Movie Musicals

[Sharpie66]

@Constant Viewer, I have a great history of American Musical Theater book written as a textbook by Sheldon Patinkin, who teaches the subject at Columbia College in Chicago (and, yes, his cousin is Mandy), called "No Legs, No Jokes, No Chance". The title comes from a review of Oklahoma. The book goes from the late 1700s up to the late 2000s. There is a brief synopsis of just about every musical on Broadway with a more in-depth look at the more significant productions.

[aradia22]

 

Or selfish pigs of young mothers like the one in front of me, who texted repeatedly despite all admonitions not to.

Yeah, the first time I see a movie I like to be in a bubble so I can form my own impressions but my best friend and I have a bit of a tradition of going to see animated movies and it is sometimes sweet to see the reactions of the kids. I don't mind children at the movies if they're not disruptive. Also, gasp! Texting during Into the Woods? How dare she? I'm more annoyed at people who have their phones out in an actual theatre but a movie theater is almost as bad, especially with how brightly that beacon of a screen shines in a dark theater. Boo. What is so important?

[Milburn Stone]

The mother who texted should be boiled in oil.

 

At our screening there were several families with children but none with very small children. More like age 10 to 12. And they seemed to enjoy it. On our way out, one such family was walking ahead of us, and their twelvish-year old girl was singing one of the songs to herself. I wished Sondheim could have seen that, so that he could be gratified that children really do listen. (So much for the old saw that he doesn't write songs people can hum on their way out of the theater.)

[Rinaldo]

Sure, I think that age (or even down to 8, depending on the individual child) is fine; they're ready for a little complexity by then, I think. And some may even have encountered the "Junior" version that's available for schools, essentially just the first act (possibly slightly abridged? I've not seen it). If so, their drama director may well have mentioned that there's a grownup version that goes into what happens after "happily ever after," piquing their curiosity to see that eventually.

[ancslove]

I think 8 and up is fine, obviously depending on the individual child, but I would highly recommend that children read the Grimm fairy tales first.  Or at least, read Grimm's Cinderella and Rapunzel.  

 

I do wonder if any big musical movie will follow Tom Hooper's lead, and have live singing.  

[Milburn Stone]

Heartening news about the sales performance of the Into the Woods soundtrack CD:

 

http://playbill.com/news/article/into-the-woods-soundtrack-breaks-top-20-on-billboard-200-338413

[Rinaldo]

I must admit, it's the first soundtrack of a movie musical that I've even thought about buying, since home video began. I know I'll buy the DVD when it appears (I need to maintain a library for teaching, if nothing else), but I might actually want to listen to the performances on their own. Particularly, I admit, for the bigger orchestration, that being my research specialty.

[Notwisconsin]

I don't know if the Great Performances version from 1990 will still be available on DVD. They usually hide the original when a new version of a movie comes out. The 1940s version of The Great Gatsby vanished when the Redford version was released and it hasn't been seen again.

 

Just checked Amazon, it's still available.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Notwisconsin

[Rinaldo]

Nothing happened to the earlier two Sweeney Todd videos when the movie happened. In fact I can't think of any examples of a film rendering earlier stage video(s) unavailable. What am I forgetting?

 

Occasnally, if a studio remakes one of its own films, it'll remove its earlier version from circulation for a limited period. But even that doesn't seem to happen all that often. And as aforementioned, the period is limited (I see that the 1949 Gatsby is available).

[Notwisconsin]

....which brings up the eternal question: when is the Urinetown movie coming out?

[aradia22]

 

Nothing happened to the earlier two Sweeney Todd videos when the movie happened. In fact I can't think of any examples of a film rendering earlier stage video(s) unavailable. What am I forgetting?

I don't really understand what you mean either, Notwisconsin. I know that sometimes there are naming issues. I think usually the new movie has to alter it's title but I vaguely remember something (maybe it was mentioned on TCM by Robert Osborne) about a studio releasing two movies with the same name and suppressing the earlier version. I can't remember if it was a remake or just a movie with the same name. The other variation is that things might not be as easily accessible. For instance, I think Netflix dropped the Into the Woods recording. Things can drop off Netflix (subscription streaming) or Amazon (pay per view) streaming services for one reason or another... a new sequel, a movie is going to be rereleased in theaters or on home video, etc. etc. But no, I don't really know of anything disappearing completely, especially if there are already a bunch of copies of it in circulation.

