a.
Camelot
Camelot
Reading about the different people who were approached to direct and/or star early on made me wish we got a completely different movie from the finished product. Under Joshua Logan’s direction, the pacing drags and the staging of the musical numbers are so lackluster. Vanessa Redgrave gives a pretty good acting performance as Guenevere. Though from a singing standpoint, she’s OK. Her voice just lacks the vocal skills the role usually requires. Given that this was the era of when dubbing in movie musicals was common, where was Marni Nixon when you needed her? Not to mention that a lot of the joy of the song ‘The Lusty of Month of May’ felt drained from this film’s rendition of it.
On a more positive note, the production design is so impeccably mounted. Richard Harris was very lively as King Arthur (even though I thought he was better in HBO’s capture of the 1981 Broadway revival). Franco Nero makes for a charismatic Lancelot. I did quite like Lionel Jeffries as King Pellinore. Plus, there’s a couple of scenes in the third act that are kind of touching. Overall, Camelot isn’t necessarily the worst movie musical I’ve ever seen, it’s just very boring. If there’s any stage musical that could use a new film adaptation, it’s certainly this one.
Hair
On a more positive note, the production design is so impeccably mounted. Richard Harris was very lively as King Arthur (even though I thought he was better in HBO’s capture of the 1981 Broadway revival). Franco Nero makes for a charismatic Lancelot. I did quite like Lionel Jeffries as King Pellinore. Plus, there’s a couple of scenes in the third act that are kind of touching. Overall, Camelot isn’t necessarily the worst movie musical I’ve ever seen, it’s just very boring. If there’s any stage musical that could use a new film adaptation, it’s certainly this one.
Hair
As a movie, it seems to lack energy, which is something that feels like should be present throughout such an energetic musical like Hair. Even in certain book scenes, the film seems to forget that it’s suppose to be a musical because the energy isn’t there. As great of a filmmaker Miloš Forman proved to be on other movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Amadeus, he did not feel like the right person to bring Hair to the big screen. Now I’ve never seen the stage musical, I’m only familiar with the score from both the original production’s and 2009 Broadway revival’s cast recordings. Though I am aware that the film is very different from the source material to the extent that the original creators were very unhappy with the end results. I know I’d be interested in seeing a film reboot that as an adaptation, is more faithful, and as a movie, is more energetic. I was thinking that it could be directed by Jon M. Chu or Adam Shankman.
Man of La Mancha
Man of La Mancha
a.
The Phantom of the Opera
The Phantom of the Opera
In a 2021 interview with Variety, Andrew Lloyd Webber revealed that he personally felt Schumacher made a mistake in casting Gerard Butler. He said "The Phantom was too young, and the whole point of the Phantom is he needs to be quite a bit older than Christine." Although anyone who saw the film knows that there were way more problems with Butler's casting than just his age. Granted, he turned 34 halfway through principal photography, Michael Crawford was 44 when he first played it. But that's not even the point here.
In a 2013 interview with Hollywood.com, Cameron Mackintosh, a co-producer on the stage musical who had nothing to do with this movie, said "I would have wanted to do the film differently. This new version which we’ve done (a touring production with reimagined staging) is dangerous and gritty. It combines the world of upstage and the lair below. You see two different worlds. That would have been my approach to the film."
Josh Parham of Next Best Picture, who actually has a soft spot for Joel Schumacher's movie, tweeted on May 23rd, 2022 that "If we ever get another adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of the Opera (and I fully believe we should), my choice for a director would be Guillermo del Toro."
Rent
In a 2013 interview with Hollywood.com, Cameron Mackintosh, a co-producer on the stage musical who had nothing to do with this movie, said "I would have wanted to do the film differently. This new version which we’ve done (a touring production with reimagined staging) is dangerous and gritty. It combines the world of upstage and the lair below. You see two different worlds. That would have been my approach to the film."
Josh Parham of Next Best Picture, who actually has a soft spot for Joel Schumacher's movie, tweeted on May 23rd, 2022 that "If we ever get another adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of the Opera (and I fully believe we should), my choice for a director would be Guillermo del Toro."
Rent
I previously only saw this film once way back in 2007. I remember the DVD was part of a prize package my parents won in an auction. At the time, it was my first exposure to the musical. Since then, I became a bigger fan through listening to the original Broadway cast recording and seeing a couple stage productions. Rewatching the movie recently…
It is not the film adaptation Rent deserves. The whole thing is so boring. Many fans over the years have complained about having most of the original cast reprise their roles nearly a decade after they first played them on stage. I agree that these characters should really be played by young adult performers. However, that is far from the main problem with this movie.
The real problem here is Chris Columbus. While he has done some good work before with Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and the first two Harry Potter films, he is just the wrong director to take on something like Rent. For one, Columbus has more experience with comedies and family friendly stuff. So him taking this on doesn’t even make sense from a thematic standpoint. Plus, if legendary director/playwright Arthur Laurents saw this movie in his lifetime, I wouldn’t be surprised if he thought to himself “Columbus doesn’t have musicals in his bones.”
Which definitely shows as all the musical numbers are so oddly put together. The way they’re staged and visualized lack imagination. Several of the more intimate songs are framed in very wide shots. Not to mention that some of them are just done as voice overs with different images playing. From an adaptation standpoint, the liberties that were taken from the source material either weren’t good ideas, executed well, or both. One of them being transcribing a good deal of the lyrics into dialogue. While some were paraphrased, others were left completely intact. As I just said about the Phantom movie, lyrics in musicals are meant to be sung, not spoken.
If we ever get a new film version of Rent (which I would fully support), I’ve got some ideas for it. Hire a director with more visual panache. Cast performers who are more age appropriate for the characters. Stick with the sung-through nature of the musical. Have the cast sing live for all the intimate numbers (and don’t frame them in wide shots). Don’t open it with ‘Seasons of Love.’ Last but certainly not least, embrace the fact that it is a musical.
It is not the film adaptation Rent deserves. The whole thing is so boring. Many fans over the years have complained about having most of the original cast reprise their roles nearly a decade after they first played them on stage. I agree that these characters should really be played by young adult performers. However, that is far from the main problem with this movie.
The real problem here is Chris Columbus. While he has done some good work before with Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and the first two Harry Potter films, he is just the wrong director to take on something like Rent. For one, Columbus has more experience with comedies and family friendly stuff. So him taking this on doesn’t even make sense from a thematic standpoint. Plus, if legendary director/playwright Arthur Laurents saw this movie in his lifetime, I wouldn’t be surprised if he thought to himself “Columbus doesn’t have musicals in his bones.”
Which definitely shows as all the musical numbers are so oddly put together. The way they’re staged and visualized lack imagination. Several of the more intimate songs are framed in very wide shots. Not to mention that some of them are just done as voice overs with different images playing. From an adaptation standpoint, the liberties that were taken from the source material either weren’t good ideas, executed well, or both. One of them being transcribing a good deal of the lyrics into dialogue. While some were paraphrased, others were left completely intact. As I just said about the Phantom movie, lyrics in musicals are meant to be sung, not spoken.
If we ever get a new film version of Rent (which I would fully support), I’ve got some ideas for it. Hire a director with more visual panache. Cast performers who are more age appropriate for the characters. Stick with the sung-through nature of the musical. Have the cast sing live for all the intimate numbers (and don’t frame them in wide shots). Don’t open it with ‘Seasons of Love.’ Last but certainly not least, embrace the fact that it is a musical.