If Grease has survived based upon the love people have for the movie, its original run can probably be credited to the air of nostalgia it must have created. To stand on its own two feet otherwise is almost incredulous.
Grease is a show that thrives on a meager plot plugged with songs that are high on the nostalgia factor but low on the purpose factor. That is not to say that there isn't richness in the characters--Danny, Frenchy, Marty, Patty, Kenicke, and particularly Rizzo are all vibrant personalities befitting the stage. The problem is that the plot doesn't strongly revolve around them. Sandy and Danny break up and get together without much motivation. They proclaim undying love to each other, but, as appeared on stage in the tour, there's no particular reason for them to be together or not to be together. Sandy's big transformation at the end is also without any real motivation. Though her character is weakly developed, it still seems almost entirely out of character for her to change so drastically. And with the exception of Rizzo and Kenicke, the other secondary characters could easily be excised without much of an impact on the main plot.
While I was watching Grease (and enjoying myself enough to make it worth the trip if not on the Hairspray or Les Miserables level), I couldn't help but think, "How did this show make it all these years?" Obviously, as the movie proved, there is the germ for an appealing plot in the show, but it simply isn't developed. Yes, it wasn't developed because that was not the vision of the original creators, but that doesn't make it any more fascinating of a plot for those of us who don't "Remember the good old days."
Most interestingly, seeing Grease really explained Over Here!. As a teenager, I had discovered the OBCR of Over Here! at the library and immediately picked it up since I have always enjoyed the work of Richard and Robert Sherman (who wrote music for Mary Poppins, The Happiest Millionaire, and most of the music for The Jungle Book). It's a great CD, loaded with that great 1940s sound (this was the show which starred two of the Andrew Sisters), and the songs are stupendous, even if it did take me a number of years to fully get what the VD Polka was.
The libretto for Over Here! is available through Samuel French, and when I discovered that, I immediately picked it up. I was shocked by how plotless the show was. Though the score hints at the lives of the main characters and the plot of some secondary characters, the show doesn't have a strong plot structure. The events almost just happen to happen with a funny plot twist at the end which acts as a climax, a climax that is not adequately built toward. It is, in essence, a show whose heart is "Remember the good old days." There is the promise of a really great plot with fun characters, but that was not the purpose of the show. As a result, there isn't one.
Did I mention the original production of Over Here! was produced by the original producers of Grease two years after that show's phenomenal success? Hmmm . . .
I was honestly shocked that The Wedding Singer didn't run longer because it was not far from Grease in its kitschy references to an era gone by. The big difference is that The Wedding Singer has a much stronger plot, far more interesting characters, and is extremely funny. Perhaps, as well, the producers could have played up the 80s throwbacks better (and stronger reviews would have helped too).
When Hairspray hit movie theaters with its 1960s music and energetic dancing (not to mention John Travolta), many made a connection between the success of both movies. Having seen the stage Grease, I'm not sure if there really is such a strong connection after all. Either way, Hairspray is far superior to Grease in about every way. But then, Hairspray's creators were also out to create something that told a great story with great music.
the Broadway Mouth
January 7, 2009
Showing posts with label Hairspray movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hairspray movie. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Modernizing Movie Musicals: Chapter 2 (Giving the Actors an Audience)
One of the worst moments in musical film—or at least the one that comes to mind for the sake of illustration—is in the bad adaptation of Kiss Me, Kate, when the two gangsters, out of nowhere, turn to the camera and start singing “Brush Up Your Shakespeare.”
It’s a movie. There is no audience to whom you have to cheat front.
The musical numbers of a movie musical must be filmed as if there is no Broadway audience, which means that the performers cannot randomly turn to an audience. An entire movie can’t exist within four walls, then for short bursts acknowledge the fourth wall. For modern moviegoers, that changes the rules created by the conventions of film and is awkward. That's when people say musicals are not sophisticated enough for modern audiences.
You see this handled well in many of the recent musicals. When Jack Kelly sings “Sante Fe” in Newsies, he’s not singing it to the audience. It is a reflection of his own state in life, and it is sung back to himself. It is photographed from a variety of directions, so that he is not always facing the camera. When he is filmed facing forward, his expression reverts his attention to his own contemplations. When he dances, he is not performing a number for the audience; it is the physical expression of his emotions. Because of this, “Sante Fe” is not awkward at all.
You see this done beautifully and often by Adam Shankman in Hairspray. During “Big, Blonde, and Beautiful,” the dancing is photographed facing toward Maybelle and Edna. The audience still experiences that wonderful choreography, but it is given an audience within the movie. It feels natural, rather than having it all faced out, acknowledging the existence of a fourth wall audience.
Even when Shankman uses the traditional forward-facing style, as he does in the ending of “Welcome to the 60’s,” he places the camera at an angle, so that the characters aren’t performing to the fourth wall. This gives the choreography a sense that these characters all happen to be dancing in the same direction, as opposed to performing for an audience.
A good example of how this might have changed classic musicals is “I’m Going Back” in Bells are Ringing. In the show (and movie), it is the moment when Ella has finally exhausted herself with all of her own antics and secret identities. She feels she has lost the man she loves because of her antics, and she’s ready to give up being an operator. In the movie, as in the stage show, Ella sings the song facing the fourth wall, doing her choreography, including the Jolson bit, to the audience.
To give Ella an audience within the movie, a modern director might have Ella perform the song to her switchboard. It would be a natural outlet, since all of her problems stemmed from her job at the switchboard. In essence, she would be letting out her frustration on herself because of the people whom she tried to help, represented in her mind by the switchboard where she met them all. Ella might turn away, singing to herself in a manner similar to Jack in Newsies, but the focus is still on something within the movie—herself.
