Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adolph
From: adolph@ssc-vax.UUCP (Mark Adolph)
Newsgroups: net.movies,net.theater
Subject: Musicals: Stage to screen
Message-ID: <798@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 20:38:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.798
Posted: Fri May 31 20:38:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Jun-85 00:41:42 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 58
Xref: watmath net.movies:6509 net.theater:55

*** YOUR MESSAGE ***

Recently, I had the opportunity to see the movie version of "Hair" (my 
video club was renting it for $1).  I've heard many reviews of this movie
ranging from 'bad' to 'worst thing to ever hit the screen,' so I
approached it as an exercise in seeing how bad they could make a movie.  I
must say that I was pleasantly surprised.  I found the movie to be a
perfectly valid attempt to translate the feelings evoked by the original
musical to a big screen format.  It wasn't a totally successful attempt,
but it deserved a lot more credit than it got.

Seeing that movie got me to thinking about the whole business of
translating theater to film.  "Hair" is a perfect example of a musical
which, if put directly on film without modification, would have made
little or no sense.  There seems to be more leeway for aimless
plotlessness on stage if a mood is created and a statement made.  On film,
these can be done, but a stronger plot is required.  I believe that that
is what the makers of "Hair" tried to do.  Unfortunately, the stage
production's relatively free form style was a major contributor to the mood 
that needed to be created, so a strong plot and having the songs be a 
natural result of the action tended to work against the movie.

What I'm trying to get at is that Hollywood seems to have a lot of
troubling capturing the essence and appeal of musicals on film.  As
evidence, I offer "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," "The Wiz," and
"Cabaret."  "Wait," you'll say, "Cabaret was a great movie."  That's
true, but the stage production was even better.  Why must musicals lose
part of their appeal when they are moved to film?  Is this something
that is a flaw of Hollywood, or is it a natural property of the two
media?  Can the constraints of film vs the stage be overcome by exploiting
the advantages that film has over a live performance?  Can a musical be
done successfully on film any more without being a joke or looking silly?

At the moment, Hollywood is busily producing a film version of "A Chorus
Line," and I am *very* worried.  "Chorus Line" has no set, no costumes
other than street clothing, and no real plot to speak of.  The pleasure is
in meeting the characters through their songs and dances.  In short, the
show is totally suited to the stage and a nightmare for the film director
who needs to maintain visual interest.  No doubt, they will change the
show to "fit" the screen.  I shudder to think what might come out of LA
this time.  

And the most tragic thing is that a huge number of people assume that the 
film and stage versions of a show are similar enough that a judgement of 
one necessarily applies to the other.  Nothing could be further from the 
truth.  Seeing Diana Ross prance around New York with Michael Jackson
Nipsy Russell and Richard Pryor is totally unrelated to watching the stage
version of "The Wiz," a show which is more faithful to Frank Baum's book
than even the Judy Garland version.

I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this from both the Hollywood and
Broadway sides of the issue.  As you may have guessed, I'm firmly in the
latter camp.  Where do you guys stand?

					-- Mark A.
					...{uw-beaver|fluke}!ssc-vax!adolph

	"1 + 1 = 1, for sufficiently small values of 1..."