|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Sept 9, 2016 7:24:40 GMT
I'm highly resistant to the whole affair.
Top Hat without Fred and Ginger? Singing in The Rain without Gene? I just haven't been able to bring myself to go.
Loved Groundhog Day, but they were making a musical of a story. Something new and fresh out of old material.
Next years An American in Paris? Non Merci.
Another thing, I've been to a few Musicals where they 'impersonate' famous singers. EG Billie Holiday or Cash/Presley/Perkins/Orbison and I hated them. HATED!!!!
No interest in seeing that type either.
Has anyone here gone to one of these shows with the same reservation that perfection can't be bettered, and been converted?
Better to stick with my originals?
(Funny but I have no problems watching a film that was based on a Musical. There's no explaining that.)
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 9, 2016 7:42:26 GMT
I haven't actually watched a lot of the 'classic' screen musicals. I've never seen Top Hat and High Society. It's a lot easier to take a stage show as a stage show when you haven't seen the film!
|
|
840 posts
|
Post by Steffi on Sept 9, 2016 7:46:51 GMT
I loved American in Paris on Broadway. It's different to the movie (more ballet, slight changes in the story) and for me the stage version was just as blissful and wonderful as the film.
I really enjoyed Singing in the Rain and Top Hat too.
And this is coming from someone who adores all those classic American movie musicals. No one will ever beat Gene Kelly for me. But Adam Cooper was a great lead in Singing in the Rain. And Robert Fairchild in American in Paris: Dreamy and made the part his own. Neither tried to "be" Gene Kelly. They simply brought their own magic to the story.
But I understand it's possibly easier to take a stage show as a stage show when you are not attached to the movie.
|
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on Sept 9, 2016 7:51:19 GMT
I think there's a big difference between Shows "impersonating" someone because the copy will only ever be a copy.
But when it comes to putting classic movie musicals on stage, I think it's slightly different. Singin' in the Rain may be a cinematic masterpiece, but there's just something amazing about seeing THAT scene on stage with actual rain.
And while I wasn't keen on American in Paris on stage overall, the big second act ballet was nothing short of spectacular and (almost) worth the (discounted) price alone.
Dance especially is just on a different level when seen live on stage and I don't mind seeing other performers taking on classic roles and perhaps even give them a new interpretation. However, I can understand your misgivings as there are some classic movies I also absolutely can't see done differently or by other performers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 8:01:24 GMT
If I'm going to see a film-to-stage adaptation, I'd actually rather it be from a film that already has songs in it. That way, it seems like the material is screaming out for someone to stage it well. With a non-musical film it just seems lazy, like the writers can't be bothered to come up with their own story or aren't daring enough to make something that may not appeal to the masses on paper. I don't have much experience with classic movie musicals (nor their stage counterparts) but without doubt my favourite musicals that have been adapted from film are Once and Newsies, films that already had many of the songs featured included. Then you get what seems like extra effort thrown in to make the staging of Once as beautiful as it is, the same with the choreography of Newsies. It's tried and tested songs elevated to new heights. Groundhog Day was enjoyable enough but was mostly enhanced by a starring performance from Andy Karl which helped it to stand out from the film. I feel like that show would fall very flat without someone of his calibre playing Phil. Stuff like Billy Elliot and Matilda - though well done - is very tedious to me. A copy of a film's storyline with a few average-to-good songs thrown in does not, in my eyes, make a good musical.
