MovieChat Forums > Singin' in the Rain (1952) Discussion > Why Singin' in the Rain is NOT the great...

Why Singin' in the Rain is NOT the greatest movie musical of all time


First, I want to make it very clear that I actually like Singin' in the Rain very much. It's hilarious and has some of the most spectacular choreography ever captured on film. However, I don't think people should continue labeling it as the greatest movie musical of all time. If you ask me, the most effective musicals use the songs to help tell the story. The songs in Singin' in the Rain interrupt the story. "Moses Supposes" is a good example of this. The characters are supposed to be having a diction lesson so that they can adapt to sound films, but they interrupt the lesson to have a big tap-dancing number. I realize that Singin' in the Rain was just trying to imitate the style of the movie musicals of the late 20's and early 30's. The definitive musical storytelling style didn't come along until Oklahoma! opened on Broadway in 1943. That was the first time that songs, dances, and dialogue all played an equal part in telling the story and showing character development. This is considered the superior musical format and is still used with new musicals today. If any movie musical is labeled as the greatest of all time, shouldn't it be one that uses this superior format? There's also one major issue with Singin' in the Rain that I'm surprised nobody ever brings up. I don't buy the idea that they could redo The Dueling Cavalier as a musical in just six weeks. They'd have to write a bunch of new songs, choreograph some dances, make sure the actors have mastered the dances, film all the new scenes, rerecord any songs that need it (Lina's), and edit the picture together, all in only six weeks. They may have put movies together a lot more quickly back in 1927, but when you consider the writing of new songs and the choreographing of complicated dance routines (like the big ballet sequence), it seems ridiculously far-fetched that they could put all that together so quickly. If an important plot point in a movie musical forces us to suspend our disbelief at such an extreme, it shouldn't be considered the greatest of all time.

reply

However, I don't think people should continue labeling it as the greatest movie musical of all time.




Taste is subjective. If you don't think "Singin' in the Rain" is the greatest movie musical of all time, that's fine - no one is saying that's how you HAVE to feel. But you can't regulate how other people feel. And if someone else thinks it's the greatest, that's perfectly valid. Whatever people consider "the greatest" will be entirely in the eye of the beholder. I'm aware the film isn't flawless, but if someone asked me what I thought the greatest movie musical of all time was, I'd say "Singin' in the Rain" in a heartbeat (with "Wizard of Oz" and "The Music Man" running close behind).

But that's just me. And if someone else feels differently, that's OK too. But I'm not going to go around saying "You think that film is the greatest? You shouldn't, because I don't think it is." Making statements like that not only smacks of intolerance, it's absurd.

reply

[deleted]

Well said murph.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply

If you ask me, the most effective musicals use the songs to help tell the story. ... The definitive musical storytelling style didn't come along until Oklahoma! opened on Broadway in 1943. That was the first time that songs, dances, and dialogue all played an equal part in telling the story and showing character development. This is considered the superior musical format and is still used with new musicals today.


The Oklahoma!-style integrated musical--with mostly non-diegetic musical numbers growing directly out of the characters and the narrative--is merely one approach to musical theater storytelling (and even Rodgers & Hammerstein didn't restrict themselves to this model). There were lots of experiments in this direction before 1943, but yes, the shows that shortly followed Oklahoma! made their point with the audience, who began to see anything different from that as old-fashioned. This template dominated Broadway for about twenty years, from the mid-40s to the mid-60s, but it is not universally considered the "superior musical format." There is no such thing; there is only the appropriate approach for the individual project.

Cabaret in 1966 was maybe the first successful Broadway musical to attempt to break the Rodgers-&-Hammerstein mold, although there had been attempts to buck the trend before that (e.g. the brilliant Love Life in 1948), and creators of musical theater have continued to experiment with such devices as numbers interrupting the dramatic action to comment upon it (as in Company and Chicago) and diegetic "performance" numbers serving the same purpose (as in Follies). We are now in an era where anything goes, and only the creators' firm grip on their concept and the material need to define what the rules are.

I would also say that you are confusing the needs of the stage and the needs of film, and they are quite different. This "integrated" musical format only gradually seeped into the movies by way of Broadway's influence, and never really dominated in Hollywood anyway. For every Annie Get Your Gun and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers there are a dozen movies with Betty Grable, Elvis Presley and others, movies with all the numbers on a stage of some kind, having nothing to do with the story. And thank goodness. Even during the Rodgers-&-Hammerstein era, it was always difficult to sustain the fun without resorting to such non-narrative numbers as "Honey Bun" in South Pacific and "Shipoopi" (wtf?!) in The Music Man.

So I suggest you discard the idea that any one format, for film or stage, is superior. You may also want to see a lot more musicals and see how incredibly varied and creative the use of words and music in musicals have been put to.

And I am not worried about suspending my disbelief in musicals (or much anything else). Sometimes it is my very disbelief that provides me my greatest pleasure! Different movies require different things from us, and to expect Singin' in the Rain to play by the same rules as On the Waterfront is not an attitude I would expect from anyone who has seen more than one movie.






I don't know if it's "really wacky," but your French is coming along.

reply

Man, what an extremely interesting post. I didn't know anything about that. I even had to google the term "diegetic". Thank you for helping me learn lots of new stuff about musicals!

reply

Owned.

reply

DryToast has provided a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and well-written response to the original poster. Unfortunately, IMDB has decided to cut off these message boards, so there will be no more of this kind of discussion among film fans.

reply

One of the greatest answers of all-time, ladies and gents!

reply

@Brent

Which is your favorite movie musical? Was it Oklahoma or another?
Just curious.

reply

Another overthinker. This kind of thinking could screw up a one car funeral.

Really. Who CARES if they could get it done in six weeks or not? First of all, they probably could because they weren't distracted by cellphone, iPods, and other technology. They had nothing but time on their hands. But the point is, IT'S A MOVIE!

###

reply

Of COURSE calling SITR "the greatest musical ever made" is arguable. But
how many films would even be remotely considered? I far prefer "The
Band Wagon", but SITR is a nearly perfect film, along with "Meet Me in
St. Louis" (which, to me, is totally perfect), "The Wizard of Oz" and
"West Side Story."

reply

Singing in the Rain is the greatest musical of all time without question. :p

reply

Paragraphs--who needs 'em?


"Your petty vengeance fetish will have to do withOUT Mr. Groin!"

reply