At the beginning of Chicago, Roxy Hart, having learned her lover has been deceiving her about being able to get her a singing audition, loses her temper, grabs a gun out of a drawer and shoots him dead while screaming, “I hate you!” The detective who arrests her tells her “The DA things this is a hanging case!” Roxie is astonished.
So was I. I don’t expect a lot of deep legal research to go into writing a musical, but I should think it is very common knowledge that in Anglo-American law, an unpremeditated heat-of-passion homicide is not murder but manslaughter, a lesser offense that has never been a capital crime. How could such a howling brainfart in the very premise of the story have slipped by anyone’s notice before making it to the stage/screen? After all, Roxie facing life in prison could have been made almost as dramatic.
Chicago is based on an actual case – there was a Roxy Hart who did murder her lover. Quite possibly, the movie follows the events of the actual case (which was filmed twice before, BTW, in 1927 and 1942).
The cop is facing a woman who shot someone and then calculatedly concocted a lie designed to get herself off the hook by having her husband confess. At no point that I recall did Roxy give the cop her version of the story before she was arrested. Based on the shooting and the cover-up, can’t blame the cop for thinking murder and not manslaughter.
When it comes time for her to actually be indicted, there’s no reason for the prosecutor not to charge her with murder based on the information he has. Roxie’s already lied once about the events and is now claiming self-defense since they both they both they both oh yes they both reached for the gun. There’s nothing in any version of events that Roxie’s given that supports a charge of manslaughter and, if the DA can get a capital conviction in a high profile case it’ll be a huge boost to his career.
And back in 1920’s, a woman who was cheating on her husband was considered a low life scum and society would be better off without her anyway, so why not hang her? That’s probably why Roxie tries to get her husband to take the rap. A man who killed his wife’s rapist would get off, probably without a trial.
P.S. The 10th year Chicago boxed set, with 2CDS and a DVD, is definitely worth getting!
10th anniversary of the '96 revival? Who marks the anniversary of a revival?
You got me curious, so I did a search for the boxed set. Seems it includes recordings from the original 1975 production, and a Liza Minnelli recording which I assume also comes from the 70s. Also, a Kander and Ebb recording that I assume predates the original production.
Is there anything on the DVD that predates 1996?
(hoping Annie sees this question, as I’d consider it a selling point.)
So, why not a 21st anniversary boxed set? That’s kinda what it is.
Is this a premeditated murder of the 1975 production, or is it manslaughter?
Or perhaps in early 2000s America a 1970s musical is low-life scum that society would be better off without?
Another thing you have to consider is that in Illinois during the 1920’s, the death penalty was given out more frequently for violent crimes than it is now.
True (that fact slipped my mind). Still, that was even the case before the moratorium and could also be said about anywhere in the U.S. outside of Texas.
I might add that Beulahwas more beautiful than any of the women who’ve played her (with the possible exception of Phyllis Haver–I do wish they’d release the silent version on DVD, I saw it once and it was brilliant).
The boxed set is to mark Chicago becoming “the longest running Broadway musical revival.” It’s amaziing what stunt casting will accomplish.
The set includes the original Broadway revival cast, a second CD of various people who have done the show singing various songs, and a DVD of “the making of the revival.” There are a couple of demos on the second CD, includng Fred Ebb singing “Ten Percent,” which was cut in favor of “When You’re Good to Mama.”
The DVD is entirely the revival.
I wish Bob Fosee had lived to see how successful the show would beccome.
Errmm . . . sumpin’ to do with 