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