Modern audiences don’t buy musicals when they push the boundaries of reality too far. We know audiences have a high tolerance for creativity and artificiality in movies—the plethora of horror, torture, action, super-hero, and romantic comedies more than proves this. But it’s the random performance to a fourth-wall audience that pops up out of nowhere that creates awkward moments in movie musicals. To resolve this, be it in singing or choreography, it is key to give the performer an audience within the movie, be it himself or herself, another character, or another object. This keeps a consistent tone and focus throughout the whole piece, just as is done in every other movie genre.
the Broadway Mouth
October 2, 2008
It’s a movie. There is no audience to whom you have to cheat front.
The musical numbers of a movie musical must be filmed as if there is no Broadway audience, which means that the performers cannot randomly turn to an audience. An entire movie can’t exist within four walls, then for short bursts acknowledge the fourth wall. For modern moviegoers, that changes the rules created by the conventions of film and is awkward. That's when people say musicals are not sophisticated enough for modern audiences.
You see this handled well in many of the recent musicals. When Jack Kelly sings “Sante Fe” in Newsies, he’s not singing it to the audience. It is a reflection of his own state in life, and it is sung back to himself. It is photographed from a variety of directions, so that he is not always facing the camera. When he is filmed facing forward, his expression reverts his attention to his own contemplations. When he dances, he is not performing a number for the audience; it is the physical expression of his emotions. Because of this, “Sante Fe” is not awkward at all.
You see this done beautifully and often by Adam Shankman in Hairspray. During “Big, Blonde, and Beautiful,” the dancing is photographed facing toward Maybelle and Edna. The audience still experiences that wonderful choreography, but it is given an audience within the movie. It feels natural, rather than having it all faced out, acknowledging the existence of a fourth wall audience.
Even when Shankman uses the traditional forward-facing style, as he does in the ending of “Welcome to the 60’s,” he places the camera at an angle, so that the characters aren’t performing to the fourth wall. This gives the choreography a sense that these characters all happen to be dancing in the same direction, as opposed to performing for an audience.
A good example of how this might have changed classic musicals is “I’m Going Back” in Bells are Ringing. In the show (and movie), it is the moment when Ella has finally exhausted herself with all of her own antics and secret identities. She feels she has lost the man she loves because of her antics, and she’s ready to give up being an operator. In the movie, as in the stage show, Ella sings the song facing the fourth wall, doing her choreography, including the Jolson bit, to the audience.
To give Ella an audience within the movie, a modern director might have Ella perform the song to her switchboard. It would be a natural outlet, since all of her problems stemmed from her job at the switchboard. In essence, she would be letting out her frustration on herself because of the people whom she tried to help, represented in her mind by the switchboard where she met them all. Ella might turn away, singing to herself in a manner similar to Jack in Newsies, but the focus is still on something within the movie—herself.
Modern audiences don’t buy musicals when they push the boundaries of reality too far. We know audiences have a high tolerance for creativity and artificiality in movies—the plethora of horror, torture, action, super-hero, and romantic comedies more than proves this. But it’s the random performance to a fourth-wall audience that pops up out of nowhere that creates awkward moments in movie musicals. To resolve this, be it in singing or choreography, it is key to give the performer an audience within the movie, be it himself or herself, another character, or another object. This keeps a consistent tone and focus throughout the whole piece, just as is done in every other movie genre.
the Broadway Mouth
October 2, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Hairspray II: What I Did For Money
There are some stories that welcome an addition to the journey already told. Take, for example, X-Men, which practically screamed to have a sequel because of the nature of the characters and stories.
Most stories survive on the idea that the plot itself is one chunk of time in the characters’ lives. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is about that one great time we got took. The Wedding Singer is about how we met. The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee is about a spelling bee.
Only certain stories require additional chapters. I have no doubt that characters with mutant powers would have many interesting events happen in their lives, but the spunky, chubby girl who integrates television should only have on amazing life story.
It’s like with Pocahontas. Yes, the Disney movie. I always adored that movie, but the idea of a Pocahontas II was ludicrous. The appeal of the first one was a Romeo and Juliet story, two people whose destinies were meant to be entwined but were forever parted by two-sided ethnocentrism and fear. Juliet can survive the ordeal and later get married to someone else happily ever after. There’s a reason we never learn much about Kate Winslet’s character’s marriage in the movie Titanic—because you can’t assume she loses Leonardo DiCaprio only to gain Brad Pitt. It’s not so touching an ending when you know there’s something great just around the river bend.
So, let’s count the ways Hairspray II could really screw up Hairspray.
1. We know Tacy and Link aren’t going to get married because they’re high school students. Then what happens next of any interest? Link runs off to college with Penny?
2. What journey does Edna take? She’s learned to not be ashamed of her weight . . . Does she now take up the cause for ugly women everywhere?
3. Tracy becomes a do-er when she sees a problem that needs fixing. What issue arises next?—protesting the war, rising divorce rates, prayer in school? Enough sequels, and she’ll become the first chubby congresswoman in Maryland.
4. One of the cast members doesn’t return, and then we’re stuck with sequelitis—the case of the unexplained disappearance of a character because of budget or scheduling problems.
I have faith that Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman will create a top-notch score of songs, like they always do. I just don’t have faith that they will be supporting a story that warrants them or a story that won’t work against the magic of the original.
the Broadway Mouth
July 26, 2008
Most stories survive on the idea that the plot itself is one chunk of time in the characters’ lives. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is about that one great time we got took. The Wedding Singer is about how we met. The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee is about a spelling bee.
Only certain stories require additional chapters. I have no doubt that characters with mutant powers would have many interesting events happen in their lives, but the spunky, chubby girl who integrates television should only have on amazing life story.
It’s like with Pocahontas. Yes, the Disney movie. I always adored that movie, but the idea of a Pocahontas II was ludicrous. The appeal of the first one was a Romeo and Juliet story, two people whose destinies were meant to be entwined but were forever parted by two-sided ethnocentrism and fear. Juliet can survive the ordeal and later get married to someone else happily ever after. There’s a reason we never learn much about Kate Winslet’s character’s marriage in the movie Titanic—because you can’t assume she loses Leonardo DiCaprio only to gain Brad Pitt. It’s not so touching an ending when you know there’s something great just around the river bend.
