Movie Musicals Vs Musical Movies
Jared Lopatin asked:
“Have you seen Billy Elliott? 9 to 5? Dirty Dancing?” These questions raise a counter question: “The movie or the musical?” There is no longer a strong line between the film and stage. We’re seeing numerous stories crossing the line between the silver screen and the boards of Broadway. There has always been a unification between the arts: literary, visual, graphic, performing. Theatre and film have always incorporated all of these.
Musical movies have been around since Gordon McRae and Shirley Jones first expressed their love for each other in both Oklahoma! and Carousel. Musical films may have gotten a little darker with the advent of Chicago, Rent, and Sweeney Todd, but they still capture the interest of moviegoers. Why is there such a fascination with the silver tones of the silver screen? What makes a musical movie worthy? Is it the book?
It’s not just the big screen that has developed the musical element. Shows have introduced musical episodes. Buffy, Scrubs, Daria, Xena has two musical episodes, and let’s not forget the numerous musical numbers to be found on the Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy, some of which are taken directly from Broadway itself.
Musicals have often taken their stories from books. That practice has continued through to more recent shows such as the widely popular show, Wicked, which is based on the book of the same name by Gregory Maguire. Books, however, have taken a backseat to movies as the basis for new musicals. 9 to 5 and Billy Elliott are on Broadway, Dirty Dancing is on tour, and Sister Act is onstage in London. All of these musicals started as movies. Now, granted, there are many movies that are also based upon books: Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, My Sister’s Keeper, etc. Even Lord of the Rings enjoyed time as an onstage musical.
The youthful world has captured the stage as well. Disney got a foothold in the Broadway scene when they introduced Beauty and the Beast. Now, they’re firmly established with The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, and Mary Poppins. The Grinch Who Stole Christmas is a holiday show that appears every December. Oh, and let’s not forget Shrek. Children’s theatre has hit the big time.
Actors have also crossed over from stage to screen and back. Ana Gasteyer, Amy Spanger, John Stamos, Chandra Wilson, Kristin Chenoweth, Alison Janney, Brian Stokes Mitchell, and others dance around the line, appearing at the Emmys, the Oscars, and the Tonys.
Why is there such an influx of movies to the Broadway stage? Have writers simply lost the desire to come up with original ideas? I don’t think so. I think that it’s strongly affected by the economy. In an attempt to get more people to attend Broadway theatre, shows have been streamlined into recognizable formats with names that people can relate to. They know Alison Janney, John Stamos, and Chandra Wilson. Parents are more willing to take their children to see shows based on movies that they grew up with and love. People are excited to see a musical based on a movie, even if it’s just to find out how closely it adheres to the original. It’s easier to adapt the movie to the stage than it is to adapt the book because a lot of the elements have already been provided.
I do think, however, that it is harder to translate the movie to the stage because there are certain expectations. People are very critical when a well-loved movie is changed for the stage. This is the same of books, but the visual element is removed. A character may not necessarily look the way you pictured them to look, but that was your own interpretation, so you are more willing to accept it. With a movie, you’ve seen the character and you’ve heard the lines delivered a certain way. You’re on the lookout for that same delivery. It’s like a drug; you expect the same high you feel when you watch the movie.
Still, I think that movies titles will always have a pull for those attending the theatre because of the known factor. It’s familiar. It’s safe. You may not get what you expected, but at least you had expectations to begin with. Going to see a show that you’ve never heard of in another forum is taking a chance. Sometimes, it’s worth the risk, but most people are unwilling to do so at $80+ a seat.
As for me, I’m still waiting for Harry Potter: The Musical Series.
Create a video blog
“Have you seen Billy Elliott? 9 to 5? Dirty Dancing?” These questions raise a counter question: “The movie or the musical?” There is no longer a strong line between the film and stage. We’re seeing numerous stories crossing the line between the silver screen and the boards of Broadway. There has always been a unification between the arts: literary, visual, graphic, performing. Theatre and film have always incorporated all of these.
Musical movies have been around since Gordon McRae and Shirley Jones first expressed their love for each other in both Oklahoma! and Carousel. Musical films may have gotten a little darker with the advent of Chicago, Rent, and Sweeney Todd, but they still capture the interest of moviegoers. Why is there such a fascination with the silver tones of the silver screen? What makes a musical movie worthy? Is it the book?
It’s not just the big screen that has developed the musical element. Shows have introduced musical episodes. Buffy, Scrubs, Daria, Xena has two musical episodes, and let’s not forget the numerous musical numbers to be found on the Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy, some of which are taken directly from Broadway itself.
