Do You Want a FAITHFUL Movie Adaptation or Not?

[Sleeth1]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 9:41pm

HAIRSPRAY, the movie,appears to be a hit! Good news, too - since it's very faithful to the Broadway musical. The cast actually breaks out in song! "Good Morning, Baltimore" bolts off the screen with delight as if to say "This is a musical - deal with it".
Recently, movie adaptations have tip-toed around the fact that they are based on musicals. The film versions of DREAMGIRLS and (yes) CHICAGO changed their scripts to accomidate extra stage performances, dreams and all kinds of rediculousness so that the singing by the characters would not look so "theatrical". Apparently it worked, because those two films were hits. CHICAGO even won "Best Picture" at the Oscar's that year.
Faithful adaptations, such as The Phantom of the Opera and Rent, never caught on at the box-office, and were universally panned by critics. The "operatic" style of both were were too "weird" for movie audiences (Evita was not a hit, either).
For me, the only slight problem with RENT and PHANTOM, is that a couple of times they stop for their "dialogue moments", keeping them from being an almost exact replica of their stage versions. I loved both of them on stage, and I felt the same excitement when I saw them at the movies! I have friends who love BOTH of the movies, though they've never seen the stage versions. They don't know (or care) that the RENT characters are a little older than they were on stage, and they love the "intimacy" (which is missing on stage) of the romance (all be it simply implicated) between Christine and the Phantom. They (we) think the voices are all just fine!
So which do you prefer? If you hated RENT and PHANTOM... then you must be hoping that more musical adaptations take the "we're not a musical" stance. But you love HAIRSPRAY, right? To me watching the movie versions of RENT, PHANTOM and HAIRSPRAY are like being on the front row at the theatre. They're faithful... and I can see the expressions, the joy, and the sorrows right up close. Movies like DREAMGIRLS and CHICAGO have re-formatted their film versions to be something where all the musical numbers take place on a stage somewhere (or in someone's fantasy/dream). That's being chicken! You know what I think? If you don't like musicals... go see something else! Even The Fantasticks movie sat on the shelves all those years. Why? Because it was a faithful adaptation. If you've never seen it, check it out - it's wonderful.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 9:45pm

If it suits the movie (My Fair Lady) sure, do a faithful adaptation.

If it doesn't (Cabaret), then change it to fit the SCREEN. Make it a movie, NOT a flimed stage show.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 9:52pm

wonderfulwizard said it perfectly. Make it a good MOVIE.

[mattonstage]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 9:53pm

I have always loved the film version of Cabaret, and Bob Fosse is a God, but...after seeing the Broadway revival, I am convinced I'd love to see a faithful adaptation of it on screen. Keep Fraulien Schneider and Herr Schultz, keep "So What", "It Couldn't Please Me More", "What Would You Do", etc. Get Mendes or Marshall to direct it. The story lines have much more impact to me than the original film version.
I loved Chicago though, Dreamgirls not as much. But you're right, it's a shame the "general public" can't appreciate movie musicals anymore, unless they're manipulated into thinking it's all in someone's head.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 9:57pm

Okay, the least of the problems with THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, RENT, and THE PRODUCERS is that the characters burst out in song and dance without any "device" a la CHICAGO.
The problem with those films is that they're...well...terrible movies. Their flaws have been discussed multiple times, RENT suffers from some terrible acting (Adam Pascal), awkward transition into the songs ("One Song Glory," "Another Day"), and lackluster musical sequences ("Out Tonight"--which was only saved by Rosario Dawson's impeccable performance). PHANTOM was just one of the most boring movies I've ever seen, never mind the fact that Christine not only had no voice but was as bland as can be. And what wasn't wrong with THE PRODUCERS?
It wasn't that they were faithful to the script or not, it was that they were badly done. There's a difference between faithful to the script and bursting out into song.
HAIRSPRAY works as a film both because Shankman wasn't afraid to make a musical but because he wasn't afraid to make a movie out of a musical. He knew how to incorporate the songs without it seeming odd, he got top-notch actors (with some exceptions), a leading lady that rocked her scenes, and even if I didn't go ga-ga over the movie, he had much better material to work with than RENT, PHANTOM, or THE PRODUCERS.
I particularly loved CHICAGO and DREAMGIRLS over all the films listed above. Not because they used "devices" but because they were great FILMS, they weren't a sad shadow of the theater version.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 9:58pm

Btw, Hairpsray isn't nearly as faithful as you're making it out to be. As opposed to Rent and Phantom, which are only different from their original sources by taking a verse from a song and ,poorly, altering it to dialogue. Hairspray adds new scenes, songs, characters, and mini plot lines that the show didn't have. Hairspray had good material in the score and the original movie and used it as its core but not as its actual being. My general theory is, if you want the show-go friggin' see it. Movies are another medium and sometimes alterations to the material (drastic and otherwise) are required.

Updated On: 8/10/07 at 09:58 PM

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:02pm

That's true.

And didn't Fosse make Cabaret the way he did because he couldn't find a good way to film the subplot?