So, let’s count the ways Hairspray II could really screw up Hairspray.
1. We know Tacy and Link aren’t going to get married because they’re high school students. Then what happens next of any interest? Link runs off to college with Penny?
2. What journey does Edna take? She’s learned to not be ashamed of her weight . . . Does she now take up the cause for ugly women everywhere?
3. Tracy becomes a do-er when she sees a problem that needs fixing. What issue arises next?—protesting the war, rising divorce rates, prayer in school? Enough sequels, and she’ll become the first chubby congresswoman in Maryland.
4. One of the cast members doesn’t return, and then we’re stuck with sequelitis—the case of the unexplained disappearance of a character because of budget or scheduling problems.
I have faith that Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman will create a top-notch score of songs, like they always do. I just don’t have faith that they will be supporting a story that warrants them or a story that won’t work against the magic of the original.
the Broadway Mouth
July 26, 2008
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Musings on Hairspray Movie and Hairspray Stage
So onto a subject from left field, a replay of an episode from The View at the end of summer got me thinking. It was from the pre-release of Hairspray media blitz with guests John Travolta and Queen Latifah.
A Man in Sheep’s Clothing
In it, John Travolta was asked why his character was played by a man in woman’s clothing. His answer was that this is basically the way the conceit of the show because of the original film.
I beg to differ. Now, I’ve never seen the original film. I’ve seen Hairspray on stage twice and the musical movie in theaters several times . . . I guess that’s as many versions as I need to be familiar with before I die. But the reason for this creative bit of casting was always more than a gimmick to me. It was watching Bruce Vilanch during “You’re Timeless to Me” on tour that I got it.
When I brought my mom to the movie, she turned to me and said of Edna Turnblad, “That is the ugliest woman I’ve ever seen.”
That’s the point. Yay, she got it. She makes me so proud.
The story is about accepting people for who they are, no matter what they look like—skin color, weight, whatever. Edna Turnblad is not only a hefty hideaway bargain hunter, she’s extremely, ah, funny looking. But her husband worships the ground she walks on. After all these years—despite the weight gain—he’s still madly in love with her.
And once we get a chance to meet her, we love Edna too. She melts our hearts, no matter what she looks like, and in the end, she learns to love and embrace herself as well.
And that’s the point. If the Von Tussles ever gave Tracy a chance, they’d adore her. But they immediately dismiss her because of her size. We get the chance to know and adore Edna Turnblad as well. The conceit of a man playing the part fits into the development of the theme. It is far more than a gimmick.
Vlema vs. Velma
In the stage version, I really liked that the Von Tussles came around at the end and learned to shake their fanny muscles. It is a tad out of left field, but the characters are more childish and uninformed on stage, so you can easily forgive them when they see the light and learn that you really can’t stop the beat. It seems very fitting.
In the movie, however, that would have been an uneasy transition. Amber Von Tussle basically comes to realize that she is the one in the wrong, seen through her eyes in the final scene. Velma in the movie, though, is far too nasty to allow for such a turnaround. I think there are two key reasons for this.
First of all, it is the writing. Velma does more evil in the movie. When she slams Edna in the restaurant with that comment on Edna’s weight, she’s really cruel. Not only is it rude, it deeply hurts Edna, who has come so far in accepting how she looks since her weight gain. After all, this is a woman who has not come out of her house for many years in fear of her weight.
Velma goes as far as to break up Tracy’s family by attempting to seduce Wilbur. Again, unlike the movie, this is more than just trying to defend her understanding of life, this is wickedness. It’s believable that Movie Velma would attempt this, but it is still wicked. So because these two scenes are added in the movie, Velma crosses the line too far to go back by the end of the movie.
Another large factor is that Michelle Pfeiffer is not a character actress. What this means is that Velma becomes a more calculated cruel. Stage Velma is usually played by a character actress who says and does cruel things but always couched by a tinge of caricature, while Movie Velma isn’t so caricatured, if at all. Stage Velma is comparable to, say, Yzma from The Emperor’s New Groove, while Movie Velma you could imagine shouting slurs at the Little Rock Nine as they tried to go to school.
We hope—and have to expect—that many of those people shouting at the Little Rock Nine have since seen the light, but they probably didn’t do so after a well-written song on the subject.
Pop!
David Edelstein, in his commentary on CBS Sunday Morning (in which he also implied he was about the only straight man who likes musicals . . . which makes me mad), criticized the film’s “pop” music.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll just say it again. People criticize Hairspray for having pop music, but it is no more pop than the ragtime tunes in Ragtime or the flapper stylings of Jeanine Tesori’s Thoroughly Modern Millie. At one point, songs in these styles were popular, but they are not pop anymore. There’s nothing any more generic about 60’s pop than there is about 00’s pop or 20’s pop.
Furthermore, like those other shows, Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman’s music for Hairspray is written in the musical vernacular of the characters. Tracy Turnblad is a typical teenage girl in the early 1960s—she’s not going to be belting out “Good Morning Baltimore” like Rodgers and Hammerstein. Just because we all like theatre doesn’t mean that that is the musical vernacular of every character to appear on a Broadway stage.
It’s easy to see Shaiman and Wittman’s skill in doing this because the songs performed primarily by adults are not in the pop vernacular. Velma Von Tussle’s “(The Legend of) Miss Baltimore Crabs,” while orchestrated to fit in with the other songs, is definitely not in the same vein as the songs performed by the teens. Similarly, “The Big Dollhouse,” while tons of fun, is more of a traditional theatre song. “(You’re) Timeless to Me” and “I Know Where I’ve Been” are also fitting the older characters singing them.
the Broadway Mouth
September 29, 2007
A Man in Sheep’s Clothing
In it, John Travolta was asked why his character was played by a man in woman’s clothing. His answer was that this is basically the way the conceit of the show because of the original film.
