What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?- Page 4
What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
MasterLcZ
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/12/03
#75re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:47pm
A forgotten film of an even more forgotten play: JUNIOR MISS (1945), one of my fave childhood films.
The notoriously picky TIMES critic Bosley Crowther noted:
"As the fearfully precocious youngster around whom a family (and a civilization) turn, Peggy Ann Garner is quite appealing and blessed with a sweet naïvete, but she lacks the disarming aggressiveness that Patricia Peardon gave the role on the stage. Sylvia Field is very good as the mother, and Mona Freeman plays the older sis quite well, while Faye Marlowe is pleasantly modest as the family's marriageable friend. However, Barbara Whiting is crudely stagey as the heroine's pal, playing the role in the manner of a Nancy Walker tough. And Allyn Joslyn as the father, John Alexander as his boss and Scotty Beckett as a youthful courtier overact considerably."
Of course, I ESPECIALLY adored Barbara Whiting (as "Fluffy Adams")
Judy: (describing an incident at home)"I feel just like Bette Davis did in that picture she did...you know, the one where she has a nervous collapse..."
Fluffy: "Which one? In EVERY Bette Davis picture she has a nervous collapse!"
Junior Miss
#76re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:48pm
Casting for the West Side Story movie was one of te best things about it. Rita Moreno gave an absolutely chilling performance. And as much as I love Chita she would not have worked in front of the camera (it was different when she was cast as Nikkei in Sweet Charity). George Chakiris also gave an outstanding performance. The only bad performance was given by Richard Beymer.
On the Cabaret movie, I do respect and admire the movie very, very much. That being said there is one big thing that was a very bad choice. As Harold Prince has said in the past, Liza's voice was just too good for the role of Sally Bowles. And I think that really comes through in the number "Cabaret." The way Liza performs that number and the way Fosse directs it the make no attempt to show any of the grief and sadness of Sally Bowles and the fact that she is stuck in this hellish place. Joel Grey is fabulous though.
My other favorite movies are Funny Girl, The Sound of Music, Oklahoma, and Chicago.
MasterLcZ
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/12/03
#77re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 2:54pm
Crowther adored Warner's film version of THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER (1945), and seems to have found it every bit as satisfying as the play (and its hard to top Monty Wooley, Bette Davis, Ann Sheridan, Jimmy Durante, Mary Wickes, Reginald Gardiner and Billie Burke):
"The Messrs, Kaufman and Hart wrote the play very much in the image of a river of incidents and wisecracks plunging over a precipice. And the Warners have smartly filmed it at the same fluid, headlong tempo, keeping virtually all of the action flexing within the four walls of one room and making only such slight alterations as decent modesty compelled."
The Man Who Came To Dinner
#78re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 4:00pm
I am probably a minority of one when I say that I don't find ANY movie musical superior to the Broadway production of a musical that it is based on. That has to do with what I call "the suspension of disbelief" that takes place when seeing a live performance containing singing and dancing. On stage it seems natural to segue from dialogue to singing and/or dancing. On film it just doesn't; it seems forced and awkward.
Having said that I have certain feelings about some movie musicals:
1) The OBC of THE SOUND OF MUSIC with Mary Martin was not bizarre or in any way inferior. It was a well constructed, likable musical. I think I am probably the only person on the planet who has not seen the movie version, so I can't compare the two, but I am not a fan of Julie Andrews--I find her too sugary. Co-star Christopher Plummer labeled the movie "The Sound of Mucus".
2) The movie version of CABARET is very good, with a superior Liza Minelli. I never saw it on Broadway.
3) The movie version of CHICAGO is also very good and I never saw that on Broadway, either.
4) The 1950's movie version of CAROUSEL was good, but it cannot compare to the brilliant Lincoln Center 1994 revival, with its inventive staging.
5) The film version of WEST SIDE STORY is a good example of film not allowing the viewer to suspend disbelief of the street dancing and the segue of dialogue to singing on the part of the principals and most especially the rival gangs. And Larry Kert was far superior to Richard Beymer as Tony.
6) The movie version of OLIVER is good but it is too long. And one of the pleasures of the 1963 Broadway production was the admiration that the audience had for the fabulous unit set which kept the action constantly moving in the London slums.It is gratifying to see stage wizardry.