Musicals have often taken their stories from books. That practice has continued through to more recent shows such as the widely popular show, Wicked, which is based on the book of the same name by Gregory Maguire. Books, however, have taken a backseat to movies as the basis for new musicals. 9 to 5 and Billy Elliott are on Broadway, Dirty Dancing is on tour, and Sister Act is onstage in London. All of these musicals started as movies. Now, granted, there are many movies that are also based upon books: Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, My Sister’s Keeper, etc. Even Lord of the Rings enjoyed time as an onstage musical.
The youthful world has captured the stage as well. Disney got a foothold in the Broadway scene when they introduced Beauty and the Beast. Now, they’re firmly established with The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, and Mary Poppins. The Grinch Who Stole Christmas is a holiday show that appears every December. Oh, and let’s not forget Shrek. Children’s theatre has hit the big time.
Actors have also crossed over from stage to screen and back. Ana Gasteyer, Amy Spanger, John Stamos, Chandra Wilson, Kristin Chenoweth, Alison Janney, Brian Stokes Mitchell, and others dance around the line, appearing at the Emmys, the Oscars, and the Tonys.
Why is there such an influx of movies to the Broadway stage? Have writers simply lost the desire to come up with original ideas? I don’t think so. I think that it’s strongly affected by the economy. In an attempt to get more people to attend Broadway theatre, shows have been streamlined into recognizable formats with names that people can relate to. They know Alison Janney, John Stamos, and Chandra Wilson. Parents are more willing to take their children to see shows based on movies that they grew up with and love. People are excited to see a musical based on a movie, even if it’s just to find out how closely it adheres to the original. It’s easier to adapt the movie to the stage than it is to adapt the book because a lot of the elements have already been provided.
I do think, however, that it is harder to translate the movie to the stage because there are certain expectations. People are very critical when a well-loved movie is changed for the stage. This is the same of books, but the visual element is removed. A character may not necessarily look the way you pictured them to look, but that was your own interpretation, so you are more willing to accept it. With a movie, you’ve seen the character and you’ve heard the lines delivered a certain way. You’re on the lookout for that same delivery. It’s like a drug; you expect the same high you feel when you watch the movie.
Still, I think that movies titles will always have a pull for those attending the theatre because of the known factor. It’s familiar. It’s safe. You may not get what you expected, but at least you had expectations to begin with. Going to see a show that you’ve never heard of in another forum is taking a chance. Sometimes, it’s worth the risk, but most people are unwilling to do so at $80+ a seat.
As for me, I’m still waiting for Harry Potter: The Musical Series.
Create a video blog
Categories: Movies TV Tags: Backseat, Beauty And The Beast, Billy Elliott, Broadway Musicals, Crossing The Line, Dirty Dancing, Family Guy, Foothold, Gordon Mcrae, Gregory Maguire, Gregory Maguire Books, Moviegoers, Musical Element, Musical Films, Musical Numbers, Shirley Jones, Silver Screen, Silver Tones, Sister Act, Sweeney Todd
"Show Business – A Season to Remember" – A Review
Leslie Halpern asked:
Producer-director Dori Berinstein’s full-length documentary “Show Business” is certainly a movie to remember. The film, which won the Grand Jury prize for best documentary at the Florida Film Festival, packs the 2003-2004 season’s worth of rehearsals, performances, reviews, and awards into 104 minutes of excitement.
In fact, Berinstein whittled down nearly 400 interviews and 400 hours of footage to focus on four major musicals produced that year: the $3.5 million “Avenue Q,” “the $7.5 million “Caroline, Or Change,” the $10 million “Taboo,” and the $14 million “Wicked.” She follows their stars, producers, writers, and directors as they struggle through the season with their eyes on the prize, i.e., The Tony Awards.
“Show Business” is like having a VIP All Access Backstage pass to see what goes on behind the curtain at Broadway’s biggest shows. In addition to Kristin Chenoweth, Tonya Pinkins and other stars attached to the shows, Broadway storytellers including Alan Cumming, Chris Boneau and William Goldman provide their insights, theater critics share their opinions, and theater-goers such as Billy Jean King put in their two cent’s worth.
It’s also great fun to see “Taboo” producer Rosie O’Donnell and composer/lyricist Boy George share their thoughts on how the critics and crowds react to their gender-bending production that stars a London unknown, Euan Morton, in an uncanny performance as the famed lead singer of Culture Club.
Berinstein expertly weaves the stories together chronologically and emotionally. You can’t help but share the hope, elation, fear, and disappointment of all the Broadway players, despite which particular show you’re hoping will win.