I beg to differ. Now, I’ve never seen the original film. I’ve seen Hairspray on stage twice and the musical movie in theaters several times . . . I guess that’s as many versions as I need to be familiar with before I die. But the reason for this creative bit of casting was always more than a gimmick to me. It was watching Bruce Vilanch during “You’re Timeless to Me” on tour that I got it.
When I brought my mom to the movie, she turned to me and said of Edna Turnblad, “That is the ugliest woman I’ve ever seen.”
That’s the point. Yay, she got it. She makes me so proud.
The story is about accepting people for who they are, no matter what they look like—skin color, weight, whatever. Edna Turnblad is not only a hefty hideaway bargain hunter, she’s extremely, ah, funny looking. But her husband worships the ground she walks on. After all these years—despite the weight gain—he’s still madly in love with her.
And once we get a chance to meet her, we love Edna too. She melts our hearts, no matter what she looks like, and in the end, she learns to love and embrace herself as well.
And that’s the point. If the Von Tussles ever gave Tracy a chance, they’d adore her. But they immediately dismiss her because of her size. We get the chance to know and adore Edna Turnblad as well. The conceit of a man playing the part fits into the development of the theme. It is far more than a gimmick.
Vlema vs. Velma
In the stage version, I really liked that the Von Tussles came around at the end and learned to shake their fanny muscles. It is a tad out of left field, but the characters are more childish and uninformed on stage, so you can easily forgive them when they see the light and learn that you really can’t stop the beat. It seems very fitting.
In the movie, however, that would have been an uneasy transition. Amber Von Tussle basically comes to realize that she is the one in the wrong, seen through her eyes in the final scene. Velma in the movie, though, is far too nasty to allow for such a turnaround. I think there are two key reasons for this.
First of all, it is the writing. Velma does more evil in the movie. When she slams Edna in the restaurant with that comment on Edna’s weight, she’s really cruel. Not only is it rude, it deeply hurts Edna, who has come so far in accepting how she looks since her weight gain. After all, this is a woman who has not come out of her house for many years in fear of her weight.
Velma goes as far as to break up Tracy’s family by attempting to seduce Wilbur. Again, unlike the movie, this is more than just trying to defend her understanding of life, this is wickedness. It’s believable that Movie Velma would attempt this, but it is still wicked. So because these two scenes are added in the movie, Velma crosses the line too far to go back by the end of the movie.
Another large factor is that Michelle Pfeiffer is not a character actress. What this means is that Velma becomes a more calculated cruel. Stage Velma is usually played by a character actress who says and does cruel things but always couched by a tinge of caricature, while Movie Velma isn’t so caricatured, if at all. Stage Velma is comparable to, say, Yzma from The Emperor’s New Groove, while Movie Velma you could imagine shouting slurs at the Little Rock Nine as they tried to go to school.
We hope—and have to expect—that many of those people shouting at the Little Rock Nine have since seen the light, but they probably didn’t do so after a well-written song on the subject.
Pop!
David Edelstein, in his commentary on CBS Sunday Morning (in which he also implied he was about the only straight man who likes musicals . . . which makes me mad), criticized the film’s “pop” music.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll just say it again. People criticize Hairspray for having pop music, but it is no more pop than the ragtime tunes in Ragtime or the flapper stylings of Jeanine Tesori’s Thoroughly Modern Millie. At one point, songs in these styles were popular, but they are not pop anymore. There’s nothing any more generic about 60’s pop than there is about 00’s pop or 20’s pop.
Furthermore, like those other shows, Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman’s music for Hairspray is written in the musical vernacular of the characters. Tracy Turnblad is a typical teenage girl in the early 1960s—she’s not going to be belting out “Good Morning Baltimore” like Rodgers and Hammerstein. Just because we all like theatre doesn’t mean that that is the musical vernacular of every character to appear on a Broadway stage.
It’s easy to see Shaiman and Wittman’s skill in doing this because the songs performed primarily by adults are not in the pop vernacular. Velma Von Tussle’s “(The Legend of) Miss Baltimore Crabs,” while orchestrated to fit in with the other songs, is definitely not in the same vein as the songs performed by the teens. Similarly, “The Big Dollhouse,” while tons of fun, is more of a traditional theatre song. “(You’re) Timeless to Me” and “I Know Where I’ve Been” are also fitting the older characters singing them.
the Broadway Mouth
September 29, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Film Musicals: The $50 Million Answer
The key to any successful business venture is to produce a product at a low enough price without resorting to amoral manufacturing methods (such as exploitative labor) to achieve that low cost. You figure out what you think you can make, then produce the item for less than that amount, keeping in mind the all-important profit margin.
Fortunately for Hollywood, there is actually a simple mathematical equation for producing live-action film musicals. While I am no mathematician, I am hoping to get a portrait in Sardi’s someday for this genius discovery of Pythagorasian proportions.
In surveying the recent past, the almost sure-fire gross of a musical film (provided there is adequate advertising and decent reviews) is $50 million.
(Pause for effect.)
The problem has been that a number of recent live-action musicals have cost that much to produce, so they essentially are only earning back their production costs in their theatrical run and are still falling short in earning back marketing costs, though I’m sure they all generate a profit on DVD and when taking overseas grosses into consideration.
Evita, which had mixed reviews back in 1996, brought in $55 million. Moulin Rouge, which had stronger reviews, pulled in $57 million in domestic gross in 2001. Interestingly enough, despite having comparable budgets, meaning nearly equal profit or loss, Moulin Rouge was seen as a big hit and kick-stepped the recent interest in film musicals. The Phantom of the Opera earned $51 million in 2004.
There are two aberration in my sound scientific, mathematic, afro-tastic, and philosophic theory—The Producers and Rent. The film of The Producers made only $19 million. That gross must be tempered, however, with its lack of marketing. In my city, there were a lot of theaters playing it like any other wide release, but the marketing was so anorexic, you’d hardly have ever known it was playing. Rent garnered only $29 million in 2005.