[DollEyes]

 

Just going off his SNL performance of Make 'Em Laugh, I wouldn't pick JGL. I don't think he has that sweet, warm tenor...and there are plenty of guys who do. I do not see Anna Kendrick or Zooey Deschanel in that part at all. Even if they wouldn't be doing an Ellen Greene impression, nothing about their appearances says Audrey to me. I am confused about where you're drawing the line between Mushnik and Orin but I agree that James Marsden could be surprisingly great as Orin.

 

  For the most part, I respectfully disagree. For one thing, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's rendition of "Make 'Em Laugh" on SNL wasn't the first nor last time he has sung in public. Rick Moranis isn't a tenor either, AFAIK, but he still managed to do a  very convincing job of capturing Seymour's spirit and I believe that JG-L could do the same. Another person whom I think could play Seymour is Daniel Radcliffe-who, like JG-L, can act, sing and dance. As for Audrey, while, say, Megan Hilty may look more like Ellen Greene's version of Audrey and she can sing, she's not very well known off Broadway except for Smash and the less said about that, the better. I'm not holding that against Hilty, I'm just saying that if some casting directors did, I wouldn't be surprised. Anna Kendrick and Zooey Deschanel may not look like Audrey, but makeup and padding should fix that. As for the Mushnik & Orin connection, it's that they're both villains who abused the protagonists. They're not the main villain of the story, but they're both evil, nonetheless. On the casting front,  I believe that Bill Murray did a great job in the 1986 remake of the role that was originated by Jack Nicholson 25 years earlier. Nicholson's a hard act to follow (to put it mildly), but Murray pulled it off. Anyone who's seen James Marsden in 2 Guns knows that he can play a bad guy. If Marsden can't, then I think that Matt Bomer can.  Just because someone unexpected is cast in a certain role, that doesn't mean they can't play it.

[Notwisconsin]

It might be because I'm a little older than many here, but back in the day of pre-vhs, when remakes came out, they made sure that all the earlier versions were impossible to see. The same thing happened with VHS, when they'd pull tapes from the stores. Today, I guess, it's kind of impossible to do that anymore. It was a big thing back in the day...

by way of apology, here's Lilla Crawford surrendering to the evil empire:

http://youtu.be/EUFS6MXRFA0

Edited January 4, 2015 by Notwisconsin

[Julia]

For whatever little it's worth, my husband and daughter were at the closing performance of Daniel Radcliffe and John Laroquette in How to Succeed (we cut a deal. I took the kid to Paul Gross in Private Lives), and they both would cheerfully buy tickets to see Daniel Radcliffe do pretty much anything.

[Rinaldo]

It might be because I'm a little older than many here, but back in the day of pre-vhs, when remakes came out, they made sure that all the earlier versions were impossible to see. 

Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm the oldest of all here (yay?), and I don't recall that being such standard practice. Sure, there were one or two well-publicized cases of that sort: when the Jessica Lange King Kong was released, the classic Fay Wray one was made unavailable (for TV showing, or private 16-mm rental) for a limited period; and then when the new version had finished its theatrical run a year or so later, the old one was made available as before. Even post-DVD, something similar happened with the Charade remake (which nobody remembers now), with the classic DVD taken off the market for a short while. But such control was only possible because the the same company made both movies and owned all visual rights to the property. If that's not the case, there is no single entity that controls all video versions of a given story. I recall different companies' versions of The Three Musketeers, or Robin Hood, or Davy Crockett, existing side by side. And the various stage/concert DVDs of Les Mis and Sweeney Todd have been unaffected by the making of a film.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Rinaldo

[caracas1914]

What killed me about old musical movies is how many times they would get a Broadway or West End hit show, pay big bucks for the rights, and essentially gut the show and even replace many of the songs.  Why go through all the bother, it's almost like buying an expensive recently built home and renovating it from top to bottom.  The tinkering with old musicals was insane.  

 

Of course there was stuff like Noel Coward's operetta "Bitter Sweet" where he  was so upset with final result he swore not to have another movie of his made again. Yet even the Weill/Gershwin's BW  hit "Lady in the Dark" when it was made into a movie cut most of the Weill/Gershwin songs.  Did they really think they could write better songs?