|
|
736 posts
|
Post by dippy on Sept 9, 2016 8:11:48 GMT
Singing in The Rain without Gene? I adore the film, however I have seen it on stage 4 times (3 different productions). Unfortunately the lack of Gene was a problem in 3 of those performances. The first time I saw it on stage was a production in Bristol (either BLOC or a tour, can't remember). I went because I was interested in seeing it on stage but was very disappointed. I then decided to give a different version of the show a go so I went to see it at the Palace Theatre and didn't manage to enjoy that either. Adam Cooper just wasn't right for the role (and I didn't enjoy Scarlet as Kathy). However I thought maybe it was the casting I hadn't enjoyed so I went and saw it on tour. I remember enjoying it a lot more than in London but Don still wasn't Gene (assuming I saw James Leece). Even after those productions I still decided to give a different production a go this year (went in Salisbury). However this time I went in knowing that the person playing Don was someone who'd previously caught my eye in Funny Girl (Matthew Croke). The production itself wasn't the best but for the first time I was happy with the casting of Don. Of course there wasn't anywhere near enough dancing especially with such a tiny stage. Maybe I was more forgiving since it was such a small production and I knew that going in. If only I'd seen Matthew as Don in the West End when he was a cover, that would have been interesting to see what my thoughts on that would have been. Will I watch Singing in the Rain on stage again? Probably. Will I ever find a production I'm completely satisfied with? Absolutely no idea but if I do I'll be very happy! In my eyes Gene in Singing in the Rain is very difficult to forget. I'm much happier with the idea of seeing An American in Paris, possibly because I've seen the film a lot less. I'm actually happy with both men cast in it and if there are cheap tickets to be found somewhere I'd happily watch it twice from what I've seen of the Broadway production. Maybe if Robbie Fairchild played Don in a good big production of Singing in the Rain I'd finally be happy (doubt I'd see it unless it was over here though). From the clips I've seen he moves in a similar way to Gene which is usually the biggest let down. I'm less fussed about seeing other people play Fred's roles. I loved Top Hat and saw it 3 times with 3 people playing Jerry (Tom Chambers, Gavin Lee and Alan Burkitt). I had no problems with any of them and enjoyed it each time (which is why I went back). So can it work? Yes it can but I think it really depends on how well I know the film and if those performances are ingrained in my head. If they are, it's much harder to get the stage musical right. If not I'm happy to give them a go. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 8:54:41 GMT
Matilda was nothing like the (too twee for my tastes) film, it very much went back to the original book with a few extra touches of its own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 9:22:59 GMT
Eh if it follows the basic storyline then it's too much like it for me.
|
|
421 posts
|
Post by schuttep on Sept 9, 2016 9:24:07 GMT
...there's just something amazing about seeing THAT scene on stage with actual rain. To be fair, it wasn't "actual" rain! I've seen a number of screen to stage musicals: Singing' in the Rain, Wizard of Oz, Top Hat, High Society, 42nd Street, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Dr Doolittle etc. I've enjoyed them all; I think it's because it's interesting to see how they tackle the challenge of reproducing cinematic effects within the limitations of a stage show. And the stories and songs are usually wonderful, which is why I assume they make the effort to transfer them in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Sept 9, 2016 10:00:30 GMT
...there's just something amazing about seeing THAT scene on stage with actual rain. To be fair, it wasn't "actual" rain! I've seen a number of screen to stage musicals: Singing' in the Rain, Wizard of Oz, Top Hat, High Society, 42nd Street, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Dr Doolittle etc. I've enjoyed them all; I think it's because it's interesting to see how they tackle the challenge of reproducing cinematic effects within the limitations of a stage show. And the stories and songs are usually wonderful, which is why I assume they make the effort to transfer them in the first place. I knew I'd be hoisted on my own something or other 42nd Street on stage - Loved it. Pretty sure we saw the first change of cast with someone called Catherine Zeta Jones. Wonder whatever..... Spoiler alert. the curtain rising just enough to see the tapping feet and the BANG with the I'm in the money props. Fantastic Theater. Didn't feel like it was trying to recreate Busby Berkeley at all. |
|
543 posts
|
Post by freckles on Sept 9, 2016 10:29:09 GMT
I think you just have to accept that film and live theatre are different forms, each with their own advantages. Cinematography is very different to live staging, so the overall look will probably be different. In film, I love dramatic orchestrations and huge wide shot dance numbers, but I also love the immediacy of a live performance and the emotional connection you get with a good show.I personally don't think a stage version should always try and faithfully recapture the scenes from a movie, although the odd nod to the original can be nice.
|
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on Sept 9, 2016 10:34:26 GMT
...there's just something amazing about seeing THAT scene on stage with actual rain. To be fair, it wasn't "actual" rain! It wasn't? What was it then? And why did they claim the first rows were a splash zone? I was pretty sure it was water. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 10:57:48 GMT
Possibly schuttep is being a little pedantic, as "actual rain" would imply that the theatre had no roof rather than a tank up in the flies. Water, yes. Rain, not *technically*.  |
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on Sept 9, 2016 11:16:45 GMT
Aaah, okay. Whew. I was starting to worry about my own senses  |
|
421 posts
|
Post by schuttep on Sept 14, 2016 8:32:52 GMT
Possibly schuttep is being a little pedantic, as "actual rain" would imply that the theatre had no roof rather than a tank up in the flies. Water, yes. Rain, not *technically*. Thank you. That's what I meant. Pedantic, yes! Vicious, I hope not. |
|
46 posts
|
Post by chrisorsomething on Sept 14, 2016 10:24:16 GMT
They are generally very disappointing, in my opinion.