Similarly, the theater critics come across as real people trying to do their best at their jobs. During four separate meetings at various points during the season, several top theater critics and columnists meet for lunch to talk about the current status of Broadway shows. They criticize, but sympathize. They’re flabbergasted by public taste. They argue with each other. But mostly, they just love good theater.
When it comes to good theater and good film, Berinstein’s got them both covered. And she promises even more; some of those missing 398 ½ hours of footage will appear on the DVD.
Screened March 29, 2006
Florida Film Festival
Southeast Premiere
Copyright 2006 Leslie Halpern
Create a video blog…instantly.
Producer-director Dori Berinstein’s full-length documentary “Show Business” is certainly a movie to remember. The film, which won the Grand Jury prize for best documentary at the Florida Film Festival, packs the 2003-2004 season’s worth of rehearsals, performances, reviews, and awards into 104 minutes of excitement.
In fact, Berinstein whittled down nearly 400 interviews and 400 hours of footage to focus on four major musicals produced that year: the $3.5 million “Avenue Q,” “the $7.5 million “Caroline, Or Change,” the $10 million “Taboo,” and the $14 million “Wicked.” She follows their stars, producers, writers, and directors as they struggle through the season with their eyes on the prize, i.e., The Tony Awards.
“Show Business” is like having a VIP All Access Backstage pass to see what goes on behind the curtain at Broadway’s biggest shows. In addition to Kristin Chenoweth, Tonya Pinkins and other stars attached to the shows, Broadway storytellers including Alan Cumming, Chris Boneau and William Goldman provide their insights, theater critics share their opinions, and theater-goers such as Billy Jean King put in their two cent’s worth.
It’s also great fun to see “Taboo” producer Rosie O’Donnell and composer/lyricist Boy George share their thoughts on how the critics and crowds react to their gender-bending production that stars a London unknown, Euan Morton, in an uncanny performance as the famed lead singer of Culture Club.
Berinstein expertly weaves the stories together chronologically and emotionally. You can’t help but share the hope, elation, fear, and disappointment of all the Broadway players, despite which particular show you’re hoping will win.
Similarly, the theater critics come across as real people trying to do their best at their jobs. During four separate meetings at various points during the season, several top theater critics and columnists meet for lunch to talk about the current status of Broadway shows. They criticize, but sympathize. They’re flabbergasted by public taste. They argue with each other. But mostly, they just love good theater.
When it comes to good theater and good film, Berinstein’s got them both covered. And she promises even more; some of those missing 398 ½ hours of footage will appear on the DVD.
Screened March 29, 2006
Florida Film Festival
Southeast Premiere
Copyright 2006 Leslie Halpern
Create a video blog…instantly.
Categories: Movies TV Tags: Alan Cumming, Avenue Q, Best Documentary, Billy Jean King, Boy George, Culture Club, Euan Morton, Eyes On The Prize, Florida Film Festival, Grand Jury Prize, Kristin Chenoweth, Length Documentary, Leslie Halpern, Rosie O Donnell, Show Business, Theater Critics, Theater Goers, Tony Awards, Tonya Pinkins, William Goldman
What Makes a Movie Musical Successful?
Claire Rottenberg asked:
Have you ever wondered why one movie musical receives critical acclaim and maybe even an Academy Award and another movie based on an equally good Broadway musical ends up on a studio shelf, rarely seen after its initial release? There are several key factors that lead to a quality movie musical. These factors include a strong story line and well-written screenplay, quality music, great casting, and effective direction. Great choreography is often a plus but a movie musical, unlike a Broadway musical, can be a quality movie without elaborate dances. In this article, I compare two movie musicals based on successful Lerner and Loewe Broadway musicals — “My Fair Lady” and “Camelot” — and I discuss why “My Fair Lady” was an acclaimed, award-winning movie that is still viewed and loved by millions of people and why “Camelot” has become a mostly forgotten film.
Both plays were successes on Broadway, although “My Fair Lady” did receive more praises than “Camelot” and it ran for a significantly longer time. Nevertheless, “Camelot” had a healthy initial Broadway run and both plays have had three short-run revivals on Broadway. Also, both plays earned Tony awards for their male leads and Tony nominations for Julie Andrews, the leading female star in both plays. Yet, the movies based on the plays had vastly different outcomes, with “My Fair Lady” garnering eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor, and Camelot earning only three minor awards. So, where did “Camelot,” the movie, go wrong?
Plot and Screenplay
Both plays and movies were based on good works of literature — “My Fair Lady” on the play “Pygmalion” by George Bernard Shaw, and “Camelot” on the book “The Once and Future King” by T. H. White. The screenplays were both authored by an experienced and award-winning author, Alan Jay Lerner, who also wrote the lyrics for the songs in both works. Therefore, the story lines and screenplays do not seem to be where the differences lie. In fact, the plot of “Camelot,” with its historic setting, romantic entanglements and scenes of chivalry and war, made it a better vehicle for film than “My Fair Lady” with its dialog-filled, actionless scenes.