However, when musicals are successes, they succeed big-time. Chicago and Dreamgirls both made it to the $100 million mark, with Chicago at $170 million and Dreamgirls at $103 million, also having high-selling soundtracks, getting Oscar nominations and wins, and doing very well on the DVD front.
It’s interesting to look at critics’ views when analyzing box office data. According to Rotten Tomatoes, Evita was 66% fresh, Moulin Rouge was 78% fresh, The Phantom of the Opera was only 33% fresh, Rent was only 48% fresh, and The Producers only 52% fresh. Dreamgirls was 78% fresh, while mega-hit Chicago was 87% fresh. Today’s debut, Hairspray, no shocker, is at 94% fresh.
This year there are at least three big musicals coming our way. Opening today is the awesome adaptation of Hairspray, which I have a feeling will be a big hit. Then there is an all-new musical, Disney’s Enchanted, which features Broadway’s own Idina Menzel (let’s hope this is a big hit; perhaps Idina could have a big enough name to take on Amneris in the Aida adaptation). These will be followed by Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd, which, with Burton and Johnny Depp attached, is sure to garner a considerable amount of buzz.
So, if studios can keep budgets in line and produce a strong film, they can seem to count on a $50 million gross. One way to keep budgets in line is to hire top new talent who don’t require huge salaries. For example, Disney could keep costs down of their planned Aida film by using a major talent like, um, let’s just say Heather Headley as an example—who has name-recognition in the African-American community and could do the part better than anyone else and deserves to—rather than tapping a big music star who cannot act the part and will cost several millions more to cast. Look at The Phantom of the Opera. There was only one named minor star, Minnie Driver, and it did $51 million in business.
Looking at this burgeoning boom of musicals on film, I can’t help but become thrilled. When I was a kid, I remember lamenting the lack of new film musicals. I loved Newsies so much, I managed to see it twice during its blink-and-you-missed-it run. By the time Evita was released, I was in college, and I think I saw it four or five times because I knew seeing it on the big screen could never be repeated at home.
I never believed the industry pundits who said people wouldn’t buy a musical today. When musicals that were done well were played on television—Mrs. Santa Claus, Cinderella, South Pacific, and Annie—they were monumental hits on television and on video. One success could be a fluke. But more than one, no way.
And yes, if my remembrance serves me correctly, Gepetto, The Music Man, The Christmas Carol, and Once Upon a Mattress weren’t such mega-hits, but they also weren’t very good.
So, I can’t wait to see how Hairspray does this weekend. It’s crucial that everyone who can goes out to see it because as musicals grow in popularity, the more studios will make. Plus, for kids like me for whom attending a Broadway show was as unreachable as flying like Peter Pan, it is great musical films like Hairspray that will help create more generations of Broadway attendees and creators.
To see my spoiler-free review of Hairspray (“The Beat Goes On: Yes, They Got Hairspray Right!”), just look for it on the index to your right. I would like to make one addition, which is that I did see Ratatouille and found it extremely enjoyable; however, Hairspray is the best movie I’ve seen all summer.
the Broadway Mouth
July 20, 2007
Fortunately for Hollywood, there is actually a simple mathematical equation for producing live-action film musicals. While I am no mathematician, I am hoping to get a portrait in Sardi’s someday for this genius discovery of Pythagorasian proportions.
In surveying the recent past, the almost sure-fire gross of a musical film (provided there is adequate advertising and decent reviews) is $50 million.
(Pause for effect.)
The problem has been that a number of recent live-action musicals have cost that much to produce, so they essentially are only earning back their production costs in their theatrical run and are still falling short in earning back marketing costs, though I’m sure they all generate a profit on DVD and when taking overseas grosses into consideration.
Evita, which had mixed reviews back in 1996, brought in $55 million. Moulin Rouge, which had stronger reviews, pulled in $57 million in domestic gross in 2001. Interestingly enough, despite having comparable budgets, meaning nearly equal profit or loss, Moulin Rouge was seen as a big hit and kick-stepped the recent interest in film musicals. The Phantom of the Opera earned $51 million in 2004.
There are two aberration in my sound scientific, mathematic, afro-tastic, and philosophic theory—The Producers and Rent. The film of The Producers made only $19 million. That gross must be tempered, however, with its lack of marketing. In my city, there were a lot of theaters playing it like any other wide release, but the marketing was so anorexic, you’d hardly have ever known it was playing. Rent garnered only $29 million in 2005.
However, when musicals are successes, they succeed big-time. Chicago and Dreamgirls both made it to the $100 million mark, with Chicago at $170 million and Dreamgirls at $103 million, also having high-selling soundtracks, getting Oscar nominations and wins, and doing very well on the DVD front.
It’s interesting to look at critics’ views when analyzing box office data. According to Rotten Tomatoes, Evita was 66% fresh, Moulin Rouge was 78% fresh, The Phantom of the Opera was only 33% fresh, Rent was only 48% fresh, and The Producers only 52% fresh. Dreamgirls was 78% fresh, while mega-hit Chicago was 87% fresh. Today’s debut, Hairspray, no shocker, is at 94% fresh.
This year there are at least three big musicals coming our way. Opening today is the awesome adaptation of Hairspray, which I have a feeling will be a big hit. Then there is an all-new musical, Disney’s Enchanted, which features Broadway’s own Idina Menzel (let’s hope this is a big hit; perhaps Idina could have a big enough name to take on Amneris in the Aida adaptation). These will be followed by Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd, which, with Burton and Johnny Depp attached, is sure to garner a considerable amount of buzz.
