My Photo
Name:
Location: Argentina Neuquén Mission, Argentina

Monday, October 15, 2007

Two Movie Musicals

I watched two movie musicals this weekend. One worked; one didn’t. Which was which? You might be surprised.

It’s very hard to make a credible movie musical. On a stage, everything’s somewhat artificial, so when people spontaneously burst into song, it’s easy to suspend disbelief. Movies mimic reality far more closely, so filmed people who sing instead of speak always look, at best, slightly ridiculous. At worst, they look like total buffoons.

If you doubt this, watch the movie version of The Phantom of the Opera, AKA Buffoons on Parade.

Musical theatre snobs look down their noses at the collected works of Andrew Lloyd Webber, but I think they do so for all the wrong reasons. They think Lloyd Webber is a talentless hack; a wannabe Sondheim that one friend of mine dubbed “Andrew Lloyd Salieri.” Very clever and snarky, but this overlooks the fact Lloyd Webber is an exceptionally skilled pop composer with a gift for catchy melodic hooks.

That’s why I believe his most successful piece is Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, because it doesn’t aspire to be anything but a plain ol’ good time. Lloyd Webber only falters when he tries to gain the respect of the snooty purists who claim to hate him but would kill for his box office grosses. So he churns out dreck like Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita, which are supposed to be Big and Important, yet both feel like high school term papers by teenagers with more ego than insight. Even in his worst shows, though, Lloyd Webber manages to produce some truly stellar melodies, like Superstar’s “I Don’t Know How to Love Him” and Evita’s “Another Suitcase In Another Hall.”

That leads us to The Phantom of the Opera. On stage, it’s Webber’s best and worst show, all at the same time.

It’s the best because of the tunes, or, at least, the ones that work. The title track rocks, and “Music of the Night” and “Think of Me” are simple, effective melodies that linger in your brain long after the show is over. When the show tries to pretend to be some sort of grand opera, it becomes pretentious. Still, the haunting Gothic romance at the heart of the story ends up succeeding in spite of Lloyd Webber’s best efforts to drown it in a sea of bombast.

At least, that’s the stage version. In the movie, the story never gets a chance to come up for air. It’s all bombast all the time, and it’s deeply, intensely silly.

It doesn’t help that Lloyd Webber chose Joel Schumacher to direct this pile. Schumacher is the wunderkind who inflicted the movie Batman and Robin on the world, complete with the disturbing BatSuit with BatNipples. Schumacher’s Phantom is BatNipples put to put to music – big, stupid, cluttered, and noisy. Yet for all its frenzied motion, the show never goes anywhere. It’s painfully, agonizingly slow. Schumacher lingers on his extravagant, expensive art direction – which is stunning, indeed – and dazzles us with his clever camera angles and such, but he never bothers to engage you in the characters, most of whom are woefully miscast, including the Phantom.

Especially the Phantom.

Gosh, this Phantom sucks. First off, he can’t sing. Second, he’s better looking than Raoul, which gets the story exactly wrong. And when he takes off his mask, he looks like he’s had a really bad sunburn. That’s it. That’s the reason he’s a murderer and a lonely miserable outcast. He fell asleep in a tanning booth.

The irony is that the movie is entirely faithful to the stage production, which is one of the main reasons it fails. Schumacher has no idea why these people start singing out of nowhere, and he makes no attempt to compensate for the difference between stage and film. Instead, he shows us lots of pretty set dressing and hopes that will be enough.

Contrast that with High School Musical II, which my kids can’t stop watching, so I sat down with them to see what all the fuss was about.

It was a whole lot of fun.

It wasn’t great, ponderous theatre. It was light and fun, with very engaging actors and a whole lot of catchy tunes. Was it Sondheim? Heavens, no. It was an airy pop confection, and it didn’t pretend to be anything else. It also made allowances for why everyone is singing all the time. It worked as a movie, not just a musical.

I should admit that it helped that the whole thing was filmed at the Entrada Golf Course just outside of St. George, Utah, about five minutes from where our family used to live. Those red rock cliffs in the background were very familiar Southern Utah landmarks that look nothing like New Mexico, where the film was ostensibly set. When we went back to visit, some friends took my girls to go meet the High School Musical cast, and they came back with autographs. (They said that Ashley Tinsdale was very nice to them, but Vanessa Hudgens was kind of snotty.)

So, to sum up: enjoy High School Musical II. Skip Phantom. And beware of Sweeney Todd, the Sondheim masterpiece that’s getting the Tim Burton treatment this Christmas.

I’m thinking it will probably suck.

11 Comments:

Blogger The Wiz said...

I looooooove Sweeney Todd!!! I hate Tim Burton!!!!!! I will avoid it, but I will be sad about it.

High School Musical 1 is pretty fun too. Vanessa Hudbgens likes to send naked pictures of herself to Zac Efron. It's all very scandalous for the Disney image.

October 15, 2007 at 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim,

Can you suggest some musicals that a neophyte can ease them selves into? My wife likes the movie musicals (are they considered musicals?) such as the Sound of Music, My Fair Lady, Guys and Dolls etc. We tried the Music Man (film) but it didn’t really do anything for us (no offense). I thought there was way too much singing (can a stupider thing be said about a musical…).

I hate to say it, but I do like Superstar (maybe just the songs). There was a 2000 version on PBS that I enjoyed (I really liked the guy who played Judas).