Edited January 7, 2015 by caracas1914

[Rinaldo]

It's infuriating, isn't it? It happened for a very plain commercial reason usually: the studios derived no income from those original songs (that is, their further exploitation in recordings etc.), whereas if they commissioned new songs from their own contracted songwriters, they would own a percentage of further income from them.

 

In the case of ​Lady in the Dark, maybe the most egregious example of all (I mean, they initiate the "mystery tune" basis for the dreams, and then never reveal that it's "My Ship" -- the song is never sung with lyrics -- or show its significance in her life), there's a very specific reason: Buddy DeSylva, a lyricist (and a good one), was then Executive Producer at Paramount, and he hated Weill's music. Hated it. So he did what he could to make sure there was as little of it in the film as possible. 

 

The whole idea that a movie of a stage show should substantially resemble its source really began with Oklahoma!, for which Rodgers & Hammerstein had enough clout to insist on it. To be fair, there were a few isolated examples before: Call Me Madam, Where's Charley?, a few others. But there were still horrible cases even around 1950 like On the Town, which blithely replaced Bernstein's score with a new one.

[caracas1914]

I still think a golden era where those pre Censor Maurice Chevalier or Jeanette MacDonald  musicals for Paramount back in the early 30's.   Lubitsch directed some of them , OMG, they haven't aged at all as far as the seamless , dare I say, "organic" way they blended those sophisticated witty songs into those light as air silly  plots.  Monte Carlo,  The Smiling Lieutenant, ONe Hour with you, etc..

 

Rouben Mamoulian,actually directed my favorite "Love me Tonight".    Sheer perfection.

Edited January 9, 2015 by caracas1914

[Rinaldo]

Yes, I was going to mention Love Me Tonight if you didn't. In some ways we still haven't caught up to what that movie does.

[Julia]

In some ways, I think Isn't It Romantic is more of an accomplishment than the infamous tracking shot in Touch of Evil (and the less successful, JMO, one in The Player) for the fluid way it managed to connect the two characters, place them in context and tell us who they were in the course of one song with no dialogue.

[harrie]

Another Love Me Tonight lover here.  The opening scene where the sounds of the day waking up become a song -- I don't know if this Mamoulian was the first one to do this, or if this was the first time it was done, but it's my favorite example of the technique. At the risk of sounding spacey, it comes together so organically, it's just about perfect, as is IIR and the work overall.  Even Myrna Loy in her small part is fantastic. 

[Rinaldo]

Rouben Mamoulian was famous for that "symphony of everyday sounds" sort of thing. I don't know if he was the very first to do that in movies, but I wouldn't be surprised -- he did it onstage too, famously in one scene of the play Porgy and then in its operatic adaptation Porgy and Bess. (He was scheduled to direct the movie of that too, but was pushed out by Preminger.)

[caracas1914]

A pity Mamoulian didn't push back enough to know Preminger off the director's chair.

[Rinaldo]

Alas, Otto P had all the clout in that situation. There's a good recent book by Joseph Horowitz devoted to Mamoulian (despite the subtitle, it's about his whole career). I confess to a sliver of proprietary interest in it -- I sat next to Joe on the conference bus to and from the production of Porgy and Bess which he describes as the turning point in his appreciation of that work.

[Milburn Stone]

Got around last night to watching Summer Holiday which I'd DVR'ed from TCM. Mamoulian directed it so I expected good and possibly great things. Let's just say I started watching it--because it was pretty awful. And I fear the awfulness was not due to studio interference, but to Mamoulian's vision. (Studio interference may have made it better.) Still like the score--including (of course) "The Stanley Steamer" and the deleted "Spring Isn't Everything." But the staging of "Steamer" made it come across like nothing so much as a road-company "Trolley Song." And Rooney's performance was arrested-development-Andy-Hardy. (I felt for him. I have enormous admiration for Rooney's talent. He seemed lost.) I have the Mamoulian book but haven't read it yet. I will have to get it out and read the Summer Holiday passages.

[Dejana]

Disney's making a live-action Beauty and the Beast, starring Emma Watson. It's going to be a musical version with the familiar songs. Not sure why it needs to be another movie, but there's more money to be made, so...

[Bruinsfan]

Meant to say earlier, but I'm morbidly curious about the idea of making a movie of Cats.  I don't actually think we need a full movie - the filmed stage show was well done, and had Elaine Paige and Sir John Mills.  But I'm just trying to picture a real movie, with real singing, dancing cats.  Because there's no way you can take people and put them in those costumes and that makeup, and then take away the stage which makes it all a little less ridiculous.  

