Oh, and I saw Chicago with Kayla---boy oh boy! It was fabulous, I couldn't help but dance, very moving.
"Moulin Rouge" did have original music and one original song in it -- I was at first taken aback by the juxtuposition of contemporary music with the turn-of-the-century setting but it's stylistic and one either responds to the style or doesn't (just like painting). The shows at Moulin Rouge were the live music "videos" of the day.
The blond wig was one of the most brilliant sight gags in film -- Cameron Diaz' "mousse" in "There's Something About Mary" being one of the others.
The original stage musical was written with a satirical outlook on the media, political and legal corruption of Chicago in the 20's which the thugs in our society have tried to refine into "just doing business" with the corporate scandals of today. It's about fame and how it's obtained. Putting music to it is an inspiration, just as valid as putting music to "The Berlin Stories" of "Cabaret." "Cabaret" was the seed of the modern stage musical, recently manifested in "Urine Town." Of course, I can't discount the contributions of Leonard Bernstein and we might not have a Sondheim without Ebb and Kander, Bernstein, for for that matter, Gilbert and Sullivan. It's and exciting medium because it continues to evolve. "Moulin Rouge" and "Chicago" I hope are waves of the future for the musical film.
You bring up some good points.
Aw, shucks, just off the top of my pointy little head!
BTW, Welcome Bluxx to A2K!
We're going to be down for two days, likely over the weekend to reload the site programming into it's own server. Meanwhile, enjoy the movie and other discussions.
Lightwizard<
Thanks for the thumbs up re: the down time. It is good of you to keep us informed.
Hey... They don't call him the "Almighty Grand Exalted Lightwizard" for nuthin'. :wink:
Oh, now, Boo -- I'm only Almighty, Grand and Exalted on the first Thursday of every month and that's only because of the drugs Kevin Eubanks donates.
But it's just so darn fun.
John C. Reilly's rendition of "Mr. Cellophane" was not a show stopper because his big scene was cut so many times and visually obscured (rear shot) toward the end of his number that I became incensed.
Having seen "Chicago " twice on Broadway, both the original version in 1975 and the revival in 1996, the movie version of "Mr. Cellophane" missed it's mark.
The "Cellophane" number is supposed to be the counterpoint to the hard edged storyline. The story is supposed to move quickly with biting dialogue and punctuated by incredible dance numbers.
Representing the play's humanity, the "Mr Cellophane" number arrives and the pace is supposed to stop dead and Amos (Roxie's husband) is to deliver the song in a very low key way looking directly at the audience or the viewer.
Director Rob Marshall also missed with his choreography of the dance numbers. I realize the Fosse choreography from the play required high level dancing skills but Marshall could have modified the choreography so Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellweger could have appeared to have the flavor of the Fosse moves. Most of the movie's dance numbers we uninspired with many cuts and they lacked fluidity.
Even with all "Chicago's" faults, I can understand why everyone enjoyed the film. It's timing was perfect following "Moulin Rouge" and the music of Kander and Ebb is solid gold.
Dance is never going to look as good on the two-dimensional screen and Broadway musicals live have an instrinsic visceral excitement that is nearly always lost on film. Cinematically, the film works but one's assessment will diminish with seeing Fosse's original (which only did moderate business and did not get the acclaim from the critics of "Cabaret.") Clearly, to me, the shot of Reilly playing to "the footlights" at the end was strictly cinematic and worked for me. Film is always going to be in that quandry of adapting something from the stage without the staginess and extrapolating it cinematically so that it bears little resemblance to the original. I thought the adaptation was adept and effective as film. I actually found "Mr. Cellophane" to be better in the film than onstage but perhaps I saw a less potent stage performance.
Welcome back LW! I wondered where you'd been...
Lightwizard:
We generally agree on most films but in the case of Rob Marshall's direction of "Chicago", I stand by my opinion of the film's poor choreography since Marshall himself was the choreographer.
Also the film editing was particulary jumpy. I don't know who selected Martin Walsh as the editor but the final cut of the film hindered the story and the dance sequences were so short and choppy they left you unsatisified.
To put it clearly, the film's scenes were underdeveloped. I guess the powers to be made the film for an audience with a short attention span--which is fine it's their money and film--but in my mind the film was not a creative success. To totally ignore Fosse's choregraphy from the play "Chicago" was a great oversight on their part.
In the dance scenes, I did not like the copycat background of the multi-tiered backlit dancers/figures which they took from the following two musical films: "Jailhouse Rock" and "Golddiggers of 1933".
couzz<
When trying to compare a film with its original source, you do a disservice to both works. Each artist -- novelist, playwright, non-fiction writer -- works on his/her own level. The same can be said of the filmmaker.
I have many fond memories of the stage version of Chicago. Transforming this daring musical to celluloid changed its point of view but that does not mean the film is an inferior work. Chicago, as a play, was quite intimate. On the screen, its characters become larger than life because the screen itself is larger than any person.
As for "Mr. Cellophane," I thought that under Rob Marshall's cogent direction, John C. Reilly provided the film's most touching moment in this number. In the true spirit of musical comedy, the number explained Mr.
Reilly's character, thus moving the story along.
The number does the same thing in the play. It is a showstopper in both film and play because it is actually out-of-synch with the other numbers and their stagings. The play's originality does not mean that the film is unoriginal. It just means we have two different interpretations of the same artistic material. A comparison is unfair to the creators of each work because they each should stand alone.
williamhenry3
Fosse, Kander and Ebb produced a masterwork. There is no disservice in praising these talents that made the 1926 drama "Chicago" into a musical with incredible choreography.
They are just a tough act to follow.
couzz<
The stage play of Chicago is indeed a "masterwork" of American musical theatre.
The motion picture of Chicago is indeed a "masterwork" of American musical cinema.
The fact that these two "masterworks" come from different masters with separate visions diminishes neither.
It is true that much of the Fosse choreography was referred back to, espcially in "All That Jazz" (well known as Fosse's tribute to dancing in film as well as an autobiography in the film of the same name). His own staged musical, "Fosse", was taped live on stage and just doesn't come off as well as a live stage performance while the recent Sondheim "Putting It Together" on HBO did succeed in capturing much of the stage prescence. I agree with WH that the medium was served well by Rob Murrow's concept of the stage musical as a film. I enjoyed both the stage version and the film version for different reasons. The original stage version lost much of the satirical viewpoint which was present in "Cabaret." Having seen it in the original stage version but not in the revival, I am a little of a loss as to the effectiveness of the newer version.
One reason dance often fails on screen, is because dumb, directors get too cute with the camera work. Why can't they just keep simple? All those angles, and partial body shots have me actually cussin' at screen.
It's good to see life in this thread again, especially since I went to see Chicago after I thought this thread had finally come to its end.
I LOVED the movie!! It is impossible for me to make comparisons to the stage version, never having seen it, but the film was magical.
It gives me real hope that musicals will make a reappearance. Loved the songs, the double scenes, the sleaze uplifted by imagination to razzle dazzle, the dancing, the energy and the amazing acting. I am now a big fan of Queen Latifah.
I agree about Mr. Cellophane. It was existential in a tender sort of way. As a stark contrast to the rest of the film, it was an effective showcase for the one pure soul in the cast of characters. John C. Reilly was perfect as the only honest and loyal person in the group, who was considered a loser in the eyes of all the others.
I have to go see it again--for the sheer pleasure of it and for a closer look at what made it so incredibly, dizzyingly good.