So, if studios can keep budgets in line and produce a strong film, they can seem to count on a $50 million gross. One way to keep budgets in line is to hire top new talent who don’t require huge salaries. For example, Disney could keep costs down of their planned Aida film by using a major talent like, um, let’s just say Heather Headley as an example—who has name-recognition in the African-American community and could do the part better than anyone else and deserves to—rather than tapping a big music star who cannot act the part and will cost several millions more to cast. Look at The Phantom of the Opera. There was only one named minor star, Minnie Driver, and it did $51 million in business.
Looking at this burgeoning boom of musicals on film, I can’t help but become thrilled. When I was a kid, I remember lamenting the lack of new film musicals. I loved Newsies so much, I managed to see it twice during its blink-and-you-missed-it run. By the time Evita was released, I was in college, and I think I saw it four or five times because I knew seeing it on the big screen could never be repeated at home.
I never believed the industry pundits who said people wouldn’t buy a musical today. When musicals that were done well were played on television—Mrs. Santa Claus, Cinderella, South Pacific, and Annie—they were monumental hits on television and on video. One success could be a fluke. But more than one, no way.
And yes, if my remembrance serves me correctly, Gepetto, The Music Man, The Christmas Carol, and Once Upon a Mattress weren’t such mega-hits, but they also weren’t very good.
So, I can’t wait to see how Hairspray does this weekend. It’s crucial that everyone who can goes out to see it because as musicals grow in popularity, the more studios will make. Plus, for kids like me for whom attending a Broadway show was as unreachable as flying like Peter Pan, it is great musical films like Hairspray that will help create more generations of Broadway attendees and creators.
To see my spoiler-free review of Hairspray (“The Beat Goes On: Yes, They Got Hairspray Right!”), just look for it on the index to your right. I would like to make one addition, which is that I did see Ratatouille and found it extremely enjoyable; however, Hairspray is the best movie I’ve seen all summer.
the Broadway Mouth
July 20, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Broadway-Themed Bonus Feature Details: The Wedding Singer: and Circuit City Hairspray: Preview DVD
It’s taken me five months, but after a long waiting list at the library, I finally got The Wedding Singer: Totally Awesome Edition on DVD which has, as a bonus feature, “A Backstage Look at The Wedding Singer on Broadway,” identified on the back of the case as a featurette.
I had never seen the original Adam Sandler/Drew Barrymore movie when I fell in love with the Broadway show. When I finally saw it afterwards, I was reminded why I didn’t see it originally since watching Adam Sandler makes me want to gouge my eyes out with oven mitts on. However, even I would buy the DVD if there were some primo stuff on the bonus feature.
So, here are the details. The featurette is a 10-minute look at the show featuring interviews with the creative team, Stephen Lynch, and Laura Benanti. Each person gets a chance to talk about their thing, such as set designer Scott Pask describing his rubics cube squares as part of the set design. The footage seems to have been shot largely during the rehearsal period before the first preview out-of-town. There are a few snippets of chorus members getting make-up on, shots of the set, close-ups of costume design drawings, but most of the footage is of the promotional photo shoot for the picture which adorned the poster, including Lynch in the ‘80s wig he wasn’t wearing by the time I saw him in the show.
One really interesting observation made on it is from director John Rando who compares Stephen Lynch’s touring comedy career to the old days when actors refined their craft on the vaudeville circuit, which probably helps explain why Lynch was so amazing.
The second interesting observation is a brief interview with Laura Benanti. After reading about her on Broadway message boards for all these years, I was really surprised to see that she’s not the Loch Ness Monster. Not only is she extremely beautiful and talented, but she seems like, gasp, a really cool person. And I don’t think it was all in the editing.
The only footage from the show ends the featurette, with a one-minute look at “Come Out of the Dumpster,” which seems to be from a rehearsal with audience applause mixed in at the end (since there is no laughter on some of the big laugh lines).
I honestly don’t know if I would buy the DVD just for the featurette. It is always interesting to see people’s vision for a beloved show and to hear them discuss their work, but it is really lacking in meat—show footage. Oddly enough, I think footage from the show would have been their best bet in getting audiences to see it.
I often pop in such things to watch while I’m eating lunch on a Saturday or need some inspiration. My guess is that a year or two from now will tell whether this featurette is enough to get me to buy it when I am either craving the chance to see it again or have no interest.
Remember that this footage is only available on the Totally Awesome Edition, which features a close-up of Sandler and Barrymore against a white backdrop. The earlier edition is readily available, but it is lacking the “Behind the Scenes” look.
It’s of interest to note that in the Hairspray movie preview DVD available for free from Circuit City when you buy any CD or DVD (limited supply of the preview DVD are available), there is a $2 off coupon for several New Line romantic comedies (only good at Circuit City), of which The Wedding Singer: Totally Awesome Edition DVD is listed. The coupon is good through the end of August 2007. This seems like the type of movie that goes on sale, often for under $10.
Also included in the preview DVD is a coupon for $3 off several other New Line movies, including Antonio Banderas in Take the Lead with America’s sweetheart, Laura Benanti. It also indicates that specially-marked packages of the DVD The Last Mimzy have a Hairspray move voucher. I do remember from a preview trailer that The Last Mimzy seemed to me like The Exorcist For Kids. I’m sure we all want to rush out and buy it.
And, if interested—I know it’s been posted elsewhere—the Circuit City preview DVD features the “Ladies’ Choice” music video with Zac Efron and the dance stylings of Nikki Blonksi. It’s presented more as a scene from the movie than a regular music video, which is cool. There’s also a really great preview to the movie featuring interviews with the key creative staff and the main film stars, illustrated with lots and lots of footage from the movie. The packaging says it “INLCUDES OVER 30 MINUTES OF CONTENT!” As the packaging also states, the Behind-the-Scenes footage is 15 minutes (that includes credits), and the music video isn’t even three minutes. The other 12+ minutes of exclamation mark-worthy content is the must-see New Line previews for such high-interest movies as Rush Hour 3, Monster-in-Law, and The Notebook, the commercial for which, FYI, always pushes me near to vomiting. I recommend you skip over that one, too.