7) I have saved the worst for last. The film version of GYPSY with Rosalind Russell is beyond bad; it is unwatchable. One of its drawbacks is a problem with so many movie musicals: the lip-syncing of the principals while some (un-heralded) singer does the actual singing. That drives me nuts.
There are some movie musicals that were never based on Broadway productions that are very enjoyable: SINGING IN THE RAIN and THE BANDWAGON are two that come to mind. And I enjoy the 1930's musicals with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. The musical biography THE GREAT ZIEGFELD is wonderful largely because its musical numbers take place on stages, where suspension of disbelief is built in.
As for Broadway musicals based on successful films, there is surely no certainty of success there. Take LEGALLY BLONDE, for example. It deserves no Tony nomination for best musical. But GREY GARDENS, based in part on a cult documentary, works as a musical largely because of the superior acting and singing of its talented cast.
husk_charmer
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/19/06
#79re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 4:13pmPersonally, I find the film version of "Hedwig" very tedious and difficult to sit through...
#80re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 4:22pm
Gypsy9, two of your examples are useless, being that almost everyone has stated that the Gypsy and Carousel movies are atrocious versions of their stage incarnation.
"The OBC of THE SOUND OF MUSIC with Mary Martin was not bizarre or in any way inferior. It was a well constructed, likable musical"
That's laughable.
courtney4
Understudy Joined: 4/21/07
#81re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 4:33pm
I definitely think the film version of My Fair Lady is much better than the stage version. The stage version is really just kind of dull. Also, The Lion King is better as a disney cartoon. I didn't like it much on stage.
And about Rent....I liked the film, until I saw the show. When I saw it onstage I realized what a disaster the film is. I mean, Chris Columbus cut out some really important stuff and the fact that he made everything that is SUPPOSED to happen in one night, happen over a three day period really annoys me.
Fenchurch
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/16/06
#82re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 4:39pm
I think the Sound of Music on stage is a much better piece in its revival incarnation with the new songs and the inclusion of Elsa and Max;s numbers, which I think balance the piece well and dont make it as sticky sweet as the movie's first half, Although it is breathtaking to watch.
I agree with Gypsy9, I think it's rather nasty to ridicule someone with an unpopular opinion. It's a coward who says something like simply "laughable" without offering an argument.
I don't have a problem with the film version of Rent, for it's own sake I think it works.
What I hated was the film of A Chorus Line
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual." - muscle23ftl
SDav 10495
Broadway Star Joined: 7/21/06
#83re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 4:45pm
I'd be interested to know how many of those who put Hair on their lists saw the original stage productions (at the Public, Cheetah, or Biltmore, and I guess any tours during those years). I'm sure a few of you have, but probably not most. I certainly haven't, and I love the film very much, but I have to think that the stage production came off as something entirely different when it was conceived than it does today. Hair is such a creature of its times that I can't imagine a production today, no matter how good, no matter what questionable war is raging, doing justice to the experience of the show back in the thick of the Vietnam era. Many today think of it as an aimless jumble of a show, but perhaps those feelings would be different in 1968. Missing the original productions of Hair, I think, doesn't quite compare to missing the original productions of most other shows when comparing to a film version.
Anyway, as for the film, it's one of my favorites--a great film overall, with some missteps, but with just as many wonderful sequences (I love the Central Park Be-In and the military base/Washington protest placement of "3-5-0-0"). It does bother me, though, that it was created a full (and crucial) decade after Hair was first conceived and as a result it feels less than authentic than, say, when I listen to the show's OBCR. The same is true of the Rent movie, and will be even more apparent a few years down the road...even if you love the film, it's impossible to watch it and feel the same way you felt about the show back in the 90s.
#84re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 4:51pmWickedFan: Why am I not allowed to mention the film version of GYPSY just because others have mentioned it? And did you see the OBC of THE SOUND OF MUSIC in 1960 like I did? I only write about OBC Broadway shows that I have seen. Why is it laughable that I liked it? You sound like you are out to get me.
