In no particular order, which five film versions really do a disservice to the original? My list includes:
1. A Little Night Music. Miscast, altered, some of the best songs are missing, the whole project feels cluttered.
2. A Chorus Line. Show that simply can't be translated to film. See it live or don't see it at all.
3. Camelot. See #1.
4. Mame. See #1.
5. The Fantasticks. See #2.
Your choices?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Actually, A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC was Hal Prince's second film, the first being SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE. Having seen many, many stills of scenes that never made the studio's release cut, it would be interesting to let Prince put together a "director's cut" in order to see the film he had in mind. It probably wouldn't be all that better, but probably a lot more interesting.
shareThe film ersion of Chorus Line was pretty autrocious. I still watch it just to see the choreography, but you're right that it is missing what makes the stage production so amazing. I just saw the Broadway revival in it's out of town tryout, and it was beyond description. Seriously, it's a religious experience for anyone who dances. The major issue with the movie is that they changed the story to be ALL about Cassie, cut great songs, and reassigned "what I did for love" (and made it not about dancing! What the *beep*
share1. Guys and Dolls: Fine until the end where the resolution is missing.
2. A Little Night Music: Terribly dull.
3. The Fantasticks: I'm still not sure what this was...
4. The Phantom of the Opera: Called attention to all of the stage versions
overlookable flaws.
5. Jesus Christ Superstar: Simply terrible. Jewison did much better with Fiddler.
[deleted]
Hmm... In no particular order:
1. Annie -horribly misdirected; all the charm was lost
2. A Little Night Music - too dark and desperate; terrible sound; too much of the score cut
3. A Chorus Line - just plain terrible in every possible way
4. Mame - should have been titled "Maim"
5. Jesus Christ Superstar - it was hopelessly dated before it was even released
_____________________________________________________
Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?
Well, I can't disagree with any of the ones listed here.
But I'll toss in a few additional suggestions:
1. Man of La Mancha -- as with other films mentioned here, this was badly, badly miscast (interesting attempt, but it just didn't work)
and
2. Evita -- such a disappointment after all the hype and expectation. Banderas, Pryce and Nail were fantastic; but oh dear, Madonna ... she simply can't sing. Her feeble phrasing and inadequate vocal range killed any chance the movie might have had.
and lastly
3. Sweeney Todd -- maybe not a fair call yet, but c'mon: two of the toughest roles in musical theatre cast with complete non-singers ? Great chunks of the score cut because they simply ran out of time to film them ? How much hope can you hold out for this movie ?
1. CAMELOT (1967)
Blame it all on churlish director Joshua Logan and myopic producer Jack Warner. Logan can't handle the material and Warner overproduces as usual. They should have moved mountains to get Julie Andrews and Richard Burton to recreate their stage roles and find a director who knows film and stage equally well. Richard Harris is good and can sing the material; Vanessa Redgrave is gorgegous but slaughters the songs. A huge disappointment but beautiful to look at, despite Rex Reed's carping that "you can tell what season it's supposed to be by the color of the suds they sprayed all over the screen." In the end, the power of the story holds up but not as a musical. Richard Harris once said "We [meaning he and Regrave] gave Shakespearean performances in a Disney cartoon." Not off by much, that.
2. A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC (1973)
Another ravishing show and score that's utterly desecrated by poor direction and central miscasting. Hal Prince should have known better than to sap the story of its original "night magic" by relocating the setting from Sweden to Vienna (just because of the waltzes?). Too much of the score is MIA and Elizabeth Taylor, God love her, doesn't have a clue about what it means to be in a musical. Here's another film that cried out for Julie Andrews, who would have simply glittered in the lead role. Diana Rigg is wonderful as Countess Charlotte--she would have been far better in the lead than Taylor--but otherwise, the film has little passion or energy. Nice costumes do not suffice.
3. MAME (1973)
So much has already been written about this bomb that it seems useless to point out how badly USED Lucille Ball was; I don't think she was badly cast (and I adore Lansbury), but she just didn't want to play the madcap Mame as madcap and director Gene Saks gave her nothing else to substitute. Instead, she's matronly and--well, boring and even prudish--and that doesn't work at all. Madeline Kahn was famously fired by the insecure Ball and that's too bad--she would have been a hoot as Gooch. Bea Arthur recreates her Tony-winning performance and has some fun moments but comes dangerously close to seeming like a drag queen in the role. The orchestrations are fabulous, Robert Preston was an inspirational choice for the small role of Beau, and the title number is done right.
4. SOUTH PACIFIC (1958)
Another misfire from Joshua Logan (how could he make the stage original work so well and fall flat with the film?). The stupid mood filters used by expert cinematographer Leon Shamroy were an awful idea with an awful result, but the main problem is that Mitzi Gaynor--a charming and talented dancer who could sing but not really act--fails in a great role that should have been played by Doris Day or Debbie Reynolds (who could have had an entirely different career had she snagged this part). Apart from the filters, the film looks good and it was an immense box office success--but it disappoints at virtually every turn.
