"Chicago!"

I saw 'Chicago' yesterday. It was even better than I expected, and I expected a lot after following this thread. Great performances all around, great musical numbers, choreography, costumes, etc. etc.
Most of all it was FUN!

I was especially smitten by (with?) Renee Zellwegger.

For fans of Chicago and the film musical genre, here are two links:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/news/2003-02-04-lullaby_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-02-04-chicago_x.htm

Any comments

I'm not that impressed -- "Sweeney Todd" is a great work, more in the realm of light opera than a musical comedy and I'm still dubious about its acceptance by a general audience. I have the DVD of the PBS special and the "Sweeney Todd in Concert" was recently aired, now on Trio. It looks like they are vacilating because they're worried about finding an audience in the multi-plex. I think they may be right.

"Contact" has also been taped for a PBS special and is a plotless musical review -- a film of the calibre of "Chicago?" I don't think so.

"De-Lovely" has some great Cole Porter songs but Kevin Kline? A little long -in-the-tooth for a romantic lead, especially in a musical.
Can he sing? Or will it be dubbed. I think the age of dubbed musicals has long passed and Rob Murrow realized this.

Another remake with "Jesus Christ, Superstar." Real creative. "Phantom" must be too expensive for a gamble. The recent PBS broadcast of "Cats" from on-stage was very good but not perfect. "Evita" was good but I believe they made an error in having left out the spoken storyline. Lukewarm box office didn't light a far under the filmed musical.

"Chicago" has aspects that made it filmmable and someone smart realized that -- it's cinematic qualities were built in (it was made as a farce twice before, in 1949 with Ginger Rogers as "Roxie Hart"). "Cabaret" was more difficult as it had a story built in that required some intense acting ability. I think "Cabaret" is the best filmed Broadway musical with "Oliver" and "My Fair Lady" not far behind. This seems to change as I see these films again over the years.

Like I said before, what's wrong with them that they don't recognized the cinematic possibilities with, say, "Follies" or "City of Angels?" Hollywood has a problem selecting material and will go for the bargain, not wanting to take a chance on the high priced rights to some more recent, excellent musicals. Baz Luhrman prooved you could take pop songs and clothe them in an extravaganza and come up with an inventive film. I think the hope of the future in filmed musicals is with Rob Murrow and Baz Luhrman. We don't need any more abortions by non-musical directors like Richard Attenborough ("Chorus Line" put the death knell of the filmed Broadway musical in the 70's).

I'm waiting to see what they do with "The Music Man" on the television production (although we'll have to endure commercial breaks, if it's good, it will be worth owning on video like the Bette Midler "Gypsy").

Kevin Kline can sing! I saw him as The Pirate King in Pirates of Penzance and he can definitely sing! And he's only two years older than Richard Gere. He can play romantic leads for me anyday...

I second everything mac said about Kevin Kline, and would add that he's won two Tony's for his roles in musicals: best actor in a musical for The Pirates of Penzance, and best featured actor in a musical for On the Twentieth Century. Pretty good for a guy who can't sing.

Lightwizard, I share your high regard for Follies, but I wonder whether Hollywood would be willing to take a chance on it, considering that it's been a commercial flop whenever it's been produced on Broadway. Even Chicago wasn't made into a movie until after the success of the 1990's revival.

Hey, maybe someone will actually have the initiative to come out with an original musical!...........Oh stop yer laughin', a guy can dream can't he?

I fear the days of "Meet Me in St. Louis" are long gone.

I should have said can Kevin Kline still sing -- I know he could belt on the songs as the Pirate King in 1983's "Pirates of Penzance" and "One the Twentieth Century," he was quite able to handle the Cy Coleman sly, Noel Coward like jaunty melodies. Cole Porter is another case entirely for a voice now twenty years past his performances in those venues.

"Follies" is in revival in London with great reviews and hard-to-get tickets and will be headed for Broadway this season. The idea of playing up the follies production numbers could be done in flashback as well as real time. It would be an interesting musical to tackle as a film.

Way back then . . . I saw the original cast of Follies on Broadway. Lightwizard is again correct; Follies would transfer nicely to the screen. It is a knockout show. A friend and I bought plane tickets to NYC just to see Follies.

