Since we're reading/watching "The Phantom of the Opera" this week, I thought we could talk about musicals. This will be the second musical we've encountered, "Wicked" being the first.
My question is, how do you think film productions of musicals differ than stage productions? What do we gain/lose from each medium? If you've seen "Phantom" live, how did your experience of the musical differ to when you watched the film? Do you prefer one to the other?
Do films add more to the story because they aren't limited by the confines of a stage, are able to employ greater special effects, etc.? Would you have preferred "Wicked" as a film? If you're tired of talking about "Wicked", think about other movie-musicals you may have seen and talk about those, especially if you've seen the stage production as well.
Happy discussing!
20 comments:
I think that I prefer watching a musical on film. There is something about knowing that the characters are actually playing the musical at this moment. It seems more personal and it engages me more. In a film, I tend to doze off a little. I don't like watching musicals on film because I am so used to films have conversations rather than conversing in song.
I do like how Phantom of the Opera was able to flash back from the present to past. That would be very difficult to do in a stage format. I think that having the musical on film has its benefits as well as watching it on stage. The stage experience is much different than the film experience. The audience can actually interact with the characters on stage. I would have preferred Phantom of the Opera on stage rather than on film. Another example is Hairspray. The movie was good, but the live show is beyond what the movie could ever portray. The live show incorporates its audience with even slight gestures to make it feel more personal and real. The film can seem unrealistic or difficult to relate to. In the Phantom of the Opera film, I thought that the actions of Christine were very odd and not realistic. When Raul was going to be hung by the Phantom, she just stood there and sang. I feel that in a stage setting the characters need to be a little dramatic in their actions which also adds to the meaning and emotion of the characters.
I haven't really watched any musicals other than "Wicked." So, I can't really compare a live musical on stage to one that has been turned into a film. However, I think that films definitely have the advantage. Scenes can be redone edited. Special effects can be added, and like Candace mentioned memories can be portrayed quite easily. Film producers of musicals are sort of 'cheaters.' Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. It's a great opportunity for those, like myself, that aren't able to go watch a live performance of "The Phantom of the Opera," to experience the story and the beautiful music.
Live musicals on the other hand have to be rehearsed over and over again until the performers have everything completely memorized. It's harder for them because they aren't able to start over when they mess up, but I think that all of their hard work and effort makes the performance so much greater than having watched a film of the same musical. As viewers, we appreciate their talent a lot more. We also get to experience the same atmosphere as them which forms kind of a connection, which usually isn't felt with movies because we don't hear the music at the same volume or intensity as them.
@candace: I don't see why a film can be less dramatic than a musical. I understand where you're coming from as to Christine's reaction during Raul's hanging scene. They could have just as easily made her character as dramatic in a film as in a musical. Do you think that maybe the person that plays that character has a bigger part in making the piece more or less dramatic than the actual type of work it is, musical or film?
Perla,
Yes, maybe that's more what I was trying to say. I think that the person playing the character has the responsibility to be more or less dramatic depending on the scene. However, in a musical, the audience can be watching the stage from very far away, not being able to see the characters up close. So the character has to be overly dramatic in scenes and that is what I was saying in my first comment. Sometimes I feel that in films, the creators think oh the audience gets the point. They understand how she/he feels so the acting suffers. Rather, in a musical, the characters have to act dramatically in order for all audiences to see.
I think that effect of seeing something live is very different than watching it on T.V and that goes with anything including concerts and musicals. In both cases you gain and loose different aspects.
In the case of Phantom of the Opera I have seen it live and I own the film so i have watched it several times and I have a profound appreciation for both mediums.
Like it has been stated films are able to to a lot more for a person visually with special effects and scene changes that are harder to portray on a stage production. But musicals live capture an essence that you can't always get on film. When I saw phantom of the opera live it was mind blowing the set and costumes like in the movie are amazing and the stage production manages to produce its own special effects.
I don't know how wicked would work out as a film because it has only been done as a musical and is such an amazing musical production. If it were made into a film there could be some amazing things done visually and more added to scenes to make the transitions either. I also think that the only way it would be a successful musical is if the leading characters were played by Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth( thats just my personal opinion).
Both mediums have different effects so I think that a lot can be done with both.
