[net.theater] Musicals: Stage to screen

adolph@ssc-vax.UUCP (Mark Adolph) (06/01/85)

*** YOUR MESSAGE ***

Recently, I had the opportunity to see the movie version of "Hair" (my 
video club was renting it for $1).  I've heard many reviews of this movie
ranging from 'bad' to 'worst thing to ever hit the screen,' so I
approached it as an exercise in seeing how bad they could make a movie.  I
must say that I was pleasantly surprised.  I found the movie to be a
perfectly valid attempt to translate the feelings evoked by the original
musical to a big screen format.  It wasn't a totally successful attempt,
but it deserved a lot more credit than it got.

Seeing that movie got me to thinking about the whole business of
translating theater to film.  "Hair" is a perfect example of a musical
which, if put directly on film without modification, would have made
little or no sense.  There seems to be more leeway for aimless
plotlessness on stage if a mood is created and a statement made.  On film,
these can be done, but a stronger plot is required.  I believe that that
is what the makers of "Hair" tried to do.  Unfortunately, the stage
production's relatively free form style was a major contributor to the mood 
that needed to be created, so a strong plot and having the songs be a 
natural result of the action tended to work against the movie.

What I'm trying to get at is that Hollywood seems to have a lot of
troubling capturing the essence and appeal of musicals on film.  As
evidence, I offer "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," "The Wiz," and
"Cabaret."  "Wait," you'll say, "Cabaret was a great movie."  That's
true, but the stage production was even better.  Why must musicals lose
part of their appeal when they are moved to film?  Is this something
that is a flaw of Hollywood, or is it a natural property of the two
media?  Can the constraints of film vs the stage be overcome by exploiting
the advantages that film has over a live performance?  Can a musical be
done successfully on film any more without being a joke or looking silly?

At the moment, Hollywood is busily producing a film version of "A Chorus
Line," and I am *very* worried.  "Chorus Line" has no set, no costumes
other than street clothing, and no real plot to speak of.  The pleasure is
in meeting the characters through their songs and dances.  In short, the
show is totally suited to the stage and a nightmare for the film director
who needs to maintain visual interest.  No doubt, they will change the
show to "fit" the screen.  I shudder to think what might come out of LA
this time.  

And the most tragic thing is that a huge number of people assume that the 
film and stage versions of a show are similar enough that a judgement of 
one necessarily applies to the other.  Nothing could be further from the 
truth.  Seeing Diana Ross prance around New York with Michael Jackson
Nipsy Russell and Richard Pryor is totally unrelated to watching the stage
version of "The Wiz," a show which is more faithful to Frank Baum's book
than even the Judy Garland version.

I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this from both the Hollywood and
Broadway sides of the issue.  As you may have guessed, I'm firmly in the
latter camp.  Where do you guys stand?

					-- Mark A.
					...{uw-beaver|fluke}!ssc-vax!adolph

	"1 + 1 = 1, for sufficiently small values of 1..."

dtuttle@uw-june (David C. Tuttle) (06/02/85)

> From: adolph@ssc-vax.UUCP (Mark Adolph)
> Newsgroups: net.movies,net.theater
> Subject: Musicals: Stage to screen
> Posted: Fri May 31 17:38:58 1985

> ...What I'm trying to get at is that Hollywood seems to have a lot of
> troubling capturing the essence and appeal of musicals on film.  As
> evidence, I offer "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," "The Wiz," and
> "Cabaret."  "Wait," you'll say, "Cabaret was a great movie."  That's
> true, but the stage production was even better.  Why must musicals lose
> part of their appeal when they are moved to film?  Is this something
> that is a flaw of Hollywood, or is it a natural property of the two
> media?  Can the constraints of film vs the stage be overcome by exploiting
> the advantages that film has over a live performance?  Can a musical be
> done successfully on film any more without being a joke or looking silly?

It's true that Hollywood has had stage-to-screen-musical failures such as 
the ones above, as well as "Hair" (which you also mentioned) and "Annie."
But, to be fair, we cannot forget such films as "My Fair Lady," 
"The Sound Of Music," and "Amadeus," all screen adaptations that were well
deserving of Best Picture Oscars.  
Adapting a stage play is much like adapting a book, the only difference 
being that books tend to have more plot and less show, and stage plays 
tend to have more show and less plot (as you stated before).  Notice that
I say "tend to" -- that are many exceptions to this rule.  But, I cannot
agree with the statement that Hollywood has a *particularly* bad track 
record with respect to Broadway.
The basic point is, there are good Hollywood screenplay adaptors and BAD
Hollywood screenplay adaptors, no matter what the originating medium.
Yes, plots and scenes are often mangled in the transition, but the same 
is true for anything Hollywood gets its grubby paws on...sometimes it
works, and sometimes...
============================================================================
							David C. Tuttle
							Computer Sci. Dept.
							U. of Washington

reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (06/06/85)