Andrew Lloyd Weber can't be crazy enough to try a version with real cats or attempts to CGI the same, can he? I could see it working as an animated film though.

 

They had me for the prospective film of Damn Yankees right up until I read Jim Carrey's name in the cast. No, just no.

 

I think I'd like to see a film version of The Wild Party (Andrew Lippa version), but if and only if they could get Cheryl Daro for "Old Fashioned Love Story."

[Spartan Girl]

Disney's making a live-action Beauty and the Beast, starring Emma Watson. It's going to be a musical version with the familiar songs. Not sure why it needs to be another movie, but there's more money to be made, so...

 

 

Well, I liked the Broadway musical, so even though it's unnecessary, I'm still looking forward to it.  I can't wait to hear how Emma Watson sings, and I'm curious who they're going to get to play the Beast.

[cpcathy]

Andrew Lloyd Weber can't be crazy enough to try a version with real cats or attempts to CGI the same, can he? I could see it working as an animated film though.

 

 

 

God, I hope not, and I'm a cat lover! I think part of what people loved about Cats were the costumes and the makeup.

[ancslove]

The costumes, makeup, and dancing make Cats such a wonderful spectacle.  Realistically speaking, yeah they would need a movie version to be live-action people.  But, I think doing so would also up the criticism, highlighting the sheer absurdity of the whole conceit, as well as the overall lack of plot.  And I don't think Cats is along the lines of the more recent movie musicals - there's nothing much to gain from making it into a movie.  The setting is very limited, and the whole show only takes place during one night.  The filmed version of the stage show already has the special effects, such as Mistoffeles vanishing.  Now, if ALW wanted to make some extra money, I would love a limited theater showing of the current DVD.  

[Schweedie]

The idea of turning Cats into a live action/CGI movie sounds like a disaster to me. A spectacular one I might watch for the hell of it, but a disaster nonetheless!

 

I don't know how Into the Woods has fared at the box office, but Sweeney Todd did relatively well, didn't it?

If there were to be another Sondheim movie musical I'm kind of curious about how Assassins would turn out, and if the public would take to it at all considering its topic - I'd probably agree with the earlier discussion in that the subject might put people off... I rather like Sweeney Todd, and Assassins certainly can certainly have a dark and creepy vibe to it if done the right way, too, even while being funny, but like Rinaldo says I'm not sure how you'd handle its - disjointedness? - in a movie.

 

I'd still kinda love to see it, though.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Schweedie

[Rick Kitchen]

Into the Woods box office according to imdb:

 

$116,449,000 (USA) (18 January 2015)

$122,430,087 (Worldwide) (15 January 2015)

[aradia22]

On the one hand, Ryan Gosling's voice is surprisingly pleasant in this trailer. On the other hand, I'm not that excited about another primarily white fantasy version of NY or LA, even if it is a musical.

I wanted to talk about this take on Meryl Streep's career but I didn't know where else to put it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/critics-notebook-is-meryl-streep-919051

[methodwriter85]

So, did anyone ever see The Last 5 Years with Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan? I don't know if it was just adaption issues, or whatever, but something about it just didn't click with me. (Probably a big reason why it wasn't given a wide release.) Kind of a shame. Was the stage version a lot better? I also felt pretty "meh" about Jersey Boys. I did think we got a glimpse of what the movie could have been during the end credits where they dance, but otherwise, I thought the movie just lacked energy.

From what I've heard, I absolutely will never, ever, EVER see the 1985 adaptation of a Chorus Line. I loved the musical when I saw a touring version of it in 2010, and it just sounds like it got botched. There as an anecdote where an original cast member talked about how they heard the producers refused to cast the originals because they were "too old" and the musical was supposedly about young people trying to make it in the industry. Of course, if you've seen the musical, that's the exact opposite of what the musical was about- that most of these people were just trying to stay in the game even though they weren't good enough to advance to principal or supporting parts. I'm not sure the musical could ever really work as a movie, though.

I could see an adaption of Next to Normal working, but it doesn't have enough of a following to get an adaption, I don't think. I do wonder how they'd film it. Another adaption I'd love to see would be Spring Awakening, but it's just never going to happen. Frank depictions of teenage sexuality just aren't made into movies these days, unless it's a PG-13 version of teen sex.

