Musicals used to be huge at the movies—one of the staples of the business. But over the years, this has become less and less true, to the point today where they’re an all but dead genre. But, between Moulin Rouge & Chicago, the trend seems to be reversing.
I’ve had a theory for years about why musicals don’t work in movies any more and was pretty convinced that Rouge and Chicago validated that theory. What it boiled down to was that musicals did well in the early days of film because they were big, fantastic spectacles. Movies weren’t about realism… the sets were obvious, the backdrops transparent, the effects laughable. Musicals could thrive in this climate because they too were not realistic. People don’t burst into song and dance spontaneously and the crowds on the street aren’t going to be high kicking in time to your rhythms.
But, as movies and their budgets became bigger, as the sets became more elaborate and shooting on location became the norm rather than the exception, realism began to creep into the movies. Then, as Lucas blew open the concept of special effects in the 70s and effects have become more and more sophisticated, reality becomes even easier to simulate, to the point where Peter Jackson can convincingly portray elves, dwarves, cave trolls and flying dragon riders in the Lord of the Rings and we gleefully go along. Suspension of disbelief becomes easy, because it all looks so freaking real!
But musicals can’t exist in the harsh light of reality. As films became more real, musicals tried to do the same thing… location shots, expansive sets, the whole nine yards. But, the problem here is, they’ve still gotta jump off the reality train to sing and dance and the two ideas just don’t work well together.
Since the 70s, you can probably count the successful movie musicals on the fingers of one hand. (Obviously, I’m not counting the animated musical, a la Disney. Those exist in their own world and, since you’re watching a cartoon already, you don’t have to worry about the whole reality thing. I mean, if you’re buying into the idea of talking lions and mere-cats, who cares if they can sing and dance as well?)
I’ve always pointed to Grease as an example of one of the few musicals that’s made the transition to screen and worked. And I’ve always said that it’s because it embraces the fantastic nature of the musical… the scene where they’re singing about fixing up his car and suddenly everyone’s in pristine white coveralls dancing around this spectacular looking hot rod is the epitome of the movie musical fantasy. And it’s stuff like this throughout the movie that helps to sell it to the audience. It embraces the fantasy of the musical and so succeeds as a musical.
So, while discussing Chicago with Quentin and Chris earlier this year, I mentioned this theory. And Q disputed it. He pointed out that the scene I mention is one of the few fantastic scenes in Grease and that it is filled with scenes that have people bursting out into song in the middle of the street or the school or the fair and it’s all very “real” when it happens. So I had to go back and take another look at my theory.
Watching Chicago on DVD tonight, I thought about the whole reality/fantasy thing again and I’ve come to the conclusion that I misstated my theory. It’s not the “fantasy” that musicals need to embrace. It’s the theatricality…
Chicago embraces that theatricality, to the point where all the numbers are done on stage with “real world” scenes interspersed. The Murderer’s Row number is a great example of this (if for no other reason than it’s such a great number). Scene starts with Roxie lying on her cot, listening to the water drip. Then footsteps are added, drumming fingers, whispering voices… it becomes the rhythm for the scene’s tango. The number is introed, cabaret style, as most of the numbers in the show are, and Roxie takes her seat at a table to watch the dance. But, as each woman tells her story, we cut back to the prison to see them telling their story in the real world… eating dinner, giving an interview, etc.
Now, the number could have been staged in the prison with each prisoner telling her story and the rest of the inmates backing it up… one great big women-in-prison production number. But, aside from losing the raw sensuality of the number, it also would have lost the theatricality… the smoke, red lights, kerchief’s representing blood & life, prison bars fading in and out of the scene (and let’s not forget the lingerie clad dancers, since sex is inherent in this scene). By embracing that theatricality, the scene comes to life and becomes more interesting and fun.
So my revised theory is that, in order for a musical to succeed in film today, it must embrace the inherent theatrical nature of the musical. Don’t try to hide it behind the realism that has become such a part of contemporary filmmaking. It’s the difference between; say an Evita and a Chicago. (Well, that and Catherine Zeta Jones in the lead instead of Madonna. I’ll go with the actress over the performer any day.)
