What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?- Page 2

[C is for Company]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:43am

The "hand-wave" is one of my top favorites of the little things in the movie, especially in Liza's performance, that stand out specifically as just perfect, to me at least. That whole film is filled with truly fantastic moments and I've noticed has such few musical numbers and "extravagant" showstoppers compared to what you'd find in the stage adaptations of today. Yet even if it had no music, I still think that the genius would shine through.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:43am

Gotta love your taste, wonderfulwizard
Good choices, I couldn't pick favorites if I had to (okay, maybe PASSION has a little bit of an edge because of Donna Murphy).
I'm also saving to visit NYC on my birthday so I know the feeling.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:43am

Oliver! and The Sound of Music are both much better in their film versions than on stage. I think they work on stage, but the Oliver! film has terrific musical staging and that inspired placement of "Oom Pah Pah" which gives it a dramatic purpose, instead of just being an Act Two skirt lifter, and any stage version of Sound of Music just can't compete with that iconic tracking shot that opens the movie.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:45am

Well put (as usual), Smaxie.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:47am

I also offer HAIR up for discussion.

Totally different from the stage version, but equally (if not more) effective, and definitely more focused on plot.

And I wouldn't necessarily say that WEST SIDE STORY, MY FAIR LADY, and THE MUSIC MAN are all better on film, but if they're not improvements, they're flawless adaptations.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:49am

West Side Story for sure. I actually like the placement of "Cool" and "Gee, Officer Krupke" in the film more than in the show.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:51am

I'd stand by the opinion that WSS on film makes some minor, yet effective improvements from the stage version. Seeing as I was not alive in 1957, I cannot comment further, except that the one thing I feel was better with the Broadway cast was the actors themselves (going by the recording).

And Carrie on film is better than the musical for me. It is a tough draw, but with such an effective cast, the music, effects, and images are so iconic on screen to me. The musical is close behind in my book though.

Updated On: 5/26/07 at 02:51 AM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:57am

I think WEST SIDE STORY is tighter and ultimately more effective on film. I think it also adds a lot of subtext in terms of the racial and gender politics of the material. An example would be the changes made to "America" from being performed by Anita and her friends to being a major exchange between the Puerto Rican men and women; it went from being a cute "American dream" song to having a major impact on the characterization of the male/female dynamics within the Puerto Rican culture (and the Latino culture in general, to an extent).
A great film and I think in a way, an improvement to the original piece.

[scooter38432]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:20am

I'd have to agree with CHICAGO being a better film than stage show. (But I'm only basing this opinion on the revival staging, which I thought was sexy and entertaining, but lost some of it's effective story line due to the minimalistic approach.)

The film made much more sense, story-wise, than Walter Bobbie's interpretation. I unfortunately did not see the original CHICAGO.

Oh, and I also agree with THE SOUND OF MUSIC. I've never seen a successful stage version of WEST SIDE STORY, so that's a toughie.

Of course, MARY POPPINS belongs on this list, but it's odd because the stage version came after the film. The film is a hundred times better than the boring stage production at the New Amsterdam.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:27am

The film version of "Hair" is far superior to the stage show. I also liked the "Evita" film a lot more than I liked the show.

[Sleeth1]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:30am

"Of course, MARY POPPINS belongs on this list, but it's odd because the stage version came after the film. The film is a hundred times better than the boring stage production at the New Amsterdam".

These days I guess a LOT of stage versions come AFTER the film. There sure are a lot of people who don't like Mary Poppins! Apparently it takes more than a spoonfull-of-sugar to get that one to go down.

[Sleeth1]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:44am

EVITA and HAIR are both excellent films. I've never seen stage versions of either. Same thing with Oliver! and Funny Girl. Hmmmmm.... who ELSE could play Fanny Brice... at least in this century?
OMG! I'm probably the only person ALIVE who loves the movie version of The Fantasticks! LOL Right?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:20am

In some respects, this is like comparing apples with Volkswagens. The film version of CABARET is superior to the original stage production, but the revival, influenced by the movie, actually surpasses the film by taking some of the things the film hinted at and pushing them even harder. CHICAGO? Sorry, but as much as I love the film, I'll agree that it's better than the revival but it's nothing at all like the original stage version.

And yeah, I like the movie of THE FANTASTICKS. I just wish they'd left in the deleted scenes; it would have been a far better piece of work.

PHANTOM? Well, see, the problem is this: Butler is just too damn sexy to work as the Phantom. Instead of Christine caught between her gorgeous but shallow boyfriend and her hideous but loving stalker, everyone was so drop dead beautiful that you knew either way she was gonna some have really thoroughbred children. It took away one of the key elements of that show.

Agree with WEST SIDE STORY and SOUND OF MUSIC, although WSS is a tough call either way.

My own guilty pleasure when it comes to this kind of stuff? JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR. Honestly, I believe the film is a way lot better than folks give it credit for.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:30am

While I don't find it superior to the original, I really enjoy "The Wiz." And, while I wish someone Argentinian had been cast as Eva Peron, Madonna was suprisingly adept at the role. (And, taking it down a half-step or step for her to sing it is FINE by me (cause I can sing it now)).