What I think would be interesting would be if they managed to do an adaption of the musical Once, which was based off of a 2007 indie movie. It would be a movie musical adaption based off a musical based off a movie. LOL. (Hairspray is the only one I can think off that had that kind of circular existence, but I'm sure there's others.)

[JustaPerson]

Quote

So, did anyone ever see The Last 5 Years with Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan? I don't know if it was just adaption issues, or whatever, but something about it just didn't click with me. (Probably a big reason why it wasn't given a wide release.) Kind of a shame. 

I might have mentioned it in the Theatre talk thread but I don't remember. Overall I liked it, though I was on the fence about the decision to have Jamie cheat with and sing to multiple women in Nobody Needs to Know instead of the implied one in the musical.  I feel like that made him seem even worse in the relationship. 

[Rinaldo]

8 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

So, did anyone ever see The Last 5 Years with Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan? I don't know if it was just [adaptation] issues, or whatever, but something about it just didn't click with me. (Probably a big reason why it wasn't given a wide release.) Kind of a shame. Was the stage version a lot better? 

I think the main reason it didn't get a wide release is that there's simply no movie public for something like this: a two-person intimate musical (there are some who unthinkingly turn off at the sign of a musical in any case) with no crowd-drawing names. It's astonishing that it got filmed in the first place. But I thought the movie worked just fine, and I enjoyed it a lot. It's completely faithful to the stage script and score. I've seen it onstage a few times now (including the very first production, in a suburb of Chicago), and I find that its effect grows on me each time I see it, so I might cautiously recommend revisiting it at some point, to see if that is true for you as well. (Of course, maybe it won't be.) I must say that the most recent stage production I saw, directed by the author and with Betsy Wolfe and Adam Kantor was superb in every way, near-definitive, and I kind of wish that version were the one to be immortalized. But that was never going to happen.

Quote

From what I've heard, I absolutely will never, ever, EVER see the 1985 adaptation of a Chorus Line. I loved the musical when I saw a touring version of it in 2010, and it just sounds like it got botched.

Good call. It really was miscalculated in every way, including putting back all the mistaken ideas (like more focus on the backstory of Cassie/Zach) that the authors had considered and rightly discarded in the first place. I would call it the worst film adaptation of an important musical (that is, even worse than Lady in the Dark and all the 1930s versions that would throw out all the songs). It's too bad the Broadway revival a few years back didn't get video preservation, just to counteract the movie.

There are a number of movie musicals based on a stage musical based on a movie: Little Shop of Horrors, A Little Night Music, Nine, and The Producers come to mind right away. And of course if one allows a further stage back to sources from which a nonmusical film was adapted, you can get monstrous chains like:

The Berlin Stories (fiction) - I Am a Camera (play) - I Am a Camera (movie) - Cabaret (musical) - Cabaret (movie musical)

or

Einen Jux will er sich machen (Viennese play) - The Merchant of Yonkers (early version of play) - The Matchmaker (revised play) - The Matchmaker (movie) - Hello, Dolly! (musical) - Hello, Dolly! (movie musical)

[aradia22]

I saw La La Land today. I'm going to post about it more specifically in its own thread but I wanted to talk about it first as a movie musical. I liked it. It wasn't terrible. I just felt like the things I didn't like about it were the parts that weren't as much movie musical. I don't think it was cynical or disdainful exactly... but those describing it as Old Hollywood filmmaking seem sadly mistaken to me. The way the musical fantasy aspect functions in the story, it's the illusion. And sure, they say that they'll always love each other but that doesn't change the perspective the movie seems to have towards musicals. It uses the sequences to charm you a bit but ultimately it's telling you that it's all fake. I don't think it's this serious indictment of the public for wanting the fluff but the dream sequence at the piano was both obvious and kind of cruel. Like, I don't care if you don't love this genre as much as I do but then why are being so referential? I also thought a lot of the musical/dance sequences functioned to disguise a very thin plot and in that way I also felt like this was made by someone who didn't really appreciate movie musicals. Movie musicals do have some structure and plot. They do have dialogue. They do tell a story. They aren't just all long indulgent, Gene Kelly dance sequences. 

[Browncoat]

Y'all probably already know this, but Singin' In The Rain is being re-released in select theaters on January 15 and 18. 

[aradia22]

[DisneyBoy]

Quote

The tinkering with old musicals was insane.  