I’ve had a theory for years about why musicals don’t work in movies any more and was pretty convinced that Rouge and Chicago validated that theory. What it boiled down to was that musicals did well in the early days of film because they were big, fantastic spectacles. Movies weren’t about realism… the sets were obvious, the backdrops transparent, the effects laughable. Musicals could thrive in this climate because they too were not realistic. People don’t burst into song and dance spontaneously and the crowds on the street aren’t going to be high kicking in time to your rhythms.
But, as movies and their budgets became bigger, as the sets became more elaborate and shooting on location became the norm rather than the exception, realism began to creep into the movies. Then, as Lucas blew open the concept of special effects in the 70s and effects have become more and more sophisticated, reality becomes even easier to simulate, to the point where Peter Jackson can convincingly portray elves, dwarves, cave trolls and flying dragon riders in the Lord of the Rings and we gleefully go along. Suspension of disbelief becomes easy, because it all looks so freaking real!
But musicals can’t exist in the harsh light of reality. As films became more real, musicals tried to do the same thing… location shots, expansive sets, the whole nine yards. But, the problem here is, they’ve still gotta jump off the reality train to sing and dance and the two ideas just don’t work well together.
Since the 70s, you can probably count the successful movie musicals on the fingers of one hand. (Obviously, I’m not counting the animated musical, a la Disney. Those exist in their own world and, since you’re watching a cartoon already, you don’t have to worry about the whole reality thing. I mean, if you’re buying into the idea of talking lions and mere-cats, who cares if they can sing and dance as well?)
I’ve always pointed to Grease as an example of one of the few musicals that’s made the transition to screen and worked. And I’ve always said that it’s because it embraces the fantastic nature of the musical… the scene where they’re singing about fixing up his car and suddenly everyone’s in pristine white coveralls dancing around this spectacular looking hot rod is the epitome of the movie musical fantasy. And it’s stuff like this throughout the movie that helps to sell it to the audience. It embraces the fantasy of the musical and so succeeds as a musical.
So, while discussing Chicago with Quentin and Chris earlier this year, I mentioned this theory. And Q disputed it. He pointed out that the scene I mention is one of the few fantastic scenes in Grease and that it is filled with scenes that have people bursting out into song in the middle of the street or the school or the fair and it’s all very “real” when it happens. So I had to go back and take another look at my theory.
Watching Chicago on DVD tonight, I thought about the whole reality/fantasy thing again and I’ve come to the conclusion that I misstated my theory. It’s not the “fantasy” that musicals need to embrace. It’s the theatricality…
Chicago embraces that theatricality, to the point where all the numbers are done on stage with “real world” scenes interspersed. The Murderer’s Row number is a great example of this (if for no other reason than it’s such a great number). Scene starts with Roxie lying on her cot, listening to the water drip. Then footsteps are added, drumming fingers, whispering voices… it becomes the rhythm for the scene’s tango. The number is introed, cabaret style, as most of the numbers in the show are, and Roxie takes her seat at a table to watch the dance. But, as each woman tells her story, we cut back to the prison to see them telling their story in the real world… eating dinner, giving an interview, etc.
Now, the number could have been staged in the prison with each prisoner telling her story and the rest of the inmates backing it up… one great big women-in-prison production number. But, aside from losing the raw sensuality of the number, it also would have lost the theatricality… the smoke, red lights, kerchief’s representing blood & life, prison bars fading in and out of the scene (and let’s not forget the lingerie clad dancers, since sex is inherent in this scene). By embracing that theatricality, the scene comes to life and becomes more interesting and fun.
So my revised theory is that, in order for a musical to succeed in film today, it must embrace the inherent theatrical nature of the musical. Don’t try to hide it behind the realism that has become such a part of contemporary filmmaking. It’s the difference between; say an Evita and a Chicago. (Well, that and Catherine Zeta Jones in the lead instead of Madonna. I’ll go with the actress over the performer any day.)
Comments