19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 26, 2020 18:21:12 GMT
I know we’ve had this, or a similar discussion, before but it’s ages ago so let’s go round again.
Better on film:
Grease
Cabaret
West Side Story
Better on stage:
Sunset Boulevard
Xanadu
Sweeney Todd
call me a liar 🤥
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Dec 26, 2020 18:33:41 GMT
Just explaining the massive impact of Grease on film to my 17 year old who remains unimpressed whilst watching it. I made my dad take me to see it when I was 6 then tagged along with my mum & aunty later that same week when they went. I have no idea what its’ pull is but it is a movie classic. West Side Story is pure quality end of, and the last tour nearly matched it but not quite. No other movie musical has ever really impressed me as much. I like bits of ‘Hairspray’, especially that gorgeous coda at the end of YCSTB.
|
|
|
|
Post by edi on Dec 26, 2020 18:33:46 GMT
Better on film
Hair
|
|
|
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 26, 2020 18:44:21 GMT
Saturday Night Fever, kills it on film.. meh on stage.
|
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 26, 2020 18:45:06 GMT
Obviously but Les Mis... better onstage.
|
|
2,417 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Dec 26, 2020 18:51:01 GMT
I think this one goes without saying.....Cats is better on stage! 🐱 and Rent as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2020 19:56:06 GMT
Obviously but Les Mis... better onstage. Better onstage for sure, but aside from Crowe I don't think the film is at all bad. Rent, however, should never have been made into a film, even though as a stage production it works surprisingly well in intimate settings! The Last Five Years is better onstage. Grease and Dirty Dancing are unsurprisingly better as films. |
|
1,729 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by marob on Dec 26, 2020 21:47:59 GMT
I generally prefer musicals on stage. Knowing that the actors are miming to prerecorded vocals never comes close to watching them do it live onstage in front of you.
I think I prefer Cabaret on stage. I loved the relationship between the Jewish grocer and the apathetic landlady, and their songs So What? and It Couldn’t Please Me More are among my favourite songs in the show, so I think it’s a huge shame they were cut from the film. It also has the benefit of not having to downplay the sexuality. Having said that the film’s version of Tomorrow Belongs to Me is brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by westendboy on Dec 26, 2020 21:53:47 GMT
Obviously but Les Mis... better onstage. 100% agree. Whilst I don't think the film is bad, there were a lot of questionable casting choices. I know Russell Crowe gets a lot of flack (which I do agree on), but why does Hugh Jackman seem to get a free pass? If you ask me, I think he would have made a better Javert than Valjean. As for the Thenadiers, it's just Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter being Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks and Amanda Seyfield are fine though. Eddie Redmayne's singing does sound like a swan honking sometimes, but he's a better Marius than Nick Jonas. |
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 26, 2020 22:06:02 GMT
Better on film: The Sound of Music, because no stage production has/is ever going to be able to match that scenery!
|
|
8,107 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Dec 26, 2020 22:40:08 GMT
Into The Woods and Sweeney Todd better on stage.
A Chorus Line far better on stage.
Mary Poppins better on film.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuttonPeron on Dec 26, 2020 23:27:52 GMT
The Sound of Music is way better on film. Not only because of the cast, but because of the huge orchestra (such a rarity these days) and especially because of the gorgeous locations it was filmed in. Julie Andrews is the definitive Maria for me. Yes, some songs were transposed, some songs of the stage musical were cut... I don’t care. I do love seeing the stage version whenever possible though.
This is more “personal”; but Evita worked great on film. I loved Madonna (precisely because she couldn’t sing, it showed she was a “nobody” with material ambitions and manipulative messages). Banderas and Pryce are excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 12:15:38 GMT
Chicago (2002) is by far the best film adaption of a musical ever. I was never really in to film musicals before I got into stage musicals so can only really comment on stage to film adaptations of the last 25 years, but I agree Chicago was the only one that really worked exceptionally well and was well adapted. The fact that you could have the numbers performed on a stage in a jazz club worked massively to it's benefit. The only other one I really rate was Evita. It had an epic feel and musically was kept very close to the original with most of the score intact and performed in a classic musical theatre manner. (The apologetic speak singing of Les Mis was just horrendous). The double CD is one of my fave Evita recordings. Phantom, Les Mis, Cats all deeply underwhelming. Quite liked the remake of Hairspray but that also was very close musically to the stage show. For me the key is embracing being a musical, not apologising for it. In my opinion the best solutions to getting modern musicals on film are the staged film versions. The blu-ray of Miss Saigon is sensational. Ditto the Gielgud Les Mis and the 90s Cats film from The Adelphi with EP etc. I honestly think they shouldn't bother trying to get modern musicals done as feature films as they just never seem to pull it off. I think there are so many conflicts of interest that a decent artistic vision never comes through. The main one of course being the perception that they must have 'names' for box office and these are not usually people capable of doing the score justice. We had this conversation elsewhere, but Hollywood triple threats aren't really a thing (other than CZJ's iconic Velma Kelly, obvs). |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Dec 27, 2020 12:26:00 GMT