Quality Music
The scores from “My Fair Lady” and “Camelot,” both written by Frederick Loewe and Alan Jay Lerner, are wonderful, with a good blend of beautiful melodies and sometimes poignant and other times humorous lyrics. Both shows had one major hit romantic ballad — “On the Street Where You Live” for “My Fair Lady” and “If Ever I Would Leave You” for “Camelot” — and both songs were dubbed in the movies by professional singers. The songs for the male lead are more melodious in “Camelot” and, at least in the movie version, the male lead, Richard Harris, had a better singing voice than Rex Harrison had in “My Fair Lady.” With basically equivalent scores, it seems that it is not the music that distinguishes the two works.
Casting
Although Richard Harris was the perfect King Arthur, casting is one major area where the movie version of “Camelot” fell short of its potential. Both plays starred Julie Andrews and her beautiful voice added much to the already great scores, but, unfortunately, she was not cast as the female lead in either film. However, the producers of the movie version of “My Fair Lady” had the good sense to hire Audrey Hepburn who was perfectly cast as Eliza Doolittle. She had the innocence and fragility needed for the role with just enough fire in her to finally rebel against Henry Higgins, while still leaving the audience sympathetic to her. On the other hand, the female lead in “Camelot,” Vanessa Redgrave, although an extremely gifted actress, was miscast as Guenevere. She presents the character as a cold, selfish woman who is indifferent to the tragedy she brings to her husband and his empire. Unfortunately, she was permitted to do her own singing with the result of a lessening of the impact of some of the songs in “Camelot.” On the other hand, Audrey Hepburn’s singing was dubbed by Marni Nixon, a singer with a beautiful, trained voice.
The casting of the third lead character in each film also differed in quality. In “My Fair Lady,” Colonel Pickering was played by a distinguished English actor, Wilfrid Hyde-White, whose acting was excellent. Unfortunately, the key role of Lancelot in “Camelot” was played by a novice Italian actor, Franco Nero, with limited command of English. Although he certainly fit the role physically, with his exceptional good looks, his acting was stiff and his delivery of lines was almost robotic.
The male leads in both films were perfect. In fact, the casting of Richard Harris probably saved “Camelot” from being a disaster. He was so well-cast as King Arthur that after the film, he became associated with the role and played it in several major productions, including one on Broadway and one in London.
Direction
Both movies had well-known and well-respected directors, but their approaches to directing the films were vastly different. George Cukor, the director of “My Fair Lady,” let the story and music give the movie its strength and character. There were no special effects used and no unique filming techniques, but, rather, just good direction of excellent actors and actresses performing on studio lots. Cukor used the strong screenplay and beautiful music of “My Fair Lady” to guide his direction.
On the other hand, Joshua Logan, the director of “Camelot,” used far too many close-ups that had the audience focused on the leads’ make-up rather than on the strong plot and music. In some scenes, instead of presenting a natural context for appreciating the songs or dialog, Logan chose to fill the large screen with the actors’ faces, resulting in a distracting rather than enhancing effect.
Conclusion
Although both “My Fair Lady” and “Camelot” had the potential to be great films, “Camelot” lacked two of the four factors necessary for a quality movie musical. These factors, strong story line and well-written screenplay, quality music, great casting, and effective direction, could be used to compare other movie musicals, for example, “Gigi” and “Brigadoon” or “Oklahoma” and “South Pacific,” and the results would be similar. A movie musical that is deficient in even one of the four factors could make the difference between a film that lives on for generations or one that gets lost on a shelf.
Copyright 2009 Claire J Rottenberg, All rights reserved
Website content
Have you ever wondered why one movie musical receives critical acclaim and maybe even an Academy Award and another movie based on an equally good Broadway musical ends up on a studio shelf, rarely seen after its initial release? There are several key factors that lead to a quality movie musical. These factors include a strong story line and well-written screenplay, quality music, great casting, and effective direction. Great choreography is often a plus but a movie musical, unlike a Broadway musical, can be a quality movie without elaborate dances. In this article, I compare two movie musicals based on successful Lerner and Loewe Broadway musicals — “My Fair Lady” and “Camelot” — and I discuss why “My Fair Lady” was an acclaimed, award-winning movie that is still viewed and loved by millions of people and why “Camelot” has become a mostly forgotten film.