For free, though, the DVD is great to have, particularly since I’m already dying to see the movie again. If you don’t get the DVD, I have a feeling the bonus footage and music video will be included as bonus features on the Hairspray DVD, so “please don’t have a cow” if you miss it.
I had never seen the original Adam Sandler/Drew Barrymore movie when I fell in love with the Broadway show. When I finally saw it afterwards, I was reminded why I didn’t see it originally since watching Adam Sandler makes me want to gouge my eyes out with oven mitts on. However, even I would buy the DVD if there were some primo stuff on the bonus feature.
So, here are the details. The featurette is a 10-minute look at the show featuring interviews with the creative team, Stephen Lynch, and Laura Benanti. Each person gets a chance to talk about their thing, such as set designer Scott Pask describing his rubics cube squares as part of the set design. The footage seems to have been shot largely during the rehearsal period before the first preview out-of-town. There are a few snippets of chorus members getting make-up on, shots of the set, close-ups of costume design drawings, but most of the footage is of the promotional photo shoot for the picture which adorned the poster, including Lynch in the ‘80s wig he wasn’t wearing by the time I saw him in the show.
One really interesting observation made on it is from director John Rando who compares Stephen Lynch’s touring comedy career to the old days when actors refined their craft on the vaudeville circuit, which probably helps explain why Lynch was so amazing.
The second interesting observation is a brief interview with Laura Benanti. After reading about her on Broadway message boards for all these years, I was really surprised to see that she’s not the Loch Ness Monster. Not only is she extremely beautiful and talented, but she seems like, gasp, a really cool person. And I don’t think it was all in the editing.
The only footage from the show ends the featurette, with a one-minute look at “Come Out of the Dumpster,” which seems to be from a rehearsal with audience applause mixed in at the end (since there is no laughter on some of the big laugh lines).
I honestly don’t know if I would buy the DVD just for the featurette. It is always interesting to see people’s vision for a beloved show and to hear them discuss their work, but it is really lacking in meat—show footage. Oddly enough, I think footage from the show would have been their best bet in getting audiences to see it.
I often pop in such things to watch while I’m eating lunch on a Saturday or need some inspiration. My guess is that a year or two from now will tell whether this featurette is enough to get me to buy it when I am either craving the chance to see it again or have no interest.
Remember that this footage is only available on the Totally Awesome Edition, which features a close-up of Sandler and Barrymore against a white backdrop. The earlier edition is readily available, but it is lacking the “Behind the Scenes” look.
It’s of interest to note that in the Hairspray movie preview DVD available for free from Circuit City when you buy any CD or DVD (limited supply of the preview DVD are available), there is a $2 off coupon for several New Line romantic comedies (only good at Circuit City), of which The Wedding Singer: Totally Awesome Edition DVD is listed. The coupon is good through the end of August 2007. This seems like the type of movie that goes on sale, often for under $10.
Also included in the preview DVD is a coupon for $3 off several other New Line movies, including Antonio Banderas in Take the Lead with America’s sweetheart, Laura Benanti. It also indicates that specially-marked packages of the DVD The Last Mimzy have a Hairspray move voucher. I do remember from a preview trailer that The Last Mimzy seemed to me like The Exorcist For Kids. I’m sure we all want to rush out and buy it.
And, if interested—I know it’s been posted elsewhere—the Circuit City preview DVD features the “Ladies’ Choice” music video with Zac Efron and the dance stylings of Nikki Blonksi. It’s presented more as a scene from the movie than a regular music video, which is cool. There’s also a really great preview to the movie featuring interviews with the key creative staff and the main film stars, illustrated with lots and lots of footage from the movie. The packaging says it “INLCUDES OVER 30 MINUTES OF CONTENT!” As the packaging also states, the Behind-the-Scenes footage is 15 minutes (that includes credits), and the music video isn’t even three minutes. The other 12+ minutes of exclamation mark-worthy content is the must-see New Line previews for such high-interest movies as Rush Hour 3, Monster-in-Law, and The Notebook, the commercial for which, FYI, always pushes me near to vomiting. I recommend you skip over that one, too.
For free, though, the DVD is great to have, particularly since I’m already dying to see the movie again. If you don’t get the DVD, I have a feeling the bonus footage and music video will be included as bonus features on the Hairspray DVD, so “please don’t have a cow” if you miss it.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The Beat Goes On: Yes, They Got Hairspray Right! (Spoiler-Free)
They got it right. They got it right! Thank God, they got it right!
Seriously, the producers of the Hairspray movie need to write a book on how to adapt Broadway shows for film. I’d write it myself, but I lack the experience. But they know their stuff and prove it in about every second of the Hairspray movie.
First of all, John Travolta is a revelation in this movie. Okay, maybe he was a revelation back in the ‘70s, but I don’t think I’ve seen him in anything since Grease, so he was a revelation to me. I don’t want to go into too many details (because I promised “Spoiler-Free”), but mid-way through “(You’re) Timeless to Me,” I realized that he’s topped Danny Zuko. He was wary about doing another film musical because he didn’t want to compete with Danny Zuko. No need. He’s done better. He’s that good in the role.
Best of all, to me, the film does what The Sound of Music film did, which was to take several great songs and give them a better placement than where they were in the original stage version. The result is a meatier second act, which leads more strongly to the climax.
Also executed perfectly was the adaptation of several songs for the film. For example, “I Can Hear the Bells” is done completely different from the film but is just as much fun. There’s also much cleverness in the adaptation of “Welcome to the 60’s” and “Without Love.” There’s been some talk that “Miss Baltimore Crabs” was replaced, but it’s still there, though now there’s an unbeatable callback later on.