Yes, I was very surprised when I watched the film version of Anything Goes. Making "Blow Gabriel Blow" into the closing number with those really weird orchestrations did nothing for me. it's kind of interesting though to see two completely different versions of similar material though. I guess it helps that the bootleg exists of the Sutton Foster show however because I wouldn't have known what the original was like based on the film, that's for sure.

As for new songs added into productions, I think this was especially egregious with the Dreamgirls movie. Say what you want about the plot of the stage show but the narrative was certainly economical. The film was bloated. I think "Listen" was a good idea because there needed to be something at the end of Act 2 that explored what was going on inside Deena's head, but I think the number works best now as it's been included in the London Revival, as a duet for Deena and Effie to begin resolving their complicated history. In the film it was clearly just there to accommodate Beyonce's ego. The movie also had all these other songs thrown in that I totally forgot about until I saw this clip from the Oscars...

Did Dreamgirls really need a weak tea version of "I know Where I've Been"? I don't think so.

I'll forever be upset about the film version of ALW's Phantom for obvious reasons, but while we're talking about useless songs added to scores, WTH was "Learn to be Lonely"?

Edited September 21, 2017 by DisneyBoy

[Rinaldo]

2 hours ago, DisneyBoy said:

I guess it helps that the bootleg exists of the Sutton Foster show however because I wouldn't have known what the original [of Anything Goes] was like based on the film, that's for sure.

Don't assume that the Sutton Foster production is "the original." It's at least the third substantial revision of the original, and changes (including reassignment and elimination/adding of songs, and plot alterations too) happened at each stage.

But yes, the gutting of stage musicals in that first decade of talking films is beyond incomprehensible. Thanks to TCM, I've now seen the films of two Kern favorites of mine, the Kern semi-operettas Cat and the Fiddle and Music in the Air. Both shows had a lot of music onstage, and I'm initially pleasantly surprised that the movies kept most of -- but the former reordered and reassigned all the songs, generally with new lyrics; and the latter cut out the one undeniable hit ("The Song Is You"). Bizarre.

[DisneyBoy]

Quote

So, did anyone ever see The Last 5 Years with Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan? I don't know if it was just adaption issues, or whatever, but something about it just didn't click with me. (Probably a big reason why it wasn't given a wide release.) Kind of a shame.

I watched it last year and enjoyed it in some ways. I liked how both leads could, you know, actually sing. It was nice seeing Jeremy Jordan in a decent role and I thought Anna was likable as well. I think my main issue with it was the reversal of the timeline of the relationship. It's a cool concept but I often found myself slightly confused after a couple of scenes and trying to keep track of what happened when. I'm not sure if that worked better on the stage than it did in the movie but I felt like I needed a bit of a road map and I wasn't sure what we gained from seeing things play out in the order they did. It's basically a story about a young couple who falls in love, the guy finding success professionally, the girl becoming frustrated with her career and the distance between them, the guy screwing around behind her back and finally them breaking up. That's a worthy narrative and the gimmick of juxtaposing the beginning and end of the relationship didn't do much for me. The film was well shot and I like the music, especially her song about auditioning with the lyrics reflecting her inner monologue. That was very funny.

At the end of the day though I rarely think about the film. I guess it needed one or two really big numbers to stand out a bit more in my memory.

Which movies do you guys think were the best adaptations of Broadway musicals? I'm talking about musicals that existed first on the stage and were then adapted by Hollywood.

The Sound of Music, Chicago, Little Shop of Horrors and Rocky Horror Picture Show, obviously. I guess Oliver! and West Side Story, though they both drag and the latter has become more iconic than the former...Grease and Funny Girl...and...My Fair Lady? And Jesus Christ Superstar? Haven't seen that last one in years.

I guess the Last Five Years should be included, but again, it's not as memorable. Cabaret is good but changes too much from the stage show really.

Does anybody feel like in spite of the fact that movie musicals have been happening the last few years, we haven't actually had any amazing ones?

Edited September 21, 2017 by DisneyBoy

[GreekGeek]

On 8/16/2016 at 11:34 AM, Rinaldo said:

Einen Jux will er sich machen (Viennese play) - The Merchant of Yonkers (early version of play) - The Matchmaker (revised play) - The Matchmaker (movie) - Hello, Dolly! (musical) - Hello, Dolly! (movie musical)

Einen Jux will er sich machen was based on an even older (1835) English play, called A Day Well Spent by John Oxenford.