Mary Poppins is the shining example for me: I came away completely cold from what was an extremely slick and polished production. I think Julie Andrews is so synonymously attached to the role that the average popular young stage actress du jour is just not going to cut it for me. Even if they are doing what is ostensibly a Julie Andrews impersonation. In that particular show, as visually arresting as it was, I felt the new material was weak as well, really adding nothing new to the movie and taking a whole lot away,
The Wizard of Oz - I felt exactly the same. The producers essentially sell the show through nostalgia of the movie. The problem there is that in these two examples I wished I was home watching the much superior movies!
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Sept 15, 2016 6:42:22 GMT
If you give the new versions a chance, yes. Of course Top Hat will lack Fred and Ginger, and so on, but if you put them to one side, you should enjoy.
Incidentally though many revived stage musicals are better known from the classic films - Guys and Dolls, My Fair Lady, Gypsy, Show Boat, The King and I - but again, same principle.
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Sept 15, 2016 6:54:45 GMT
Mary Poppins is pretty amazing. They've done great with that one.
Legally Blonde was more suited to a musical than a film, in my opinion. A big improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2016 21:59:25 GMT
I loved Singin in the Rain, but I can't think of any others that I've been quite so fond of. Matilda is great as a musical, but I much prefer the film. Same with Legally Blonde.
|
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2016 23:00:21 GMT
Hairspray is a good example no ones mentioned yet. Which has the rarer distinction of being turned back into a film again as a musical.
There's no reason an adaptation of something can't be better than what it comes from, but obviously if you've fallen in love with the source material then you're going to be predisposed to being disappointed if the adaptation isn't objectively much better than it. The best shows will adapt different aspects than originally focuses on and do something different. Bring out other emotions or concepts, develop characters in different ways.
Musicals in particular are guilty of almost always being adaptations of something (I notice no ones complaining about shows not being better than the novels they're adapted from), both because it's easier to take a story that already works on some levels and develop it, and because classically they sell better. Much better. New original musicals are a nightmare to get produced.
So there's nothing wrong with good adaptations, I certainly have never had the attitude that classic films shouldn't be transformed for the stage, as long as it's done well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Sept 16, 2016 12:24:17 GMT
Grease is an odd one. Did OK on Broadway, badly in London originally. Got a revised score for the movie, then the new "Grease Is The Word" which mixed both stage and screen went on to be a stage smash hit. I saw whichever version of Grease about 15 years ago during its last week. It was in the top 5 all time bad nights I've had in the West End. You got the feeling the cast had had their only rehearsal that PM. At least half the cast were watching and copying the handjive movements from the person standing next to them. The leads were...errr...oh thats right, I forgot them the moment the closed their mouths. We took some friends who had never been to the West End. They thought it was fantastic. And that is how producers get away with it. (PS highly debatable if Grease is "great". Fun yes but....) |
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on Sept 16, 2016 13:00:30 GMT
IMHO Grease often suffers from bad casting. These kids are... well, kids. Teenagers, who behave like foolish teenagers virtually all the time. As soon as you cast them with performers in their mid-twenties it all starts looking very silly. The recent TV version with the albeit hunky but way too mature Aaron Tveit was a case in point. But when it's done well, it can be fun.
The best Grease I ever saw was a lucky accident - it was playing in Rome while I was visiting and I had nothing better to do that evening, so I bought a ticket despite my Italian being limited to "una pizza per favore". I had a fantastic time because general Italian male body language and the wannabe macho attitude of the T-Birds were a match made in musical heaven.
|
|
631 posts
|
Post by ncbears on Sept 16, 2016 13:57:26 GMT
Two movie musicals that worked well on stage, in my opnion: 42d Street and The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. The first, because it is episodic enough to just highlight the musical numbers. The second because the score is so beautiful that the transfer seemed simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Sept 16, 2016 15:25:18 GMT
I Thoroughly enjoyed SITR on tour; it had a classic warmth to it. When Grease first opened at the Dominion it was at least grand enough to be a hollow spectacle. Anything since has been greatly reduced and uninspiring.
Re-inventing like with 'Legally Blonde' and 'Hairspray' has reaped great rewards. Both are enjoyable and feel good , kind of like putting an over amplified megamix at the end of a show so that you leave on a high.
|
|