My problem with stage musicals on films is that they immediately assume being literal is the way to go, and therefore lose the inherent theatricality that is such an essential part of a musical on stage. It's this artifice that allows people to dance and sing comfortably within the narrative. Many films have been afraid of this, and often film trailers forget to mention that there is singing. Into the woods and Sweeney were way too literal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 12:31:29 GMT
My problem with stage musicals on films is that they immediately assume being literal is the way to go, and therefore lose the inherent theatricality that is such an essential part of a musical on stage. It's this artifice that allows people to dance and sing comfortably within the narrative. Many films have been afraid of this, and often film trailers forget to mention that there is singing. Into the woods and Sweeney were way too literal. Agree. The writing was on the wall for Cats when the first trailer came out and contained NO SINGING. For a sung through musical, that's a pretty grim omen. But yes primary stage musicals are inherently theatrical, at the risk of stating the obvious. Another obstacle in getting them to work on film. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 13:00:19 GMT
Into The Woods and Sweeney Todd better on stage. A Chorus Line far better on stage. Mary Poppins better on film. I agree about Sweeney being better on stage, but I think the film is very well done. Even Sondheim said it is the best musical to screen adaptations he has seen (including other musicals of his). I re-watched Mary Poppins the film recently and think I prefer the stage version. The film in my opinion is a bit to saccharin whereas the musical really put the story of the dysfunctional family in the centre. |
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 27, 2020 13:09:56 GMT
I didn’t enjoy The Jersey Boys on stage but absolutely hated the film version.
|
|
736 posts
|
Post by dippy on Dec 27, 2020 14:39:01 GMT
Was about to say Singin' in the Rain obviously better on film, but then I thought about the maybe 5 different versions I have seen on stage and one or two of them were so good that I can almost say better on stage, but I can't, no one is better than Gene Kelly. However, I do not like the Broadway Melody section of the film, I find it boring, I can say I have seen that section better on stage. Also the joy of real rain on stage makes it easy to love the stage version.
|
|
236 posts
|
Post by undeuxtrois on Dec 27, 2020 17:33:19 GMT
I feel like The King And I's film with Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner beats the stage version. It was one of the first film musicals I'd ever watched and I absolutely adored it. I'll sometimes look at "Shall We Dance" and rewatch that scene. However I do love that part on stage, the entire theatre silent as he puts his hand on her waist.
Nothing can beat the West Side Story film for me - I must have seen it about six times by now. The Royal Exchange's production was fantastic in the round but it didn't have as much of an emotional impact as the film did. (I might be slightly biased as I adore Natalie Wood). Looking forward to the remake next year. Rachel Zegler has a fantastic voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Dec 27, 2020 18:09:44 GMT
Was about to say Singin' in the Rain obviously better on film, but then I thought about the maybe 5 different versions I have seen on stage and one or two of them were so good that I can almost say better on stage, but I can't, no one is better than Gene Kelly. However, I do not like the Broadway Melody section of the film, I find it boring, I can say I have seen that section better on stage. Also the joy of real rain on stage makes it easy to love the stage version. Love the film, but equally loved it on tour a few years ago. So classy, funny with golden age classic choreography and can’t wait for it to hit Bristol next year 🤞. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 21:36:10 GMT
Sweeney Todd was a really great adaptation in almost every way other than the casting. I love the bleak world of London and Fleet Street, and actually think approaching it as a drama (that just happens to be sung) works too.
They’re basically different beasts, but Gentlemen Prefers Blondes is a much better movie than it is a stage musical. Perfect casting and no matter how many times I watch it, I’m never bored. My Fair Lady and Oliver are also examples of fantastic movie adaptations and are so iconic that it’s really rather hard for new stage productions to outshine them.
I’d say Once was a stronger stage musical than it was a movie, though that’s possibly because the stage musical glosses over the rough edges of the low budget movie. It’ll never win any prizes but I thought the Phantom of the Opera movie was pretty well done too.
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Dec 27, 2020 23:11:50 GMT
I thought Once was a lovely film, but the stage musical was sublime. I felt the low budget treatment, simple set and actor/musician staging all combined to make it magical. It captured the atmosphere of Dublin's bedsitland so well. Despite being a fabulous film, I also thought Billy Elliott surpassed itself on stage.
|
|
4,985 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 28, 2020 2:00:36 GMT
The Producers was a terrible film, as was The Phantom of the Opera.
I thought Mary Poppins was better on stage, as it has the stage magic and that is the wow moment.
If West Side Story wasn’t done as a film, we probably wouldn’t have heard of it today. It would have been some obscure musical like Kismet. The film brought it to the wider public attention.
Billy Elliot, well that one is a draw, as they’re very different, but both are great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2020 9:03:45 GMT
Groundhog Day better on stage.
Dreamgirls better on stage.
Back to the Future better on film.
Rocky Horror better on film.
Anyone any thoughts on Amelie?
|
|