"Wizard of Oz" will always remain the superior. And, I'm torn over "Sound of Music." The movie is FABULOUS, but I don't find the original "bizzare" by any means, and Mary Martin is enchanting as Maria.

I'm suprised no one mentioned "Rocky Horror Picture Show." The ultimate cult-classic, definitely improved on the original, which the revival did some emulation of (While remaining kinda fresh, which I enjoyed.).

Worst film translation of all time:
"A Chorus Line." or "Wait...why is Michael Douglas the only one not singing or dancing in this musical??? And he's a choreographer?????"

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:36am

>> Worst film translation of all time: "A Chorus Line."

You havent seen NIGHT MUSIC yet, have you? Brace yourself and have a very stiff drink before popping in that DVD. Trust me, you'll need it.

And then there's one that, like CHORUS LINE, should have been an easy transition and turned into an incomprehensible mess: FORUM. Ye gods, what a flat out *ugly* movie.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:51am

As far as PHANTOM goes, I just sat there not feeling too sad about the Phantom's loneliness. After all, he had to have been getting regular visits from his cosmetic dentist and personal trainer.

I did think that EVITA was an interesting film, largely due to Antonio Banderas' performance, which vastly outshone Madonna's. I also liked seeing the story unfold in something like realistic looking scenery set in a specific historic time and place, as opposed to the undefined glitzy set of the Broadway production.

There was a very interesting little film called THE SUBSTANCE OF FIRE, adapted by Jon Robin Baitz from his play, that I thought much improved upon the original work. The supporting characters got much more time, the story was better fleshed out and made more sense. It seems to have unfortunately sunk from view. A shame, I think. It's very much worth seeing.

[D2]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:04am

It is interesting that this thread has focused on musicals, and I do agree with THE SOUND OF MUSIC and WEST SIDE STORY being vastly superior to the stage versions. CABARET is so different from the stage version that I can't say it is superior, but it is one of the most brilliant movie musicals of all time.

Two non-musicals that had superior film versions are oldies but goodies (and both starred Rosalind Russell); THE WOMEN and AUNTIE MAME.

Updated On: 5/26/07 at 08:04 AM

[BroadwaySinger2]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:09am

The Sound of Music movie was superior to the stage version. Also, the movie version of Rent was better than the stage version.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:15am

I can't agree that RENT was better on film than on stage. That film is a disaster from start to finish. The cast is a uniform 15 years too old for their roles, and Chris Columbus goes out of his way to amp up the sentimentality for maximum weepiness.

Also, RENT the film features one of the single stupidest moments in film history. At the beginning of the film, Collins tries to escape from muggers by running INTO a dark alley.

How on earth can a film be taken seriously that has nonsense like that in it?

[Midnight Radio2]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 8:54am

The RENT film was an epic failure.

I would say Hedwig and the Angry Inch is one of the few that is ultimately better as the film than the stage show.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 10:33am

Better on film:

Chicago
West Side Story
Sound of Music
Oliver!
On the Town
Cabaret
My Fair Lady
Little Shop of Horrors
Fiddler on the Roof
Jesus Christ Superstar
Grease
Hair
Rocky Horror
Babes In Arms
The Gay Divorcee

As good as the play:

Funny Girl
Dreamgirls
Flower Drum Song
The King and I
Hello, Dolly!
The Music Man
Damn Yankees
Pajama Game
Sweet Charity
Annie Get Your Gun
Call Me Madam
Carmen Jones
Cabin in the Sky
How To Succeed
Godspell
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
1776

Not as good as:

Rent
Oklahoma!
The Producers
Evita
Brigadoon
Finnian's Rainbow
Bells Are Ringing
Camelot
A Funny Thing Happened...
Best Little Whorehouse...
Guys and Dolls

Destroyed the play:

A Chorus Line
The Wiz
Annie
Phantom of the Opera
South Pacific
Carousel
Mame
Man of La Mancha
A Little Night Music

Updated On: 5/26/07 at 10:33 AM

[HollyImposter]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 10:53am

Just out of curiousity...

Why DO you do THAT caps THING EVERY RANDOM momMEnt?

[Paulyd]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 10:55am

Ihave to agree with the comments about Cabaret. Not only has Fosse got the knack of it actually not feeling like a musical, but he was brave enough to disregard much of the original material and realy make the film his own

I wonder what we'll all be saying about Hairspray and Sweeney Todd later this year.

[ElFantasma14]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 11:01am

I saw a few minutes of Man of La Mancha....it was horrible. I had to run and turn on Brian Stokes Mitchell's recording to wash the bad sound out of my ears.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 5/26/07 at 11:32am

I actually liked the film of LA MANCHA because the director pulled off a rather nifty stunt. In the beginning, OToole has almost zero power to carry off the songs, but by the end his voice has become more assured and fuller, as though the character Cervantes has moved from a frightened prisoner to a man ready to take on whatever future may be in store. It makes far more sense than having a trained singer from the starting gate.

And for the record, the recent revival? Pathetic. Every song, DSC, to the audience. The lamest possible staging, coupled with a set that was downright dangerous.