Musical Vs Film Comparisons

Happy Sunday! Today I'm going to compare some films to musicals. Firstly, there is a lot to factor into these answers. With film, there is numerous chances to get something perfect and polished but with live theatre, there is nowhere to hide. I believe that some opinions on my list could be different for different performances and obviously there are various productions of shows and so these opinions are solely based on my personal experience. I hope you enjoy!

Mamma Mia! Musical opened: 1999, Prince Edward Theatre: London Film released: 2008

What is it? A feel good, feminist themed jukebox musical featuring the hits of the Swedish band, ABBA. On the Greek island of Kalokairi, young Sophie Sheridan finds her mother Donna's diary entailing her younger life and the three men within it. Searching for her Father, Sophie invites all three men to her wedding. There is comedy, heartwarming moments, dancing, singing and some stunning scenery.

Film: I was a late Mamma Mia fan, firstly thinking that this may be too cheesy for me (and as a big ABBA fan, I was also a little skeptical). I saw the movie for the first time in 2010 and instantly warmed to it. Sure, it's very cheesy and there are some questionable vocal performances (Pierce Brosnan, I'm looking at you). On the whole, there is a reason the film has become so popular and was the fastest selling DVD release of all time. Plus, there's Meryl Streep which makes all the difference. Musical: I saw the musical in September 2015 at the Novello Theatre in London. I was lucky enough to have the best seats at any show I've been to (thanks Mum) and the atmosphere was incredible. Almost everybody was up in their seats: dancing, singing, laughing and having a good time. The performances were strong also, with some brilliant comedy performances from characters Rosie and Tanya. There were a few costume changes and a few differences in set but I remember the production being more content heavy than full of effects or elaborate designs. The thing that I remember most was the experience as a whole and being a big fan of the film, being shown that it could get even better.

What are the differences? Bill's last name is Austin in the musical, not Anderson. Other than that, there's not many differences. The singing was a lot better than in the film (back to the casting again). 'The Winner Takes It All' had more power in the film, in my opinion, whereas it was cast away and possibly even shortened in the musical. However, the film and musical productions of 'Mamma Mia' are closer than probably any others I've seen.

Which was better? This is one of the toughest calls but I think the musical just had the edge. Some iffy casting in the film brings it down. I could still watch it over and over, though. Long live Queen Meryl.

Chicago Musical opened: 1975, 46th Street Theatre: New York Film release: 2002

What is it? Based on a true story, reporter Maurine Dallas Watkins covered the 1924 murder trials of 2 women for the Chicago Tribune. She turned this into a play which, after her death, was made into 'Chicago'. Set in the 1920s, Velma Kelly is a vaudevillian performer who was arrested for murdering her husband and sister. A few years later, Roxxie Hart is also arrested for the murder of her secret lover, Fred Caseley and is sent to the same jail - Cook County Prison. Rivalry ensues as Velma is no longer the 'star' and her chances for appeal die along with the public's interest in her. Roxxie becomes the hit of the media, coached by sketchy lawyer, Billy Flynn. Long story short: there's female rivalry, jazz music and a general commentary on contemporary society during prohibition. What is the end result, you ask? The two women team up in a vaudeville show post-incarceration, as you do.

Film: This film is a masterpiece. I could watch 'Cell Block Tango' forever. Catherine Zeta-Jones as Velma Kelly is outstanding, with confidence, desperation and jealousy intertwined perfectly. Queen Latifah also shines as she resident top dog of Cook County, Matron 'Mama' Morton (see 'When You're Good To Mama'). Renee Zellweger as Roxxy is well-approached but unfortunately, I've never been a huge fan of the character (she really isn't likeable and not even in a fun, villainous way).

Musical: I saw the musical recently (after years of praying) in June 2018 at the Phoenix Theatre, London. The show was extremely built up as I had been waiting a long time and am very passionate about the musical. I managed to catch Cuba Gooding Jr as Billy Flynn and his characterisation was outstanding. It was easy to tell that he is predominantly a screen actor as his accent and stage presence was unparalleled. However, the strain on his voice was evident throughout and the end of his run was clearly needed for some vocal recuperation. Josefina Gabrielle was a real standout as Velma Kelly, showing incredible vocal strength, a top notch accent, perfect characterisation and quite a bit of dancing. Sarah Soetaert (Roxxy) played the character with incredible comedic timing and brought a warmth to the role that actually made me like the character.

What are the differences?The film misses out a lot of the score. A highlight of the stage musical was 'Class' - a duet between Velma and Mama. The harmonisation was gorgeous and was, to me, the most powerful musical moment. Another difference is that I feel the film is clearer. The skits and musical numbers feel more explained whereas in the musical version, it seems as though they are just bursting into song because they're supposed to rather than to benefit the story. The stage version was funnier, more satirical and a lot sexier, though.

Which was better?A tough call. Maybe it was the anticipation and high standards but I think the film just clinched it for me. I was expecting a lot more Fosse inspired choreography but the dancing (and staging) was quite sparse.

RENT

Musical opened: 1996, New York Theatre Workshop: New York Film released: 2005

What is it?Jonathan Larson's adaptation of opera 'La Boheme'. RENT is a rock musical featuring issues such as HIV and AIDS, drug addiction, homelessness, isolation and bohemian living. The story centers around 7 friends: a documentary filmmaker, a professor, an exotic dancer, a musician, a drag queen, a performance artist and a lawyer. RENT follows their friendships, triumphs and lives together. You wouldn't expect it, but it's extremely uplifting and heartwarming. RENT is my favourite musical of all time.