As the movie Catch Me if You Can reminded me, getting onto an airplane "way back then" was a piece of cake.

Of Meredith Willson's shows, I much prefer The Unsinkable Molly Brown over The Music Man. Speaking of which, I also liked Robert Preston better as the Mack of Mack and Mable than I did as Prof. Harold Hill.

Having seen Matthew Broderick in Brighton Beach Memoirs, I am anxious to hear his rendition of "76 Trombones" on TV.

(Is anyone on this thread just rattling on?)

I thought the Molly Brown and Music Man film versions to be run-of-mill except for Debbie Reynolds' gutsy reading of Molly.

I didn't know when I watched the TV version of Annie that I would one day be singing the praises of its director, Rob Marshall.

Lightwizard, I'm curious about your statement that Follies "is in revival in London with great reviews and hard-to-get tickets and will be headed for Broadway this season". None of the London theatre newsletters that I subscribe to list a revival of Follies currently on the boards in London. There was a revival that had a limited run at the Royal Festival Hall last summer, but as far as I know, that production closed last August and never transferred to the West End. (Interestingly, the role of Buddy was played by Henry Goodman, who briefly replaced Nathan Lane in The Producers on Broadway, only to be fired a few weeks into his engagement when Mel Brooks decided he wasn't funny enough.) And I'd be very surprised if Follies were going to be done on Broadway this season, because the Roundabout Theater Company just did a revival of it (which I saw, and greatly enjoyed, but which was not a commercial success) two years ago.

I'm completely in agreement with you that a movie version of Follies would be a fascinating project, and if someone were willing to attempt it, I'd be first in line to buy a ticket. All I'm saying is that it's unlikely anyone will ever try, given the limited commercial success Follies has had as a theatrical production.

Well, the internet sometimes offers old news with difused chronology. You are correct that the revival in London is now closed. "Follies" is a difficult show to stage and the Sondheim satirical bent may be forever lost on most theater goer's ears. The concert version of "Follies" found and audience and I don't believe Sondheim would rush out to rewrite the book. If he were to see fit to turn it over to a screenwriter to tailor the story towards the screen with a less episodic drive, it could be a great film, harking back to the old MGM musicals. I'm not sure Sondheim will ever do that and most of his output is unfilmmable as cinema. "Pacific Overtures" is one of my favorites but would be nearly impossible to make into a film. Sondheim writes for the stage so pointedly without ever considering film.

More news about Chicago, this time from the Berlin Film Festival. Go to www.reuters.com, click on "Entertainment" and you'll see this story re: Chicago and the Film Festival in general. Very interesting.

For those who have PBS in the U.S., tonight's Charlie Rose Show is on "Chicago," with Rob Marshall, Zellwegger,Queen L., and Gere.

Well, the Oscar nominees are out, and I see two mild surprises. Gere had been talked about, but no nomination. I hadn't heard a big build-up of Queen Latifah, but she got a nod.

If the Academy had a category of Best Musical or Comedy like the Golden Globes, Gere would have been in. But, sadly, they don't. It kind of skews the Best Picture award but I do think "Chicago" is going to get it. Reilly may get best supporting.

I said, that might work against him. I hate that I was right. I like Richard. I give him a Golden Boo Award, for "Internal Affairs"

Booman<

I think those who have seen Chicago will agree that Queen Latifah herself is a "big build-up." And, Ms. Latifah has that hilarious sight-gag with the blonde wig

Anyway, I usually agree with Lightwizard. Therefore, I am also giving the Best Picture nod to Chicago. I, too, was sorry to see Richard Gere left out in the cold.

Gere's probably kicking himself and his agent -- this mistake is consistently made by stars who should know better. If you offer yourself as a nominee in two conflicting categories (supporting and lead actor), you're likely to get a split vote.

Here's an interesting bit of trivia I just stumbled across. In the history of the Oscars, two men have won three acting, awards. Jack N. was one. Who is the other?

Three acting Oscar winner...
Walter Brennan won three Oscars all for supporting roles in :

Come And Get It
Kentucky
The Westerner