I always said that Hairspray would be the perfect musical for kids. It has a lot to say, and not only does it say it well, it’s incredibly inspiring. To me, the problem with the stage version was the sprinkling of a few things that just weren’t needed (i.e. kids having sex on the playground; the African-American boy being the one who wants to de-flower the pure, innocent white girl; the gym teacher wanting to shower with her students . . . that last one was always an “ewwww” to me), but they are pretty much gone in this version. It has one or two light entendres for the PG-rating, but it’s really a great film for all ages. And I will say that I left the theater inspired and wanting to act on doing something for my personal cause, the Not for Sale campaign against human-trafficking.
I would also like to add that not only is the movie inspiring, it’s also very touching. I would go as far as to say that it moved me, like the stage version did, in the strength of Wilbur and Edna’s bond as well as in Tracy’s courage.
As far as I’m concerned, the only complaints anyone could have are in the typical film adaptation complaint department. First of all, the voices generally aren’t as strong as their stage counterparts (and I am still very satisfied with only my Broadway OBC recording) and quite simply, it’s not a stage show, which is always more energetic and, as a result, funnier. However, considering that stage musicals on film can never fully capture the original’s energy or comedic timing, I am more than pleased with the film. Like I said, I loved it!
I also have a feeling the film will give the stage version longer legs. I walked out of the movie last night wishing I could rush off and see an Equity production of the Broadway show so badly. I can’t believe I’ll the only one.
At the end of the movie (and do stay until the end for some great songs cut from the Broadway show), I remembered some of the criticisms I’ve read about the show from Ethan Mordden and Michael John LaChiusa. Watching the movie reminded me of what a blast Hairspray is on stage, and I defy anyone to criticize the joy this musical gives you or how it moves you.
This summer, I’ve seen many of the big movies—Spider-Man 3 (twice), Pirates of the Caribbean: More Confusing Than Dostoyevsky (once is enough), Transformers (good but not great), and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (better than the original). Okay, so I need to see Ratatouille still, but I will say this: Of all the movies I have seen this summer, Hairspray is been hands-down the best.
So, on opening weekend, go see Hairspray! When Hollywood gets a musical right, the suits need to know there’s an audience for them. Opening weekends are crucial to send a message to the analysts. Take your kids, take your nieces and nephews, take your friends. I know I can’t wait to see it again myself.
Broadway Mouth
July 10, 2007
Please Note: Okay, I've never read a novel by Dostoyevsky. I'm just going off rumors.
Seriously, the producers of the Hairspray movie need to write a book on how to adapt Broadway shows for film. I’d write it myself, but I lack the experience. But they know their stuff and prove it in about every second of the Hairspray movie.
First of all, John Travolta is a revelation in this movie. Okay, maybe he was a revelation back in the ‘70s, but I don’t think I’ve seen him in anything since Grease, so he was a revelation to me. I don’t want to go into too many details (because I promised “Spoiler-Free”), but mid-way through “(You’re) Timeless to Me,” I realized that he’s topped Danny Zuko. He was wary about doing another film musical because he didn’t want to compete with Danny Zuko. No need. He’s done better. He’s that good in the role.
Best of all, to me, the film does what The Sound of Music film did, which was to take several great songs and give them a better placement than where they were in the original stage version. The result is a meatier second act, which leads more strongly to the climax.
Also executed perfectly was the adaptation of several songs for the film. For example, “I Can Hear the Bells” is done completely different from the film but is just as much fun. There’s also much cleverness in the adaptation of “Welcome to the 60’s” and “Without Love.” There’s been some talk that “Miss Baltimore Crabs” was replaced, but it’s still there, though now there’s an unbeatable callback later on.
I always said that Hairspray would be the perfect musical for kids. It has a lot to say, and not only does it say it well, it’s incredibly inspiring. To me, the problem with the stage version was the sprinkling of a few things that just weren’t needed (i.e. kids having sex on the playground; the African-American boy being the one who wants to de-flower the pure, innocent white girl; the gym teacher wanting to shower with her students . . . that last one was always an “ewwww” to me), but they are pretty much gone in this version. It has one or two light entendres for the PG-rating, but it’s really a great film for all ages. And I will say that I left the theater inspired and wanting to act on doing something for my personal cause, the Not for Sale campaign against human-trafficking.
I would also like to add that not only is the movie inspiring, it’s also very touching. I would go as far as to say that it moved me, like the stage version did, in the strength of Wilbur and Edna’s bond as well as in Tracy’s courage.
As far as I’m concerned, the only complaints anyone could have are in the typical film adaptation complaint department. First of all, the voices generally aren’t as strong as their stage counterparts (and I am still very satisfied with only my Broadway OBC recording) and quite simply, it’s not a stage show, which is always more energetic and, as a result, funnier. However, considering that stage musicals on film can never fully capture the original’s energy or comedic timing, I am more than pleased with the film. Like I said, I loved it!
I also have a feeling the film will give the stage version longer legs. I walked out of the movie last night wishing I could rush off and see an Equity production of the Broadway show so badly. I can’t believe I’ll the only one.
At the end of the movie (and do stay until the end for some great songs cut from the Broadway show), I remembered some of the criticisms I’ve read about the show from Ethan Mordden and Michael John LaChiusa. Watching the movie reminded me of what a blast Hairspray is on stage, and I defy anyone to criticize the joy this musical gives you or how it moves you.
This summer, I’ve seen many of the big movies—Spider-Man 3 (twice), Pirates of the Caribbean: More Confusing Than Dostoyevsky (once is enough), Transformers (good but not great), and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (better than the original). Okay, so I need to see Ratatouille still, but I will say this: Of all the movies I have seen this summer, Hairspray is been hands-down the best.
So, on opening weekend, go see Hairspray! When Hollywood gets a musical right, the suits need to know there’s an audience for them. Opening weekends are crucial to send a message to the analysts. Take your kids, take your nieces and nephews, take your friends. I know I can’t wait to see it again myself.
Broadway Mouth
July 10, 2007
Please Note: Okay, I've never read a novel by Dostoyevsky. I'm just going off rumors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