Both plays were successes on Broadway, although “My Fair Lady” did receive more praises than “Camelot” and it ran for a significantly longer time. Nevertheless, “Camelot” had a healthy initial Broadway run and both plays have had three short-run revivals on Broadway. Also, both plays earned Tony awards for their male leads and Tony nominations for Julie Andrews, the leading female star in both plays. Yet, the movies based on the plays had vastly different outcomes, with “My Fair Lady” garnering eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor, and Camelot earning only three minor awards. So, where did “Camelot,” the movie, go wrong?
Plot and Screenplay
Both plays and movies were based on good works of literature — “My Fair Lady” on the play “Pygmalion” by George Bernard Shaw, and “Camelot” on the book “The Once and Future King” by T. H. White. The screenplays were both authored by an experienced and award-winning author, Alan Jay Lerner, who also wrote the lyrics for the songs in both works. Therefore, the story lines and screenplays do not seem to be where the differences lie. In fact, the plot of “Camelot,” with its historic setting, romantic entanglements and scenes of chivalry and war, made it a better vehicle for film than “My Fair Lady” with its dialog-filled, actionless scenes.
Quality Music
The scores from “My Fair Lady” and “Camelot,” both written by Frederick Loewe and Alan Jay Lerner, are wonderful, with a good blend of beautiful melodies and sometimes poignant and other times humorous lyrics. Both shows had one major hit romantic ballad — “On the Street Where You Live” for “My Fair Lady” and “If Ever I Would Leave You” for “Camelot” — and both songs were dubbed in the movies by professional singers. The songs for the male lead are more melodious in “Camelot” and, at least in the movie version, the male lead, Richard Harris, had a better singing voice than Rex Harrison had in “My Fair Lady.” With basically equivalent scores, it seems that it is not the music that distinguishes the two works.
Casting
Although Richard Harris was the perfect King Arthur, casting is one major area where the movie version of “Camelot” fell short of its potential. Both plays starred Julie Andrews and her beautiful voice added much to the already great scores, but, unfortunately, she was not cast as the female lead in either film. However, the producers of the movie version of “My Fair Lady” had the good sense to hire Audrey Hepburn who was perfectly cast as Eliza Doolittle. She had the innocence and fragility needed for the role with just enough fire in her to finally rebel against Henry Higgins, while still leaving the audience sympathetic to her. On the other hand, the female lead in “Camelot,” Vanessa Redgrave, although an extremely gifted actress, was miscast as Guenevere. She presents the character as a cold, selfish woman who is indifferent to the tragedy she brings to her husband and his empire. Unfortunately, she was permitted to do her own singing with the result of a lessening of the impact of some of the songs in “Camelot.” On the other hand, Audrey Hepburn’s singing was dubbed by Marni Nixon, a singer with a beautiful, trained voice.
The casting of the third lead character in each film also differed in quality. In “My Fair Lady,” Colonel Pickering was played by a distinguished English actor, Wilfrid Hyde-White, whose acting was excellent. Unfortunately, the key role of Lancelot in “Camelot” was played by a novice Italian actor, Franco Nero, with limited command of English. Although he certainly fit the role physically, with his exceptional good looks, his acting was stiff and his delivery of lines was almost robotic.
The male leads in both films were perfect. In fact, the casting of Richard Harris probably saved “Camelot” from being a disaster. He was so well-cast as King Arthur that after the film, he became associated with the role and played it in several major productions, including one on Broadway and one in London.
Direction
Both movies had well-known and well-respected directors, but their approaches to directing the films were vastly different. George Cukor, the director of “My Fair Lady,” let the story and music give the movie its strength and character. There were no special effects used and no unique filming techniques, but, rather, just good direction of excellent actors and actresses performing on studio lots. Cukor used the strong screenplay and beautiful music of “My Fair Lady” to guide his direction.
On the other hand, Joshua Logan, the director of “Camelot,” used far too many close-ups that had the audience focused on the leads’ make-up rather than on the strong plot and music. In some scenes, instead of presenting a natural context for appreciating the songs or dialog, Logan chose to fill the large screen with the actors’ faces, resulting in a distracting rather than enhancing effect.
Conclusion
Although both “My Fair Lady” and “Camelot” had the potential to be great films, “Camelot” lacked two of the four factors necessary for a quality movie musical. These factors, strong story line and well-written screenplay, quality music, great casting, and effective direction, could be used to compare other movie musicals, for example, “Gigi” and “Brigadoon” or “Oklahoma” and “South Pacific,” and the results would be similar. A movie musical that is deficient in even one of the four factors could make the difference between a film that lives on for generations or one that gets lost on a shelf.
Copyright 2009 Claire J Rottenberg, All rights reserved
Website content
Categories: Movies TV Tags: