged by my experience with Les Mis. I'm now thinking about reading Christopher Isherwood's Berlin Stories.
I couldn't get through LES MIS either (thirteen chapters and I was still being told about how kind the Bishop was), but don't let that stop you from reading PHANTOM! I was given the novel as a gift in 8th grade, but I don't think I ever got around to reading it until after I saw the musical in college, and now it's one of my favorite books to reread. And I am not a big fan of the show.
I saw the original Hairspray film after I saw the musical and it was quite the disappointment.
Why? Because there wasn't singing in it? It's one of the best movies and translated perfectly to Broadway. The movie musical, on the other hand, is junk.
Broadway Geek2: I am trying to figure out how reading Wicked before seeing the show helped. I read it before seeing the musical and found it more confusing than helpful, because there is almost nothing from the book plot in the musical.
I would have liked to see Elphaba bash in Madame Morrible's head with a trophy on stage...
Updated On: 5/30/13 at 12:26 PM
I'm was thinking about reading Phantom, but was discouraged by my experience with Les Mis. I'm now thinking about reading Christopher Isherwood's Berlin Stories.
If you're interested in reading Phantom then I would say read it. Never let fear keep you from opening a book. I didn't read it until it was required for a college class. It's not as hard or slow moving as Les Miserables. And just be grateful you didn't have to read it in French like my dad did.
the B'way version will be too different from the source material.
Of course the source material is going to be different but that's not really a reason to stop someone from discovering something new.
Clyde, I thought the original looked cheap and it wasn't faithful to the time period. The recent movie is fabulous and it's performances were stellar.
I probably will read Phantom after I finish reading Patti LuPone's memoirs.
Clyde, I thought the original looked cheap and it wasn't faithful to the time period.
Well the movie was made for $2 million in 1988 so I don't think it's going to look like some Hollywood blockbuster of today. And please tell me in what way it wasn't faithful to the time period, oh ye expert of 1962 Baltimore.
There are some filmmakers whose command of time and place can be rightfully questioned. John Waters' use of Baltimore is one of the ones that, by reputation at least, is likely beyond reproach.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/18/11
I'm frequently disappointed when I'm familiar with the source material before I see the show because I come in with expectations, which are sometimes unfair. Better to let the show speak for itself and then go to the source material for a sense of how they adapted it. Of course that isn't always possible with a classic or pop culture staple that you can't help but be familiar with.
"And please tell me in what way it wasn't faithful to the time period, oh ye expert of 1962 Baltimore."
I'm not by any means an expert, but I thought the aesthetic of the film was very 80s, starting with Tracy's hair.
I always tell friends who are curious about reading Les Miz the book after seeing Les Miz the musical to get an abridged version to read. I'd have gouged my eyes out if I'd tried to read the whole thing back when I first discovered Les Miz (I was 11). The Charles Wilbour translation is a good 'first read' choice.
Anyhow, I usually read a book after I've seen/heard the show/cast recording. I did that with Wicked, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Phantom, Light in the Piazza...I don't remember what else. It's fun to do, though.
I thought the aesthetic of the film was very 80s, starting with Tracy's hair.
You're totally right. That hair is all wrong...
Joined: 12/31/69
All that Jazz, you MUST be trolling! If so, I salute you.
But didn't the anachronisms in the stage musical Hairspray bother you? Like Tracy's use of the adjective "Afro-tastic" (despite "Afro-" not being used to describe "negro" culture until the late 60's?) or Edna's hankering for Chicken and Waffles (which, if consumed in 1962 Baltimore would be strictly in Black households)?
Updated On: 5/30/13 at 08:09 PM
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/18/12
I kept asking my mom for tickets to see Wicked because I had never seen a Broadway show and it was in my hometown. She didn't listen so I bought the book and started reading it. After that she finally got me tickets.
After seeing Kinky Boots, now I want to see the movie.
I'm curious about the logic in this thread. If reading/seeing the original first "spoils" the adaptation, doesn't reading/seeing the adaptation first "spoil" the original?
What Galveston said.
If I have time, say months and months before Opening when a show is announced and I know it has source material that I'm interested in, I'll investigate before the show opens. If anything, I've occasionally passed on shows (or put them off if they're long-running) because I didn't know the source material and didn't want the show to color my opinion of the original. But people who go to Hugo or Leroux and expect Schönberg/Boublil or Webber (or Fellini or Bergman and expect Yeston or Sondheim, but I suspect appreciators of that set are more prepared for the originals) sadden me...
And anyone who goes to Stevenson or Orczy or Stoker or Carroll and expects Wildhorn is just trolling themselves.
I kept asking my mom for tickets to see Wicked because I had never seen a Broadway show and it was in my hometown. She didn't listen so I bought the book and started reading it. After that she finally got me tickets.
I like your mom.
Videos