The only actual musical I have seen was Cats (date). Luckily (for me) there was an incident that kept me out of the show until the first intermission.

October 15, 2007 at 11:59 AM  
Blogger Elder Samuel Bennett said...

No offense taken - Music Man is a lot more fun onstage. The movie is pretty torturous. And Shirly Jones is awful.

The Superstar movie - not the PBS version, which I haven't seen - is absolutely ridiculous. It's worth watching for the camp value, and, yes, some of the songs are pretty good.

The Sound of Music is arguably the best adapted stage musical ever. It works better as a movie than as a stage play. I can't think of any other show that started on stage and then transferred to the movies about which I can say the same. I'd also recommend Mary Poppins, although that was written for the screen. Julie Andrews rocks.

The Sherman Brothers, who wrote Mary Poppins, also wrote the music for Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Both of those are movies worth seeing.

Actually, Disney musicals are almost the only screen musicals worth watching nowadays. The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast are the best musicals Broadway never produced. (They have produced Beauty as a live show, but it doesn't work. Lion King, in contrast, is a much better stage show than a movie.)

All the old school musicals will probably bore the snot out of you. The Guys and Dolls movie is like watching the Music Man movie three times in a row. I can't think of a worse adaptation.

My Fair Lady is also long, but the acting is great. That's a pretty good one, although you might think they "sing too much" in that one, too.

West Side Story is okay - great music, too much dancing. And a downer.

The King and I is somewhat boring, too, although Yul Brynner is the epitome of cool in it.

I'm not gay.

October 15, 2007 at 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim,

Thanks for the info. I will check those out. I had forgotten about the Disney stuff.

My Fair Lady is second to The Sound of Music as my wife's favorites. My Fair Lady lost points because they didn’t use Julie Andrews. (I don't know.)

Side Note: My wife wants take a Sound of Music tour in Vienna some day. The idea of the trip doesn’t bother me. On the other hand being stuck on a tour with a bunch of lunatics in Vienna...

October 15, 2007 at 1:19 PM  
Blogger The Wiz said...

I have taken the Sound of Music tour in Vienna. It is LOOONG. Here's the front of the house. Now let's drive a while to go see the back of the house. Here are the do-re-mi trees. Now let's drive a long time to see the do-re-mi fountain. Here's the church she was married in....etc.etc.

They tell you the real story of the Von Trapps, though, which is pretty interesting.

It's actually more fun 'having been' on the tour than going on the tour. Does that make sense? You really like the movie better after the tour, but the tour itself can get a little tedious. I'm still glad I went, though. It makes me feel important every time I watch the movie. I know, I need therapy.

Jim, I like the Guys and Dolls movie, so screw you. :) I like the Adelaide/Nathan stuff way better than the Sarah/Skye stuff, though. Frank Sinatra is great. Marlon Brando blows.

I also love My Fair Lady, and I love the King and I simply because I can watch Yul Brynner all day long, and Deborah Kerr is fabulous. But I fast forward all the Tuptim crap. Yawn city.

Oklahoma is gaggy. South Pacific is endless, although it's probably slightly better as a movie than a play just because of the scenery. But it's ENDLESS.

Ok, I'm done now. For now, anyway.

And I hate Andrew Lloyd Webber, too, although I agree that Joseph is his best one.

Really, really, done.

October 15, 2007 at 2:09 PM  
Blogger Elder Samuel Bennett said...

Oklahoma blows. South Pacific WAY blows, both in stage and on film. Although the movie was filmed in Kauai, so I should probably go watch it again. Then I can gouge my eyes out with a spoon.

How can you like the Guys and Dolls movie? Sinatra's OK, but he should have been Sky, not Nathan. They pad the thing out with six months of unnecessary dialogue, especially when the original was so pithy and great. Brando blows beyond blowing. Boo, hiss.

You know what else is pretty good? Disney's Annie, with Victor Garber as Daddy Warbucks. NOT the movie Annie, which is a strange, bloated mess featuring some guy in a turban.

And I had high hopes for Disney's Music Man starring Matthew Broderick, but that blew, too.

Done now until further notice.

October 15, 2007 at 2:34 PM  
Blogger foodleking said...

FYI... The Little Mermaid The Musical is currently advertised all over Times Square. I didn't like The Lion King musical, but The Phantom musical was great. The Sound of Music movie makes me ZZZZzzzzzzz instantly, and I thought Guys and Dolls the movie was extremely boring (though Sinatra is cool).

Two best musicals ever: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (Benny Hill, 'nuff said), and This is Spinal Tap (OK...that's cheating).

October 15, 2007 at 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Non gay people don't have an opinion, one way or the other, about Andrew Lloyd Webber.

October 16, 2007 at 7:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bless your beautiful hide Stallion Cornell, you're camper than a row of tents!

Now if you'd only brush up your Shakespeare and get a little surrey with a fringe on top, you'd never walk alone.

October 16, 2007 at 10:42 AM  
Blogger Heather O. said...

The King and I blows. On stage and on screen. It's like Oklahoma in Siam.

I would put West Side Story in the "works better as a movie than a play" category. Same with Chorus Line, although Chorus Line blows in both venues,really. Good dancing in the movie, though.

October 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM  
Blogger Heather O. said...

South Pacific with Glenn Close blows, too, but I'd watch it again and again, just to see Harry Connick Jr.. Ahhh...

October 16, 2007 at 1:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home