I agree with Ife that, there is something to be said for both mediums. I think it's hard to say that one is 'better' than the other because I've seen amazing versions of both.
The effects of hearing a live musical performance are powerful and can really reach the audience in a different way than film. I've seen some instrumental performances in Pope Joy that were really cool because you could feel the musical vibrations in your seat.
On the other side, I miss out on seeing the close up expressions of the actor's faces (like I wished I could see the makeup in Wicked), so their voices were more salient for me. Theater acting and film acting are two different sets of skills. Film acting can be a lot more subtle with facial expression and communicate with the audience even with no dialogue.
I have to say that I strongly disagree with Perla's comment that film makers can sort of 'cheat' by using special effects and editing. While it's true that mistakes are hard to cover in a play, there is a huge amount of work involved in making a good film. Editing and cinematography are really arts unto themselves and deserve some credit.
One of the main differences that I think of is how the film "Phantom of the Opera" was able to display the Phantom as a mysterious magical genius. A good example is when the Phantom takes Christine through the mirror into his land of darkness which includes a gandala on a misty lake and very extravagant details. The film has the flexibility to bring the story more to life because film doesn't face the same limitations as stage musicals. Film can bring magical scenes to life better than the stage, but I do think theater has a way of enveloping the senses because the audience is sucked into a live performance rather than the TV box.
Another difference is the quality of song. I think we all noticed that the many beautiful songs of the Phantom of the Opera had been edited and digitally altered in order to achieve the very best quality of sound. Stage musicals are people who must multi-task between acting, moving, and singing so the quality is to a small degree different.
Another point that I noticed was in the film was how past events were portrayed in color and present events were in black and white, which obviously wouldn't be possible on a stage. In such aspects of time frames and other branching story plots I feel film makes the plot easier to follow whereas in stage musicals you must be careful not to confuse the audience by switching up the time and place unless it was painfully obvious.
I recently saw Billy Elliot the musical in NY and just watched the movie when I got back so I could compare the two. While I'm not sure that I would call the film a musical exactly, music and dance were important aspects of the film. The musical followed the plot line of the film almost exactly and there were no drastic omissions that I noticed. Despite this, the two were very different experiences. Though this is not always the case, I noticed that the movie can be view much more passively than a stage production. The musical was just so immersive and vibrant that it was hard not be actively engaged. There are certain advantage to film, including what others have mentioned about being able to easily portray things like flashbacks and certain interesting visual/narrative affects, but there is something about a good live performance which is hard to beat. Perhaps it was because the musical was a little over the top, but I definitely preferred the play to the film.
Before I say anything else, I want to point out that Wicked used a non-linear time frame. Many people have said that movies have an advantage in flashbacks, and I agree that they do because they can use effects like the black and white versus color scenes (like Aubs noticed). However, Wicked starts out with Glinda floating into Munchkin land after Dorothy has arrived, and then the story shifts backward in time. So, it’s possible to portray these things on stage. It might be tricky, but it does happen.
That said, I have to agree with everyone who has said that there is more of a personal involvement in live stage performances. There’s a different energy to seeing something live; it has a more immediate effect on my opinion of the performance. Seeing Wicked and other stage performances, I find myself instantly absorbed, whereas when I watch a film, I might be hooked but not in the same way. Especially if it’s a movie I can pause.
I don’t think that films generally add more to the story, but I definitely think they have their merits. The Phantom of the Opera was a good movie, partly because of the effects and the digitally perfected sound and partly because the story is well written. Story plays an important part in both film and stage performances; if the piece looks great but doesn’t have a compelling story line to hold it together, it falls apart. And I think that’s where translating works is really beneficial, especially when going from a written work to a visual one. The story is already there, even if it gets modified for a script.
There are good things and bad things from the musical and the film. For instance, in film, we can view a more realistic interpretation of the story. We can see interactions with more of a personal point of view. However, the musical in film is not as entrancing musically as watching it live. For example, Minnie Driver played La Corlotta, but the part was not actually sung by her. All the music was done in the studio before hand. When watching the musical live, we experience the talents of the performers first hand.
I have seen other musicals on stage too, like the Wizard of Oz, and all of them have that same element, where the talent is lost on the screen. Many changes can be made in film; the voices can be altered as well as the bodies with airbrushing. The stage is much more real, even though we get a more personal view of the characters through film.