Film: My favourite thing about the film adaptation is that it features 6/7 of the original Broadway cast. Therefore the chemistry, the friendship and the comfort in the material is there - plus you know the cast can sing. The mini documentary cuts from Mark's camera are also a really nice touch. Everything about the movie is amazing.

Musical: As mentioned before, this is my favourite musical. I had been waiting to see this for so long that the very thought almost made me hyperventilate. Just watching the show was difficult in itself, as I had a hotel booked in London just for the show, only for the show to be called off after an hour of waiting due to technical difficulties. I then returned again a month later for a cast member to break their ankle and the show had to pause and restart. So not the greatest experience for my favourite musical but the production was in a small venue, the staging was lovely (although remained static throughout, with scaffolding, ladders and christmas lights all around). Standout performances were from Lucie Jones as Maureen (and yes, she did fully get her butt out, Maureen style) and Layton Williams as Angel - who performed what can only be described as the most tiring scene ever as he danced, flipped and spun in 8 inch heels whilst singing and drumming with sticks. Amazing.

What are the differences?There are some order shifts in the film, as it opens with 'Seasons of Love' (the one that everybody knows) rather than opening with this in Act 2. As usual, a lot of songs were taken out for the film and Roger's girlfriend's death is not explicitly stated in the movie whereas is graphically described in the musical (she slit her wrists after finding out she was HIV positive. Roger found out his diagnosis via a suicide note from her). In general, the grittier aspects of the story are a little more played down in the film and it's a little more uplifting, focusing more on happier elements.

Which was better?I know that if I had gone to a different production, the musical would be the best thing I've ever seen. I think I was just unlucky and I really love the film so the film wins this one.

Les Miserables

Musical opened: (English version) 1985: Barbican Centre, London Film released: 2012

What is it?In 19th Century France, Jean Valjean reinvents himself as a wealthy factory owner after being imprisoned for 19 years. He break his parole and is relentlessly hunted down by police inspector Javert. Subplots include factory worker Fantine struggling to send money for her illegitimate child, Cosette. Valjean later adopts her and her love triangle becomes another plot. All while the French revolution is happening and a lot of people are dying, basically.

Film:The film was a long time coming and they pulled in a lot of big names. Anne Hathaway, Hugh Jackman, Amanda Seyfried, Russell Crowe... you name it, they're in there. I personally really liked the film an the highlight was Anne Hathaway's heartbreaking rendition of 'I Dreamed a Dream' in which Fantine has turned to prostitution in order to send money for Cosette. Hathaway sobs her heart out, with the song mostly being spoken rather than sung which is a moving choice as the song is so well known and overdone. Musical: I have been to see the musical twice - once in 2014 and once in 2017. It was incredibly moving and is one of those shows that you know belongs on the stage. The scenery and staging was some of the best I've seen and Killian Donnelly (2017 production) was an incredible Jean Valjean with a ridiculous amount of vocal strength and resilience. My only issue is Javert's death (in both productions) as he is supposed to fall to his death into a river but instead literally rolled around on the floor into the wings while lights swirled around him. Not a joke.

What are the differences?Monsieur and Madame Thernardier were funnier in the film, in my opinion (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter). Usually, musicals give more chance for characterised comedy in my experience but this is definitely better in the film. Some of the songs are missed out or shortened in the film and also appear at different points in the story, for example 'On my Own'. In the film, Eponine also takes a bullet for Marius but that isn't quite how it goes down in the musical - she is shot whilst returning to the barricade.

Which was better?The musical. Both times. But the film is really good and it's got a lot more people interested in the musical so I'm happy about it.

Billy Elliot

Musical opened: 2005: Victoria Palace Theatre, London Film released: 2000

What is it?

A young, working class boy in Newcastle, UK is pressured to be a boxer by his Dad. He instead develops a passion for ballet and takes secret lessons with teacher Mrs Wilkinson. Meanwhile, Billy's Father and brother are amidst the often violent coal miner's strike and struggling to financially support the family. Billy misses his Royal Ballet School audition due to his brother being injured and his secret is revealed. His Dad eventually becomes more supportive and Billy finally attends the prestigious dance school.

Film: This film was a huge success and with good reason. Young Jamie Bell gives one of the best performances (actually, the entire cast are stellar) and it does a lot to break gender stereotypes which I really love.

Musical:I went to see this in 2016 at the Victoria Palace Theatre and was stunned. The dancing was exceptional, the acting outstanding and it's one of the few British musicals I've seen (the Geordie accents were perfect). There were 4 'Billy's and I'm still not sure which one was performing on the evening I went but he was outstanding. Being a story centered around dance, this was definitely a show for me and it was clear that a lot of the audience reacted very emotionally to the story. The music was also written by Elton John which is awesome. Nathan Jones as Michael - Billy's gay best friend - was hilarious and amazing, also.

What were the differences?THAT scene in which Billy is dancing down an alleyway - kicking walls, dancing out his frustration is an iconic scene. It didn't quite have the same effect on an empty stage although young Billy performed this extremely well. Also, the context of the miner's strike seemed more prominent in the stage production. Michael and Billy's friendship also seemed a little played down compared to the film but the comedy of Michael himself was more prominent. Mrs Wilkinson wasn't as lovably tough as in the film, either.

Which was better?

A really tough call. For the dancing and the incredible young talent - the musical, all the way. For the nostalgia and the acting? The film. So I can't choose, basically.

Thanks for reading,

Amy x

#musicals #film #music #art #performance #comparison #review #westend #mammamia #billyelliot #lesmiserables #rent #chicago #musicaltheatre #media #movies #theatre #livetheatre #newblogger #newblog #arts