In article <798@ssc-vax.UUCP> adolph@ssc-vax.UUCP (Mark Adolph) writes:
>
>Seeing that movie got me to thinking about the whole business of
>translating theater to film.  
...
>
>What I'm trying to get at is that Hollywood seems to have a lot of
>troubling capturing the essence and appeal of musicals on film.  As
>evidence, I offer "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," "The Wiz," and
>"Cabaret."  
>...Why must musicals lose
>part of their appeal when they are moved to film?  Is this something
>that is a flaw of Hollywood, or is it a natural property of the two
>media?  Can the constraints of film vs the stage be overcome by exploiting
>the advantages that film has over a live performance?  Can a musical be
>done successfully on film any more without being a joke or looking silly?
>
Transferring Broadway musicals to the screen is a lost art, but it was once
done successfully on a regular basis.  "My Fair Lady", "The Music Man", 
"Oliver!", and "Oklahoma!" are some of the best examples, but lesser successes
were also gained with "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying",
"South Pacific", "Carousel" (of course, I didn't much like this musical to
begin with), and "Kiss Me, Kate", among others.  The important thing to note
here is that none of these were made after 1968.  Around this time there was
a changing of the guard among the creative people in Hollywood, for two reasons.
First, the great wave of talent that came into its own in the 1930s began to
grow old and die.  Second, the success of "Easy Rider" and the change in
standards of what could and couldn't be shown on the screen led studio heads to
replace old veterans with newcomers, who hadn't had the years of indoctrination
into the "Hollywood" way of doing things.  Another contributing factor was a
major change in what kind of musicals came out of Broadway.  "Cats" and "A
Chorus Line" are not the same type of shows as "My Fair Lady" and "Oliver".
Broadway is now exploiting the unique aspects of theater in a way it didn't
before.

>At the moment, Hollywood is busily producing a film version of "A Chorus
>Line," and I am *very* worried.  "Chorus Line" has no set, no costumes
>other than street clothing, and no real plot to speak of.  The pleasure is
>in meeting the characters through their songs and dances.  In short, the
>show is totally suited to the stage and a nightmare for the film director
>who needs to maintain visual interest.  No doubt, they will change the
>show to "fit" the screen.  I shudder to think what might come out of LA
>this time.  
>
Well, it really won't come out of LA in any important way.  It was shot in
New York and the director is Richard Attenborough, who is very British in
outlook, so it's hard to say what it will be like.  From what I've heard,
they do not plan to "open it up" much, meaning it will still be set almost
entirely in the theater.  The director, who was heard but not seen in the play,
will be seen in the film.  (Michael Douglas has that part.)  Directors have
solved the problem of working in very limited spaces before, but Attenborough
hasn't ever done this.  "Gandhi", "Oh, What a Lovely War!" (a very interesting
film version of a musical, by the way), and "Young Winston" all had lots and
lots of space to work in.  Hard to say what the results will be.
-- 
        			Peter Reiher
        			reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
				soon to be reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
        			{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher

greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (06/08/85)

> 
> I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this from both the Hollywood and
> Broadway sides of the issue.  As you may have guessed, I'm firmly in the
> latter camp.  Where do you guys stand?
> 
> 					-- Mark A.
> 					...{uw-beaver|fluke}!ssc-vax!adolph

I can't honestly come up with a single example of a film based on a
musical which I could say I enjoyed more than even an average performance
of the stage show.  There have been those which I thought weren't bad
as films ("Oklahoma", "My Fair Lady", "The King and I", I even like the
sugary film of "The Sound of Music"), but in no case did they come close
to creating the excitement and continuity of their respective staged
shows.  I was particularly disappointed in the film of "A Little
Night Music" at how much of the spice and depth of the characters was
lost in translation (not to mention some of the better songs which
also disappeared).  

I did, however, enjoy the videotaped "live" performance of "Sweeny
Todd" and wonder if maybe it wouldn't be so terrible to use actual
stage performances as a basis for more musical films.

One problem that recurs constantly is the paranoia the move moguls have
about using known "movie names" in the film casts - often regardless of
suitability to the part.  I have no doubt that Julie Andrews would have
been a better choice than Audrey Hepburn for "My Fair Lady" (Jack Warner
thought Andrews too much of an unknown at the time) and found Elizabeth
Taylor ludicrous casting in "A Little Night Music" - why not either Glynis
Johns or Jean Simmons, both of whom had major successes on stage with it?
The question is hardly worth asking;  someone who had control over the
bucks decided that Elizabeth Taylor would attract large scale audiences
and make the film a general success rather than merely a cult favorite
(as it was, it was a general flop that didn't even attract a cult
following).

Another problem for me is the frequent recourse to dubbing voices
for the songs when the "stars" chosen to be in the film can't sing
them.  I'm not suggesting that they force the stars to croak the
songs out anyway (as happened, disastrously, with Vanessa Redgrave
in "Camelot") but that they at least cast the roles with people who
can, in fact, perform the entire role which includes the songs.