NathanLaneStalker
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/11/06
#85re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 4:59pm
"Crowther adored Warner's film version of THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER (1945), and seems to have found it every bit as satisfying as the play (and its hard to top Monty Wooley, Bette Davis, Ann Sheridan, Jimmy Durante, Mary Wickes, Reginald Gardiner and Billie Burke):"
That was a fantastic stage to screen translation. I was actually watching it two days ago. I love it.
#86re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 5:03pmI saw the OBC Broadway production of HAIR at the Biltmore and it was a hoot. This was a time when everyone had an opinion about the Vietnam War and it was "comforting" to see a show that had the same point of view as you did. Friendships were sometimes at fragile levels because of the strong feelings that people had.I never saw the film.
#87re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 5:44pmwickedfan, why are you being such a cvnt?
#88re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 5:46pmBecause I'm following in your footsteps, Munk.
#89re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 5:48pmIn all honesty, though. Sorry, Gypsy9. I shouldn't have ridiculed your opinion without backing myself up. That was wrong. It's been a pretty bad day for me, though I'm 100% sure none of you are interested in the details. So to the point, my past few posts have been a result of life getting the best of me. Sorry, again Gypsy9.
#90re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:21pm
Wickedfan: Your apology is accepted. Sorry you are having a bad day.
I would be interested in anyone's thoughts about my suspension of disbelief premise when it comes to singing and dancing in a Broadway show or a musical film. To further clarify what I mean, people do not ordinarily sing and/or dance with others that they meet on the street. So, it requires a suspension of not believing in such behavior so that you CAN believe in their song and/or dance. I maintain that it is easier to accept this when it is seen live on stage than when it is in a film.I know this sounds kind of confusing.
#91re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:32pm
Chicago
Sound of Music
Carousel
I just got History Boys DVD today. Is it better than the play?
#92re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:32pm
Gypsy: While I agree that it is extremely difficult to pull off in a film, it has been done time and time again. If well directed, the singing should seem organic and like a natural extension of speech. Of course, sometimes that doesn't always happen (RENT) and sometimes it works beautifully (CABARET, HAIR, THE MUSIC MAN, etc.)
I don't really have a problem with it. When sitting down to watch a movie musical, it should already be evident to the person that they will have to suspend SOME sort of belief.
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#93re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:50pm
"And I think that really comes through in the number "Cabaret." The way Liza performs that number and the way Fosse directs it the make no attempt to show any of the grief and sadness of Sally Bowles and the fact that she is stuck in this hellish place."
I disagree--I do agree that Sally has probably too much talent for such a dive (though stranger things have happened and talented people have beens tuck for various reasons in placesbeneath them) but I find Fosse's direction fo that song spectacular, yeah, but in its way searing and heartbreaking especially juxtaposed with the previous scene. Having seen the televised version of the original London cast of the Donmar the way Sally SCREAMS the entire song is ridiculous though for the Marshall revisions made in New York that was thankfully toned down.
Speaking of Marshall I do think his Chicago is insanely overated and he makes the material too soft and cuddly. I know some fasn feelt he revival already did this compared to the original--Marshall takes it to another step. I still really like the movie onits own terms though--but it just doesnt even start to compare for me.
One I haven't seen brought up (sorry if I missed it) is Jessu Christ Superstar. YTeah the fil may be very of its time and now dated but it still holds up IMHO and works better than any of the various stage versions I've been lucky to see on tour and in London. I think part of the reason may be because it was created as a record album first and so visually that seems easier to carry over onto a film than a stage work--Evita was as well of course but Hal Prince sat down with the authors and forced them to reshape the musical before bringing it to stage.
