The New York Times: On a sun-nuzzled February morning earlier this year, “The Prom,” Ryan Murphy’s film adaptation of the Tony-nominated musical, prepared for a location shoot in a high school gym on the eastern edge of Hollywood. Basketball hoops kissed the ceiling. Rubber matting and webs of cables carpeted the floor. Beside the snack tables, James Corden, Kerry Washington and Meryl Streep, in a wig the red of a cocktail cherry, practiced a dance number, sashaying through the same steps at not quite the same time.
14 comments:
I will be the first to say that there are some wonderful movie interpretations of musicals, but the majority of the interpretations are just plain awful. While movie musicals find ways to expand scenes and the world of the musical in ways that are not possible to do on stage, they also lose some of the magic and intimacy that comes with live musicals. Hearing a Broadway actor belt a song ten feet away from you is very different than watching a 2-d version of themselves belt on a screen. I like to think that audiences and performers go on an adventure together every time a show begins, and this adventure is practically non-existent if the performance is already recorded. Once a musical is recorded it is unable to change, and the change and variance that comes from a live performance every night is a huge part of that adventure. While I love that more and more musicals are getting exposure in film, I worry that people will begin to discount live musicals if they think movie musicals aren’t that great.
I have kind of complicated feelings about movies based on shows and vice versa. On one hand, I have a real soft spot for Disney's Into the Woods and the movie musical version of Little Shop of Horrors. However, I can't seem to think of any movies based on live shows that really capture the power of theater, if the movie is good at all. Maybe the only exception would be Fleabag, but it was an example of a playwright building upon their own work, and I am convinced that Phoebe Waller-Bridge can do no wrong. I think the only true way a live work can be accurately be conveyed to film if they just film the show live on stage. It was also interesting seeing the percentage jump of new musicals based on films. I had noticed that the trend was becoming exceedingly common in recent years, but I had not seen actual data proving it until now. I feel like it's hard to base a musical on an already popular property without making it seem corporate, but making musicals out of foreign films like The Band's Visit and cult classics like Little Shop of Horrors can clearly be accepted as a part of the theater canon.
I go back and forth on my opinion about these movie adaptions of broadway musicals. One one hand I think that they are a fantastic way of making theatre accessible to more people who can’t come to Broadway itself. And I think that they are a great way of keeping theatre alive during the pandemic time. However I do think that there are some specific ways that Hollywood should go about making these adaptations. I think that there should be effort made to keep the focus on the original production. For instance I think that filming a production in a theatre space like Hamilton and Newsies did is a good way of keeping the theatre part intact. I also think that any Hollywood adaptation should not be released before the original on stage production at least goes on tour. This way they can gain a reputation as a musical first and then expand into the world of film.
Okay okay, so I have a super divided opinion on the whole movie musical thing. On one hand, I am really irritated that nearly every movie-fied musical I have seen thus far in my life has been totally butchered by either it being a film, or by the actors that were placed in it for a little famous flair (i.e., Emma Watson in the life action Beauty and the Beast). On the other hand, I am like, super excited that theatre is being made more accessible? But then there is also this weird dichotomy of like, ouch, theatre performers and designers are being snubbed of some cool roles/good pay because Hollywood barely pulls from that group of people for their films?? So I am not sure that I agree with the article’s statement that the “snobbiness… against theatre” in the film industry has died down recently. I just think they saw an economic opportunity and jumped on it. So while I think that movies of theatre are a great idea to make theatre more accessible, it would be cool if we could try to make actual theatre more accessible to people and then also not snub the original artists when it gets made into a film.
I find it really weird when Hollywood gets in a phase where they pretend that they do theatre, toss in a movie/musical, make an obscene amount of money from it, and then run home to mama and go back to doing their own thing. There are surely some wonderful productions that have been adapted for film, but I feel like sometimes the movie industry misses the mark on the emotional impact that live theatre provides. I think that adapting theatre for movies is beneficial in terms of accessibility. Most theatre lovers cannot throw down hundreds of a dollars to see Hamilton, and the movie version opened the door for a lot of people that were excited about the show. I hope that, as the movie world goes through this next thrilled-about-theatre phase, they do a bit more to respect the theatrical process and let the movie aesthetic take the back seat.
I think that musical adaptions to movies are often hit and miss and more often than not misses. While I haven't seen a ton of musicals or movie musicals the ones have seen are definitely interesting. I think that Hamilton is a special exception to this, however, it was not an adaptation it was a filmed live performance which I believe made a huge difference. Its interesting to examine the financial risk of converting musicals into movies and how often it is less than creating an original story. Musicals, whether in real life or in movies tend to draw people in, in a very unique way. Movie musicals are significantly more accessible to people than seeing live theater and so I think they hold an important place in Broadway and Hollywood. I would like to see more filmed performances such as Hamilton because they replicate the live show experience for people who are unable to afford tickets.
This article is particularly interesting in comparison to an article from earlier weeks about SAG-AFTRA proposing an agreement to Actor’s Equity Association on restrictions for recording and distributing live performances. “The Prom” is one of many musicals being adapted from the stage to the screen. Especially as someone who sees a select number of musicals on Broadway, it is nice that screen musicals make the content more accessible, even though they are very different formats. My main concern, aside from the legalities, is the lack of originality in the content on both sides. More and more often, we are seeing movies or performances based off other material rather than original content. I hope that this continuing partnership does not further this trend too much, while still making theatrical content more accessible and adapting it to have more features, versions, and viewpoints. Maybe going forward, creative teams for theatre could partner with Hollywood to produce original plays and musicals for the screen, as well as readapting performances.