[wickedfan]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:06pm

Most likely. I hate the original libretto of Cabaret...at least regarding the Fraulein Schneider subplot. It was re-worked so much better for the revival (an altogether superior libretto). Not to mention the way the original material ends is so lackluster, the movie made a much better one. Also, Fosse managed to re-imagine how to film a scene (ala "Mein Herr").

[Funny Face]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:12pm

I prefer good over anything else.

[Kringas]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:18pm

The movie version of ReNt was not that slavishly faithful, either. And it sucked. It was marred by shoddy direction, a terrible script and a mediocre cast. Although I know I'm in the minority here, I thought the original cast held their own while Dawson (with that strange voice that was clearly run through a computer) and Thoms (who was the stagiest of the bunch) were a mess. The movie is self-conscious and embarrassing.

Hairspray is the first movie musical since Chicago where all the musical numbers work. And it's done a part to dispel the bs that audiences can't handle movies in which the characters just burst into song. Though some will try to wave that away by dismissing it because it's campy and light. It still works better than 90% of the movie musicals made since the 70s.

Hairspray may be fluff, but it never insults its audience because they like musicals and most importantly, it's never embarrassed by the fact that it's a musical, something that can't be said for everyone's beloved Dreamgirls

[BroadwayEnthusiast2]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:24pm

Well said, Kringas.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:33pm

The problem with these "modern" movie musicals is that they even need some sort of device in which the characters sing.

Now they have to disguise it as the characters performing on stage or something. I think what worked for HAIRSPRAY was they went balls out and just let the characters sing. Unlike RENT, which somehow turned each musical sequence into a music video.

DREAMGIRLS tried to do both, which made the non-performance songs look hokey (not to mention the fact that the lyrics to the song "Family" are embarrassingly cheesy in a medium as intimate as film).

If filmmakers spend their time trying to figure out how to disguise the songs, perhaps the movie shouldn't be made.

I actually think SWEENEY TODD is going to work extremely well. Besides fantastic material and great actors (not singers, actors first and foremost who can sell the songs) Tim Burton has used singing before and quite successfully (NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS).

It does seem that the movies that do work with having characters break out in song are the overly bubbly (like HAIRSPRAY) and the overly dark. All others must watch out.

[Funny Face]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:38pm

I have never seen Rent all the way through, but of what I did see, I just really disliked the pacing, i think. I felt like there was no energy or excitement. I mean, I know it's no Hairspray, but even Out Tonight and Tango: Maureen were really awkwardly subdued to me.
Updated On: 8/10/07 at 10:38 PM

[Dirty_Rotten_Guy]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:44pm

Actual, I think one of the reasons why HAIRSPRAY works for me is because its NOT a faithful adaption of the stage show
Sure, they aren't afraid to burst into song, but what I loved about HAIRSPRAY was how it was so different from the show- many of the songs were in different places in the film, and many scenes were new in the movie and not just taken from the stage show.

I dont know if that makes sense, but I just hope more directors are able to make a movie musical its OWN, instead of just making it a nicely filmed version of the show.

Movie musicals that are different- theyre time is coming :)

[James885]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:53pm

I would much rather see a film director's cinematic interpretation of the material (Chicago) rather than see the same exact scenes from the show on screen (The Producers).

Directors of movie musicals are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place because there are always going to be people who want a direct-scene-by-scene film version of the musical, but if they do that then there will be people who will say that they should have taken liberties with the material and put their own spin on it.

Take the example of Sweeney Todd. In the other thread, there were people who seemed to be surprised by Mrs. Lovett's costume in the picture. Her costume was probably not going to be similar to the one worn by Angela Lansbury in the original Broadway production because it is a film adaptation of the musical and not a film version of the musical.

Updated On: 8/10/07 at 10:53 PM

[pharmer2000]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 10:55pm

It must be a very tricky thing to make a movie musical. It must stay true to the source material at the same time as appealing to a "movie" audiance. I am a big fan of movie musicals mainly for the sole reason that it may be the only way that I can enjoy a show over and over again, besides listening to the OBC recording. For this reason, I have enjoyed movie musicals like Rent and Hairspray. I really enjoy the Rogers and Hammerstein classics as well. But if I want a truly faithful stage representation, I enjoy watching actual filmed performances such as Richard Harris in the Camelot revival, Sunday in the Park with George, Sweeney Todd, and yes, even Hasselhoffs Jekyll and Hyde. But the bottom line is, nothing beats seeing the show live at the theater.

[crushgroove]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 11:13pm

The root of the problem is the directors...
Both Chris Columbus (RENT) and Joel Schumacher (PHANTOM) ARE NOT theatre people and weren't equipped to transfer these shows into a new medium.

Adam Shankman (HAIRSPRAY) and Rob Marshall (CHICAGO)have backgrounds in both film and theatre and knew what do to in with film to broaden these shows beyond the procenium.

Obviously there are 2 exceptions...