5. GUYS AND DOLLS (1955)
Again, a great-looking film that ultimately fails to work as a movie. Sinatra should have played the role that Brando plays--and that's the main reason the film fails. Every time Sinatra is around (and he's fine as Nathan) we keep wanting him to turn into Sky Masterson. Brando looks, sounds and is as awkward as a popular football-playing kid who's drafted to the play the lead in a high school production. Jean Simmons is the surprise here--not as actress, but as someone who knows how to play musical comedy. She's terrific. The film's one great coup was getting Vivian Blaine and Stubby Kaye to reprise their original roles--though why they cut Blaine's BUSHEL AND A PECK is an unsolvable mystery.
"Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind."
In no particular order;
1. Showboat (1951) - They cut songs from the show and rearranged the order of others. In particular Make Believe - Ol' Man River and Can't Help Lovin dat Man should have been performed in all their stage glory. And as much as I admired Ava Gardners talents she couldn't pull off the role of Julie. Any stage version I've seen (even a high school production) beat the movie version because they performed the muscial numbers as Kern and Hammerstein wrote them.
2. Hello Dolly - Babs was all wrong for the part of Dolly Levi. She barely looked old enough to be out of college. Carol Channing may not be everyone's cup of tea but she at least was the right age. And couldn't they have gotten a real singer and dancer to play Horace? Mathau was perfect for Bad News Bears but that didn't require him to sing a single note. This production just seemed so bloated for the screen.
3. Mame - I agree with the previous posts. It was not a great musical to start with and everyone connected with the movie version did their part to make it worse.
4. Night Music - Again, how can they move the setting to Vienna? How can they cast Liz Taylor? How can they cut so much of the score? How many ways can you screw up a musical? I mean it's already written, all you have to do is not srew it up. The hard part is already done.
5. Guys and Dolls - I think Terry Teachout wrote that G&D may be the greatest
broadway musical. If so the movie version fell a long way. Brando as Sky Masterson is like Pee Wee Herman playing Terry Malloy. A musical does not need a method actor, it needs, oh I don't know, maybe someone that can sing? I have to cover my ears for Luck Be A Lady. How could Goldwyn or Mankiewicz or anyone else not see Sinatra was Sky? And again they cut some great songs. At least they kept Fugue for Tinhorns and Sit Down You're Rockin' the Boat.
Honorable mention goes to Pal Joey. They made Joey too nice and moved it to San Fransisco. At least they didn't cut The Lady is A tramp.
As regards a previous posts listing Man of La Mancha and South Pacific, I agree neither were as good as their stage versions. Peter O'Toole reminded me of casting Brando in a musical - how did he end up in 2 big budget musicals in a span of a few years? I thought at first he was not dubbed in La Mancha because the singing was so bad I was amazed they dubbed him with someone that sounds just like him. But O'Toole's abilities as an actor, especially when he takes off the mask and is Cervantes instead of Quixote make MOLM watchable though not as enjoyable as the stage version.
As for South Pacific, the filters are an annoyance and Mitzi Gaynor is not able to turn in a believable performance as Nelly Forbush, the R&H songs are well performed. But why did they dub Juanita Hall?
My choices are:
1. The Wiz Why Diana Ross was allowed to play Dorothy is beyond me. Sidney Lumet was absolutely the WRONG person to direct a musical fantasy. Nipsey Russell however, gives the performance of his life as the Tinman.
2. Annie For the obvious reasons as stated in other posts,
3. The Song of Norway Have you ever seen it? If you have, I rest my case....
4. Showboat (1951) Ava Gardner should have been allowed to use her own voice, it would have made for her a complete performance. Kathryn Grayson is no Irene Dunne, and her acting was weak. What happened to Queenie? She's barely in it.
5. A Chorus Line I agree with the majority of the posts here. Sir Richard Attenborough was the WRONG choice of director.
6. The Fantasticks We waited 30 years for that?
7. The Producers I didn't exactly LOVE the show, but WOW, I HATED the movie!!
In no particular order
1. A Chorus Line- It's a distinctly "theatrical" experience. The plot is thin-nonexistant and the way they tried to add characterizeation didn't fly
2. The Fantastiks- I don't think it was terrible but for a beautiful stage experience the film experience doesn't compare nor does it make use of the advantages of film as a medium
3. South Pacific (1999) Glenn Close was about 25 years to old to play Nellie. She kept on about how young and silly DeBeque must think her and I expected them to wheel him out in an iron lung! He looked roughly the same age as her though. And sounded more Russian than French.
4. Sweeney Todd- Perhaps too soon to call but IMO the butchery was done to the score between the cuts, and the casting of nonsingers in almost every role. The acting was fairly one note throughout and the the direction seemed to be trying to overlook the fact that it's a musical
5. The Producers- I'm not a fan of the show (I do love the original film version) but I couldn't sit through the movie
6. Rent- Chris Columbus was the wrong director, most of the OBC was about 10 years too old to reprise roles that called on youth and vigor above all, and cutting the Mark/Roger fight and "Goodbye Love" made the ending seem roughly cobbled together
7. Camelot- Beautiful musical, lovely to look at (if a bit stagey) but I cringed when anyone tried to sing.
The Wiz
Rent
Phantom of the Opera
A Little Night Music
Hairspray
Hello Dolly
Man Of LaMancha
Jesus Christ Superstar
1776
Dreamgirls