What FILM Version Do You Think is BETTER than the PLAY? — Page 4

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

---

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

---

Updated On: 5/26/07 at 02:54 PM

Personally, I find the film version of "Hedwig" very tedious and difficult to sit through...

---

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.

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.

---

"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.

---

wickedfan, why are you being such a cvnt?

---

In 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.

---

Chicago
Sound of Music
Carousel

I just got History Boys DVD today. Is it better than the play?

"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

I 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.

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.

---

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.