Good:
Bill Condon (DREAMGIRLS) who doesn't have a huge background in theatre, but I think he has a profound love for it that it compensates for a lack of background...and he also worked on Chicago.

Bad:
Susan Stroman (THE PRODUCERS) has a backgound in just theatre. Her only film experience is largely choreography and she directed Contact for TV (but that was a filmed performance of the stage show).

So let me recap...background in both stage and film, good...background in both one and not the other...a crapshoot.

[pharmer2000]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 11:16pm

Crush,
very good point!

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/10/07 at 11:25pm

I don't really think that Dreamgirls was ashamed to be a musical. They kept some of the "dialogue" songs. I will admit that the transitions sucked monkeys, though.

[Taryn]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 12:25am

How were the characters in Chicago supposed to break out into song when the songs are designed to be vaudeville numbers in front of an audience? I don't get why people always criticize it for "not having the guts to do musical numbers without a narrative device."

I really don't think that's the problem at all. Some of these movies are just bad, some of them are just good.

In terms of adaptations, I really don't care. I just want a GOOD MOVIE. It's all just about recognizing the differences in the media of theatre and film and being willing to adapt to make the best possible FILM, not the best possible filmed stage production.

[Necromancer07707]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 12:29am

The message meant to be conveyed by the author of the text is most important. So if making sacrifices in order for the general population to understand and appreciate that message better, then more power to you.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 12:39am

I agree Taryn. I realize I had written about CHICAGO and CABARET in my post, but removed those paragraphs.

Anyway, it's rare that musicals allow for such a separation on music and plot.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 12:57am

I hate the original libretto of Cabaret...at least regarding the Fraulein Schneider subplot. It was re-worked so much better for the revival (an altogether superior libretto).

Wickedfan, I am not sure what you mean. The Schneider/Schultz script is almost word for word the same (aside from deleting "Meeskite" in the revival.) It is the Sally-Cliff scenes that have been re-written.

As for failthful film adaptations, in the 30s and 40s there were practically none. ANNIE GET YOUR GUN was fairly faithful. R&H saw to it that the films of their shows were reasonably faithful. But a faithful film does not necessarily mean a great film. MY FAIR LADY is faithful (and carefully done) but rather stodgy.

[sondhead]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 1:44am

"R&H saw to it that the films of their shows were reasonably faithful."

I'd say Sound of Music was pretty different, and it was its differences that made it soar.

There is a LOT more to making a good movie musical than just whether or not it is a close adaptation and/or whether or not it contains flat out singing as opposed to dream sequences. As others have said, Phantom and Rent and Producers were all bad for lots of reasons. I'll get flamed but I'd say a chief reason Phantom was not well received is because its source material was never much more than a fluffy excuse for a collapsing chandelier. As far as story telling goes it stinks and it being a movie only accentuated that. Having horrible singers playing all the roles doesn't exactly help either.

I'd say we should all be mature enough to be able to separate a stage musical and a film. I want a stage musical to be as good as it can be regardless of the source it may come from. That would mean in my perfect world movie adaptations like Young Frankenstein and Producers could have been less their original movies with songs inserted and more an original musical that happens to tell the same story as the movie on which its based. What a notion *gasp*. A movie should be the same way. The movie should be the best that it can be regardless of the source it comes from. They call them big screen ADAPTATIONS for a reason. Chicago would have been ridiculous had it employed the stage's vaudeville-always theme. What people are calling "whimping out" are what made specifically CHICAGO good and that success has nothing to do with the medium as a whole--it only means that it was the right way to go when adapting Chicago.

[Sleeth1]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 1:50am

"Now they have to disguise it as the characters performing on stage or something. I think what worked for HAIRSPRAY was they went balls out and just let the characters sing. Unlike RENT, which somehow turned each musical sequence into a music video".

But the STAGE version of RENT is all "musical sequences" - It's nothing but music (just like Phantom, Evita, Miss Saigon, Sunset Boulevard, etc). Balls OUT are films like RENT & PHANTOM where they (for the most part) kept the entire musical score intact. You're certainly welcome to your opinion... just makes me a little sad sometimes. PHANTOM (20 years) and RENT (11) (Is that right?) have to suffer the whole "miscarriage" that their movie versions were "terrible". I LOVED BOTH! They were faithful to their origins; moving, touching and actually ABOUT something for a change.
I had a dream about 2 months before RENT came out at the movie theatres. I thought that it would be the biggest movie version of a Broadway play EVER! I thought - it's going to appeal to so many age groups... it's going to show that young people are thoughtful, intuitive... and caring. This was, essentially, their chance to show what a musical movie of THEIR generation was about... and had to say. I thought it was going to change thoughts about gays, transgenders... and most importantly create a statement about the pity of AIDS... and how we should all understand it's importance. It DIDN'T. I think it still creates a wave on Broadway, though. RENT would not still BE on Broadway if it weren't for young people. They "drag" their friends and parents - then THOSE people tell others how great it was. RENT is a true PHENOMENON. I think that people who watch the movie feel the same way. It's actually ABOUT something, for a change.