-Ariel Bernhard
I am also on the fence about movie-musicals. I LOVE that theatre in a way is being made accessible to all audiences (we all know theatre, Broadway especially, is way too expensive for people to participate in). I honestly do not really know which movie-musical I have seen that I actively enjoyed? I honestly am more of a fan of the live recordings of musicals, like Hairspray and Grease. I think those could be so good if producers would stop thinking they need to slap in big pop stars or something to get people to tune in (side-eyeing Ariana Grande as Penny). If an effort could be made to film live shows for broadcast, I think that would be so much more exciting? Granted, there is something film just can’t capture with live performance, like Sarah mentioned above. Being in the room with the performers is such a huge part of what makes theatre so special and no amount of money thrown at movie-musicals will make it the same.
Oh god. I have some strong feelings when it comes to movie-musicals. I don't entire hate it when a broadway show is recorded to make it more accessible to new audiences, however I do hate the idea of hiring a bunch of already popular hollywood actors to put into a brand new production and recording that as a "live" show. To me those types of live shows seem to take the magic out of theatre by creating a set and having blocking that is meant for a camera and for tv viewing so it kinda just seems like a movie that is showing us the behind the scenes as well. I think what was done with Hamilton was perfect, with a show meant for a live audience recorded and edited for optimal tv viewing and to make it seem like you are there watching the show. I also think Hamilton was so successful because it broke what the general public thinks of as a musical, bringing something with a different sound to the stage so to then expect musicals that the general public have not enjoyed previously and have rather been only enjoyed by the musical/theatre demographic would just not bring in as many views as Hamilton. I think in order for these movie musicals to be successful the industry needs to start highlighting new and interesting works, not just going back to the same old.
I found this article super interesting. The last big budget hollywood musical was Hello, Dolly! In 1969. There really were only a few every so many years after that and just based of the popularity of the musical. I think that it is interesting now that there is so much theatre being transformed into a digital media. I am very thankful to have shows that were recorded in their original form on stage like Oklahoma with Hugh Jackman or recently Lincoln Center Theatre’s Production of The King and I. I find that films in this format can inspire and intrigue an audience in a new way, and may spark something in a child who may not have the resources to see live theatre. I do find it interesting how quick the turnaround on some of these movies are. The Prom and The Boys in The Band were just on broadway and now they are on netflix already! I also appreciated what the developer at amazon saud, “It’s about going beyond just a single production and really lifting them up as creators generally,”
I have mixed feelings on the ‘movie to musical, musical to movie’ strategy in play right now, for a couple reasons. I think it plays into, in some ways, a lack of originality that is currently saturating Hollywood. Producers want to create what will make them the most money, and the answer to that often seems to be a sequel to a popular movie, a reboot of a franchise, or, now, a movie of a popular musical. If you can suck people in multiple times on things that are already popular, you get more money from them while not needing to take a risk on something new. Not every studio does this, obviously, but it’s becoming a bit of a talking point, as only two out of the 10 highest grossing movies of all time are original movies and not part of a franchise or a reboot. I also think that a lot of times, movie adaptations of musicals tend to lose many qualities that made the theater fans enjoy them in the first place, with Cats as a horrifying example. Filmed live productions feel like a better solution to me than completely redoing the musical, and have the added benefit of making the show more accessible to people across the country and without the disposable income necessary to see Broadway musicals all the time.
This is an interesting dynamic that I had not thought of before. I am curious about how the various companies and agencies involved work out the rights. I would be willing to bet that, besides the reasons listed in the article, rights acquisitions play a significant role in this relationship. I wonder if there were some legal maneuverings that eased the pathway of Broadway to Hollywood (and vice versa). My feeling is that these kinds of things happen all the time. Look at all the maneuvering around Spiderman, for example, which was probably only publicly watched because many people were specifically invested in the franchise. I would guess that lawyers for Hollywood and Broadway worked out a mutually beneficial arrangement that ends in everyone making a whole lot of money.
A lot of people in theater, although in my experience specifically younger people in theater, have been saying for years why recorded versions of shows or adapted movies will actually help the industry rather than crush it down. The old argument circulates still, but it is finally getting more widely recognized as a more complicated relationship rather than the pre-existing black and white. Getting a recorded version out there is not going to make people think that going to see it live is worthless. Most people will probably finish watching and think to themselves that if they liked this, they would probably love the real deal. I think also that the pandemic has created a need for normalcy so great that recorded versions help fill that void. Since theater – although not a pivotal element in the scope of the greater population – is associated with crowds, and people, and normalcy, watching the recordings help create a sense of that. Even if orchestrated, creating a market for new audiences who are giving theater a chance.
In all honesty, I prefer professionally recorded shots of musicals on stage than most of their movie adaptations. This opinion is most likely shared by many people who enjoy live theatre, but not by the average consumer. To market musicals and make them loved by the mainstream population, presenting them in the format of a film with stunt casted actors gets the job done. I saw The Prom live in person and I would much rather never see that show again, than have to watch James Corden in another movie adaptation of a musical. I did Into The Woods in high school and I refuse to watch the movie version. I already have a dislike for Cats but the CGI and motion capture, as well as the presence of James Corden, make me not want to see it even more. Productions like Hamilton and Bandstand did it right. They have a recording of the show itself on the stage it was made for.
Post a Comment