	- Greg Paley

wmk@ptsfa.UUCP (06/12/85)

I have always thought that Boy Friend was an excelent example of	
a Movie that captured the "flavor" of the original while totally
changing every thing else. (And I still don't think that Twiggy
is a Soprano who can do Polly's part.)
I also find those who dislike Cabaret interesting. In so many
ways it went back to the original "I am a Camera" or "Berlin
Story" plot rather than staying with the Musical version.
My favorite comment on Hello Dolly is which of the following
do you see as a JEWISH Match-maker: Shirley Boothe(sp), Carol
Channing, Pearl Baily, or Barbra Streissand?  Now on the
other hand, I don't see her as long-time married and widowed,
but it was a lavish production if nothing else.
Any one who can give any excuse for Lucille Ball as Mame or the
resulting movie has a much better imagination than I do!

abc@brl-sem.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (06/13/85)

Most of what has been said regarding selection of actors,
Hollywood's own way of doing things, etc, is probably
correct.  

But there's one more factor that I might not have heard
mentioned.  In a live performance of a play, a musical comedy,
an opera, an orchestral concert, or even bluegrass, there is a
certain "chemistry" that can occur between performer and
audience that cannot be recorded on hard media.  She or he is,
in a real sense, singing to YOU.  There is even the (perhaps
imagined) occasional eye contact if your seat is sufficiently
good.

I viewed the taped live version of Sweeny Todd at home and
enjoyed it very much.  But it just seemed like another movie
or, perhaps, live TV show.

Brint

sas@leadsv.UUCP (Scott Stewart) (06/14/85)

Two musicals which I felt were done quit well on the big screen were
'The Music Man' and 'West Side Story'. I never actually seen a 
professional stage version of either of these but I have seen some
very good amateur productions (College and High School). 'The Music
Man' movie seemed to stay very true to the stage version. I've read
a copy of the stage script for 'West Side Story' and I think that the 
movie improved upon the stage version in two ways. On stage, the rumble
takes place at the end of Act 1. To get Act 2 of to a snappy start, the
"Officer Krupke" song is performed. The movie, not having acts, puts
the "Kool" number after the rumble, which, to me, makes more sense sinse
the feelings are much more intense in this dance and match the moods the
Jets would probably feel right after the rumble. The second change that
I liked was the "America" number. The movie had the musical debate about
the good life of America be between the male and the female 'PRs' instead
of two sets of females. I just personally like this better. By far, this
is my favorite musical, both stage and screen version.

Another musical that wasn't done to badly on screen was 'Godspell', though
I feel the stage version was better because it expresses the joy, passion,
and pain in a more intimate environment, allowing the audience to feel the
emotions much better.

'Guys and Dolls' was much less colorful on the screen than the stage version,
especially when they removed two of the better songs. And boy, could that
Brando sing.

'Jesus Christ, Superstar' was weakened somewhat by the directors idea of
tieing the Gospell story to modern day imagery. I talking about the Jets
flying through, the tanks chasing Judas, and the cast arriving and leaving
on a bus. It was interesting, but somewhat distracting because now you
have to figure out this new visual imagery that I don't feel added to the
story.

But the worst translation of a musical to the screen has got to be
'A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum'. This was one of the 
funniest musicals I've seen, with hilarious characters. But the movie
was boring and very unfunny. I smiled only once, and that to a new line
they added. The charm of the stage version was that it had a 
Vaudevillian/Burlesque feel, which the movie didn't, and probalbly
couldn't catch. Don't even waste your time watching the movie.

Any comments on the above or other movies would be interesting. So lets
hear your opinions. Your favorites and least favorites.



					Scott A. Stewart
					LMSC

keesan@bbnccv.UUCP (Morris M. Keesan) (06/27/85)

In article <346@brl-sem.ARPA> abc@brl-sem.ARPA (Brint Cooper) writes:
>. . . there's one more factor that I might not have heard
>mentioned.  In a live performance of a play, a musical comedy,
>an opera, an orchestral concert, or even bluegrass, there is a
>certain "chemistry" that can occur between performer and
>audience that cannot be recorded on hard media.  She or he is,
>in a real sense, singing to YOU.  There is even the (perhaps
>imagined) occasional eye contact if your seat is sufficiently
>good.

    Hear, hear!  This is what I think of as the "magic" of the theatre, which
movies can't capture.  This is why I often leave movies saying, "That was good,
but I'm glad I didn't pay first run price for it," and sometimes leave the
theatre (live theatre, that is) saying, "That wasn't a very good play, but
what the hell, the tickets were only $20 each."  Even mediocre live theatre has
that certain magic that even the best movies don't have.
-- 
Morris M. Keesan
keesan@bbn-unix.ARPA
{decvax,ihnp4,etc.}!bbncca!keesan