MovieChat Forums > Oklahoma! (2003) Discussion > Does the soundstage filming bug anyone e...

Does the soundstage filming bug anyone else?

posted 15 years ago by mp989
8 replies | jump to latest

I love this production--I saw it in London with Hugh and then in New York with Patrick Wilson but I have a problem with the DVD... I suspect many people will agree with Nunn that this is an ADVANTAGE not a disadvantage (for the record I have the exact same problem with the filming of Nunn's production of Porgy and Bess a decade earlier). I would rather thay had filmed it live on a stage. Filming it in a sound studio and then PRETENDING it'slive with interjected shots of a made up audience is so jarring for me, and I actually dislike the added camera work--id' rather see what an audience might see. Some might find this static, though I admit I love filmed productions of live shows myself (the Sondheim DVDs for Sunday in the Park, etc).

[–] santol321 14 years ago

I'm definitely with you on this. The production loses so much without the presence of a live audience. I don't know why they did that. There is something about having an audience with a live performance. I want to hear the audience reaction. I want to applaud with the audience at the end of musical numbers. I want to laugh with the audience. I want tears to come to my eyes at the end of the show when the cast takes their bows. Without the audience it is just too wooden and it loses its 'life' quality and is just too sterile.

They did the same thing in the 1950's when Mary Martin did her famous Peter Pan. No audience. WHY? I don't get it. It was a big mistake then and it was a big mistake in 1999.

[–] hippiehunny90 14 years ago

Totally agree. Soooo many awkward moments because of the soundstage thing. Plus their voices are often badly timed.

Goonies (and neomaxizoomdweebies) never say die!

[–] hrhhrh 10 years ago

The possibilities were endless and it turned out to be a real gyp.

[–] paleolith 14 years ago

Well, for one thing, having a live audience means taping a live performance. There's a place for that, but if you do no retakes at all, you end up with an inferior recording. I love live performances, but I'll take them live and in person. If it's recorded, I'd prefer they do their best.

Or if you attempt multiple takes with a live audience, the audience gets REALLY tired. I vaguely remember that this took two weeks to film -- roughly 25 times as long as the show runs. Even if you hired extras to sit in the audience for that long, their reactions would be acted, not live.

I do agree that I'd prefer that it be filmed and sung at the same time. I know that's harder and that the musical result would be a bit rougher, but I'd prefer that. It also means limiting the camera angles, since you need much longer takes. But then I'm much more sensitive to lip syncing than most people are.

I also don't think the shots of the audience added enough to be worth including.

But it still comes down to one of my favorite movies of all time. I'm particular happy that they kept it on stage, even if it wasn't live.

Edward

[–] mp989 14 years ago

I agree that it's great to have--especially since I saw it live first, and it makes a great "souvenir" of sorts, and I'm glad they did it. And I appreciate your thougths--I know much of this is a matter of opinion.

Still, I think the live recordings of such works Into the Woods, Sunday in the Park with George, Passion, even the recent live Rent (though I found the camera work a bit too over the top there) have much better energy. These were recorded over two performances--they didn't do retakes, the audience saw a normal performance (Bernadette Peters did redub a few of her vocals in Sunday later because she had a cold--but you honestly can't tell).

Hell, even to me GENUINE live recordings--like this past months Live from Lincoln Center recording of the South Pacific revival--while much rougher (some mike problems, absolutely no retakes or it being filmed over several nights and edited, etc) still is preferable to me.

Oddly, for musical cast albums I genuinely prefer studio recordings to some of the live recordingts. I can't explain why.

(We definetly agree that adding in those shots of the audience, that wasn't even really there, is just useless).

[–] paleolith 14 years ago

I think the preference is individual rather than universal -- I would not try to press my preference on anyone else.

More importantly to me, I think there's plenty of room for both. If there were an excellent live performance of Oklahoma! on DVD, I'd certainly enjoy watching it. In fact if the same company had done a live as well as the studio DVD, I'd watch both.

I might look up the Rent you mention. I've seen the older movie, and I think it's a much better example of destroying a good show in the movie studio. Rent, compared with Oklahoma!, depends far more on the energy of the performance and much less on the story. The movie had lots of close-ups of faces -- of dancers! I've never seen Rent on stage, but I could see from the movie what it could have been. So a good live performance DVD would clearly trump the movie DVD for Rent.

Edward

[–] srubin5190 10 years ago

I'm with the original poster on this one. I think seeing what the audience sees, and hearing their reactions would have added something to this production. Other than that, I'm enjoying it immensely. I'm about 2/3 of the way through. And seeing Hugh Jackman...Wow. He needs to be back on Broadway. And I'd like to see him in a musical comedy. Like Music Man, for example. (I'd pay anything to see that)

In addition, I'm quite impressed with the actor who plays Will. His dancing in the Kansas City number was fantastic.

meanwhile, my girlfriend and I (we were watching together at my house) got into the Jud discussion and the darkness of Rogers and Hammerstein musicals. (There's a huge thread on Jud over on the movie message board.) The actor playing Jud has a great voice as well.

my fanfiction page: https://www.fanfiction.net/u/1695456/

[–] baj-1 10 years ago

I was also lucky to have seen the live production in London but when it had already transferred to the Lyceum in 1999.

Looking back, the foresight of Trevor Nunn of filming ( and I have no problem with the soundstage filming) this revelatory production of the landmark American musical has served its purpose over time. If you read the readers's reviews on Amazon, an almost universal reaction is shared of being pleased that Nunn had been able to share his revival vision with audiences who did not have the chance to see it in London. A few have mentioned that this particular production has inspired even school productions. He never pretended that it was a filmed version of a specific production nor that it was meant to be a clone of the movie musical. I enjoyed the filmed version tremendously especially because the closeups showed the emotional nuances not seen when one is in a live staging at the theatre. It helped that there were outstanding cast members who delivered both musically and dramatically. What we got with this filmed production was a very good attempt to highlight the acting chops of the musical theatre actors as well.

For example, the SURREY WITH THE FRINGE ON TOP, was so well executed that one can feel the vibe of the early courtship of Curly and Laurey within the context of the superb lyrics and music. The acting of the couple helped in creating that illusion - I am not sure that those exact moments can be captured by a camera positioned somewhere in the audience.

But to each his own taste.

I am a great fan of musical theatre and have enjoyed many productions on both sides of the pond. I am also happy that there have been excellent revivals from the portfolio of Rodgers and Hammerstein ( this Oklahoma!, Carousel with Nicholas Hyntner, South Pacific at Lincoln Center, and a forthcoming revival of King and I also at Lincoln Center...although I was not happy with the Elaine Paige revival of King and I in London). The Sound of Music did enjoy a revival but not onstage - but in a filmed live staging by NBC last year.