I wanted to add on to what Rachelle said about the flashbacks in plays. I mentioned in my first comment that in films, they have the opportunity to have flashbacks more effectively than plays. In Wicked, the flashbacks were done well I think. However, in some circumstances it could be confusing to the audience since there isn't a distinct change. It is hard to compare specifically the Phantom of the Opera from film to play because I haven't seen the live performance. I agree with everyone though that the medium (play or film) does not necessarily add or subtract the story or effect, it just depends on the overall plot.
I know that I said that Wicked was the first live musical I had seen, but I just remembered that I saw Beauty and the Beast at Disney World. Now, obviously, this is a unique comparison because it is a translation not only from film to live action, but also from cartoon to live actors and actresses.
I have to say, that in this case, I actually preferred the movie over the live version. One of the major reasons I preferred the screen version was that the beautiful landscapes in the film where only marginally transferred to the live version. These landscapes created much of the power of the scenes (ex: the scene where Belle's father is lost in the forest, the scene where Belle is singing about wanting to be free, the fight scene between Gaston and the Beast, etc.).
Now I am going to go and disagree with many of you who commented on the ability to connect better with the live characters than the screen actors. At least for me, much of my emotional responses to people comes from being able to see their thoughts and feelings written from their facial expressions. Since it is relatively impossible to see facial expressions in a live performance, unless you are one of the few lucky ducks who can afford to sit in the front few rows, much of the emotional connection, I feel is cut off. I don't mean to say that live versions are any less powerful; merely that I find it easier to connect with the character on a screen since I can see their faces.
Film productions of musicals have a tendency to really take advantage of the removal of limitations if space, editing, and whatever effects can be used. I usually feel as though they are trying to make up for constraints they faced while on stage. The films of musicals like The Sound of Music or Finian’s Rainbow make extensive use of outdoor scenes and shots, and are presented in such a way that it feels strange to me to think of them as being confined to the space of a single stage (I have never seen them live, but…). The film version of The Phantom of the Opera that we watched in class relied heavily on the uses of editing and effects (Aubs and Rachelle mentioned the transitions between color and black & white).
However, films don’t always separate themselves from their stage counterparts. The 1998 film version of cats was filmed as though it were on stage, the only differences being some shortenings and omissions due to time constraints. The few blatant uses of special effects seem out of place (the vanishing Mr. Mistoffelees?), but overall the effect is very interesting. The particularly effective use of available resources was, to me, the ability to have close ups mixed in with the long and pan shots, giving the film some of the “movie” feel as opposed to having a stationary camera.
I like musicals. I love live performances. I am more likely to be able to see a film. Therefore, I tend to like filmed musicals. If I were to venture a preference, I would, undoubtedly choose live, but I have really seen very few live shows. The films maintain their place in my esteem because I CAN actually see them.
Another thing we haven’t touched upon would be the Disney movies vs. their Broadway counterparts. The Broadway versions of The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Tarzan, The Little Mermaid, and any others I just missed, were adapted to the stage after the animated films were released. The musical versions all, necessarily, present a very different visual images than the films (it is hard to look like a cartoon), but the also all include songs that were not included in the original films. Although I have never seen any of them live, I must say that really do like some of those songs. To me, Endless Night feels perfect for the Lion King, and I have always had a soft spot for If I Can’t Love Her from Beauty and the Beast. (Admittedly, I was overly fond of the Disney music as a child and I apparently never quite grew out of it.)
My Disney comments were posted too late. They have now been mentioned before me.
I have seen the movie version of The Phantom of the Opera before, but as I was watching it this time, I kept trying to imagine what it is like as a live stage production. The things I thought about were: what does the set(s) look like and how do they utilize it; where are the different scene breaks? It's these sorts of things that movies hide so well. Films have the ability of being much more seamless. Like Aubs mentioned, the part where Christine goes through the mirror then down and around the Phantom's domain, is amazing to watch on film. However, I can't imagine any way that could be done on a stage. So I wonder what was done instead.