*edit* I see Sean beat me to the punch with JCS
Going back to Phantom in the original post--I'm a casual Phantom fan--I find the material very flawed but still appealing and it did get me into musicals hardcore when I was 9 (my first professional production--though I was already a fan of GIlbert and Sullivan and ROdgers and Hammerstein and Lerner and Lowe shows--I was an odd kid). I expected to hat eht emovie in theatres but came back finding it surprisingly enjoyable--I'm not sure if i'd call it good, but I had a good time. Seeing it since I think the big probs with it are the obvious things--the Phantom himself is almost too much a character--never in the shadwos enough and since he's hardly a deeply written character that doesn't work etc. It also made me realize how a huge part of Phantom for me are Prince's brilliant staging nad Bjornson's beyond brilliant designs. Shumacker can't even hope to compete especially just by throwing money at the thing. ANd as Sean said the Phantom is WAY WAY too hot (Shumacker in the making of seems to be VERY proud of finding such beautiful leads which shows he missed the point) -- besides being always shown with a lot of the film even shot from hsi perspective. This really throws the weight off and doesn't work (and makes the Phantom in some odd ways less sympathetic--ie his killings)
West Side Story is a great film but it just doesn't have that insanely perfect fluidity that the stage version does--even with some improvements (I much prefer the new male/female America) and while the production design is stunning I think using the real streets for the prologue hampers the film even if they're shot so perfectly--the stage set was VERY VERY minamilistic, especially for its time and abstract which heightened the work
As for non musicals I knwo there are a number I'm forgetting but one that comes to mind as I did see the Canadian premiere of the play and then the film is the drama Lilies--I prefered it as a movie.
Updated On: 5/26/07 at 06:50 PM
#94re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 6:54pm
No, THE HISTORY BOYS film is not as good as the play, thought it's not bad.
Re: CABARET:
I have no problem with a Sally Bowles who has a brilliant voice. There are many, many, many factors that contribute to Sally being stuck at the Kit Kat Klub, though her talent doesn't have to be among them. On the inside, she's a lost, depressed, self-destructive woman who has NO idea what she wants. It's only fitting to have her stuck in a place that really, she's better than.
#95re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:04pmI respect your opinion, but there had to be a more layered way for Fosse to direct Liza in that number. Because he had such a powerful singer like Liza and with adding all the lights at the end and that beautiful purple dress there is really no room for subtlety. And while it is heaven on the ears I find the way Liza sings the last "Ba" syllable in the song "Cabaret" a disgrace to the character.
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#96re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:05pm
Yes exactly!! I adore the iflm of Cabaret and I adore the stage version (although truth be told maybe a TAD less). I've managed to see the 1987 Prince revival and even if it looks old fashioned next to the film or later Prince ocncept musicals you can really see how it led to the brilliance of the 70s Prince/Sondheim shows directly--it's an insanely good piece of staging (I also love the Mendes/Marshall revival--not so much the original Mendes--but I think its fans unfairly seem to think the Prince original musta been much more unoriginal)
I also prefer the TV musical version of Snoopy the Musical--as a cartoon to the stage original 
E
Fenchurch
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/16/06
#97re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:07pm
I feel exactly the opposite. I think its part of the suspension of disbelief, yes she's supposed to be a bad performer, but i wouldn't want to watch a show about a bad singer, especially if its a musical. I already saw that when I saw Brooke Shields in Cabaret (she was CONSTANTLY flat).
But Fosse uses the title song as Sally's cathartic moment, so Its totally possible that she has a breakthrough performance as a way to reconcile all her feelings at this climactic point in the piece.
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual." - muscle23ftl
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#98re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:16pm
EXACTLY (I have no idea why you say you feel the oppoiste as we seem to agree :P )
Going back to page one someone said on stage Sound of Music is "bizarre". How is it bizarre--or anymore bizarre than the film anyway?
(and Husk darling--I don't think you should EVER admit to prefering or even LIKING The Wiz film again if you want to be taken seriously What a hideou, HIDEOUS, mess of a movie that turned the work intho this garish, scary as all hell, wrong casted and headed muckity mess)
Updated On: 5/26/07 at 07:16 PM
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#99re: What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY?
Posted: 5/26/07 at 7:28pm
Sean: ">> 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. "
You know my tendencies to defend Night Music (I'm sure I'll be doing a LOT of that on here in 2 weeks when the dvd comes out) but I honestly think it has WAY WAY more to recommend it (DIana Rigg for a start) than Chorus Line (and if you just look at how they transposed the music between the mediums alone--Chrous Line made the songs worse IMHO while Tunick's tighter new orchestrations--which are sumptious, and the vocal performances for the songs they managed to keep for Night Music are improvements IMHO) Seriously I wouldn't put it in the same box as Mame, the Wiz, Chorus Line and other hideous movie adaptations.
Videos