For me, live performances and film productions are very similar mediums because both have live people (as opposed to books to movies). When traveling to New York City and trying to choose what production I wanted to see, I always went for something that did not have a movie counterpart. My logic was "I've seen the movie, so I've basically already seen the musical." A particular example of this is RENT. I loved the movie, so I felt that I did not need to see the musical additionally. The plot, songs, and characters were all the same. The biggest difference between the two, I think, is the set. Films are not confined to a single space (the stage). Now for RENT, the movie works out better because you can see them walk along the streets of the real city, instead of the “streets” that they create on stage. However, for WICKED, there is no Land of Oz. So the sets that are created for the stage would be just as good as anything created for a movie because either way they would have to be created.
Sorry for the late post everyone! I just got into town at midnight last night, and i didnt have internet where i was :(
But anywho! I personally prefer on stage musicals. When I was younger I used to perform in musicals, which was incredibly fun, but that hobby stemmed from my love of watching musicals. As I've grown older, I've seen more and more musicals translated into movies, and I've even watched a few of them! It's hard to explain, but despite the ability to do much much more with special effects, and include more with the cinematography, somehow when musicals are made into movies, it's less thrilling to me. For example, both times I've seen Wicked, and when I've seen other musicals, I've literally gotten goosebumps during the performances; that has never happened while watching a movie of a musical. I think that the beauty of musicals being performed on stage, is that it's happening in that moment, right there in front of you, and it's almost like anything could happen. Movies somehow lack that thrill, that interactivity, and that passion that musicals have always portrayed to me.
I had another thought on the matter of film and stage musicals. Setting the scene of the plot is essential in setting the tone. Movies can unravel a plot in any weather, building, park, car, forest, even in outer space. How do you think a stage musical would do compared to a film covering the same story of an astronaut....probably not the same especially due to no lack of gravity affects. Musicals have to be a lot more creative in setting the stage especially as how many different scenes use to the same background. Wicked did an awesome job in showing the effect of rain and lighting. I will say tho that the stage musical I feel would not be able to get across the same message/feeling as the film. Primarily this is due to the Phantom being a "trap-door" lover and the stage would not be as good at portraying the Phantom's maze beneath the Opera house.
Marissa brought up a good point about setting the scene. Though musicals can have amazing constructed sets, it is often difficult to beat the real thing, as is the case with outdoor scenes. Film can take you to places as closely as possible without forcing you to leave the comfort of your own home or movie theater. It also has the advantage of dictating exactly how the audience sees the action. In a theater during a live performance, there are hundreds of different points of view, some less desirable than others. A film can ensure everyone has the optimum and intended viewing of the movie, which is an impossible variable to control in a live play.
I personally like watching live performances compared to seeing the version on screen. I feel more involved. I have more of a connection with the actors and singers of a live performance rather than a film production. In a film production, there’s more room for special effect, which is plenty cool. In a live performance, there’s more room to engage your audience.
When I first watched “Phantom of the Opera” on screen, I wasn’t too thrilled, mainly because my mother was singing the entire time, and I wasn’t too enthused to see it in the first place. I had never heard of the “Phantom of the Opera” before. I felt like it was a beautiful movie, but the music and lyrics didn’t mean anything to me. It wasn’t until we bought the movie that I actually started liking it. Like my mother, I began singing at the top of my lungs and found myself watching the movie over and over again.
Then, about 2 years later, I saw the musical and was in love! The set was beautiful and the singing was fantastic. I had a more positive experience with this because I had previous exposure to the idea of the Phantom and was able to connect myself more with the material at hand.
I believe that films add more to the story/leave things out in order to convey the 300 page message the author or originator had in mind in order to not bore the audience. If they wanted a musical or film to follow the book exactly, they might as well just read it or be prepared for a 12 hour performance. Much of it has to deal with time constraints more so than material and set constraints.
Personally, I would LOVE “Wicked” as a movie. Then I could watch it over and over again. Movies have that advantage. Musicals are costly and show only a certain amount of times before moving onto the next city.
@hjm: I think you make a good point. I always strain to see the actors' faces during live performance (because who can afford front-row seats?), which I think causes live musicals to depend more upon the music and song/dance numbers than on subtle facial expressions that can be captured on film.
I also agree that both live productions and film versions present different challenges, and are both respectable art forms. Thanks for all the input, everybody!
Post a Comment