Although, of course, that one is actually about show business.
Well, yeah, there is that.
Can you explain a bit what you enjoyed (or more usefully what you hated) about those movies? Was it the story? The production? The type of music? The performers?
Which version of Star Is Born did you see? The Judy Garland version is much better than the Barbra Streisand version (although I like Babs and would suggest FUNNY GIRL as a musical you would like.)
Perhaps the first films you should watch are THAT’S ENTERTAINMENT - the original and the sequel - snippets from all the great musicals that might give you some ideas of which to see.
Agree that CABARET would be a good choice.
I assume you have seen WIZARD OF OZ, but have you seen GUYS AND DOLLS with Marlon Brando, or LADY SINGS THE BLUES with Diana Ross, FAME or FOOTLOOSE or FLASHDANCE are sort of fun in a “Glee” way, THAT THING YOU DO is a Tom Hanks film that I liked a lot - about a one-hit wonder group, DREAMGIRLS was pretty good and loosely based off the story of The Surpremes, although they like to deny that for legal reasons, and HELP! with the Beatles is not really a musical as much as a film with music.
There are also lots and lots of animated Disney musicals that are quite good -don’t be fooled by the fact they are animated and “for kids” - some of these are great!
I dislike big dance numbers. I typically dislike watching people dance in general, so watching dozens of people dance in unison doesn’t improve the experience for me.
I prefer that the music move the story along, as opposed to people singing just because musicals are supposed to have music in them.
As for story, I want the movie to have one, and I want that story to not just be a flimsy excuse for song and dance numbers. Musicals about other musicals seem to be the worst offenders in this respect.
Ok. That’s helpful. Rogers and Hamerstein will be a good place to start for you as far as story goes. They have a lot of dance numbers (you aren’t going to avoid those, sorry…fast forward through the ballets?), but they were the major innovators in terms of making musicals where the music and story were deeply connected. See anything they wrote (such as, The King and I.) Eh, skip State Fair and Cinderella. Oklahoma!, Carousel, Flower Drum Song, The Sound of Music...good stuff.**Gypsy **is also very good in that respect. Everything comes very organically out of the story.
I strongly second Cabaret and All That Jazz. Both are fantastic film versions off the musical genre. I am actually halfway considering recommending A Chorus Line because, while yes it focuses on dancers backstage and has dancing, it’s really very modern and plot driven. But, it’s about dancers so…lots of dancing. Someone recommended ** Sweeney Todd**, someone else recommended A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum, I am going to recommend Into The Woods. Sondheim has the highest ratio of stuff you like to stuff you don’t in his works.
You do face a small problem in that a lot of good stage musicals don’t translate to film well. Chicago tried to get the stage experience on film, and did an ok job. Hedwig did a great job. Rent, for example, really didn’t. Godspell didn’t*. Phantom didn’t. (Oklahoma! sort of misses the mark also, but I am still recommending it). Also, a lot of the real great musicals aren’t available to you, particularly recent ones that have more elements you like in them. But there should be something out there for you to enjoy. Avoid anything filmed before about 1950 with a couple of rare exceptions and you should have fun.
Go see Le Mis, I haven’t seen it but it should fall into your parameters if it is anything like the stage show.
*The stage version of **Godspell **was one of the most amazing things I have ever experienced but much of it has to do with being there in person.
Thanks, that helps. The Music Man, while it is a wonderful musical, is not going to be your cup of tea.
Movies that haven’t been mentioned so far, Little Shop of Horrors (it has a few songs thrown in for singing’s sake, but most are there for plot reasons) and High Society.
If you’re already iffy on musicals, you’re really better off just watching The Philadelphia Story and skipping the fairly forgettable music in High Society.
ETA: Yes, I know…it’s Cole Porter. But it’s fairly mediocre Porter, and about the only thing that actually made it into the standards playlist was “Well, Did You Evah?”
This. Honestly, musicals about music and musical theater are the only kind that make sense to me, pretty much the only kind I can even tolerate. The idea that people in some supposedly normal community breaking into songs for conversation and exposition is simply too absurd for words.
As opposed, of course, to giant intelligent transforming robots or human beings taking incredible amounts of bullets and explosions and walking away with nary a scratch. That kind of absurd?
Yes. If I could build a giant invincible transforming robot, I would. But neither it nor I would do a song and dance routine about it. But some bastard, somewhere, is no doubt working on “Transformers: the Musical”.
And several of the same dancing couples as Seven Brides. The story is good, with my favorite part being right at the end, where Marilyn has the talk with her boyfriend’s father.
A lot of movies, not just musicals, are about show business in some form or another. This is probably mostly a Most Writers Are Writers thing.
I know I’m very much in the minority with this opinion, but I think the *RHPS *is a pretty good musical parody of old sci-fi/horror movies and I haven’t found the midnight showings that entertaining – although I’ve only been to two and both were in smallish towns so they probably weren’t the best examples of the theater experience.
I wouldn’t put it among my favorite musicals, but it has a strong story, it doesn’t have long dance breaks, the music mostly makes sense for the story, and the characters aren’t performers - which, for the OP, are strengths. It would work well for something to watch with his girlfriend.
Here’s the link to the AFI’s 100 years of musicals ballot. I scanned quickly through those and eliminated most of the ones I’m most familiar with because they feature elements that the OP doesn’t seem to enjoy.
If you do get a taste for musicals then try going a little further back. Some of the greatest musicals ever made come from the 30s, especially the Warner Bros musicals of the early 30s, which share the same panache and snap of that studio’s gangster flicks of the same period. 42nd Street and Footlight Parade are the gems in the crown, the latter starring James Cagney, who was a brilliant hoofer in his day.
While I agree with both your premise and your choices (they’re two of my favorites, too), I have to point out that the movie of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum actually cut out most of the songs.
The 25th anniversary Phantom of the Opera, recorded at Royal Albert Hall, is absolute perfection!
If I recall my Theater History classes correctly, this point of view is exactly why so many old musicals are about theater, or performing in some way. The writers of the time thought they had to make the singing and dancing logical, so the song and dance numbers were ones of rehearsal or performances of the show-within-the-show. Or they were variety shows, with no connection of plot or theme.
*Showboat *is generally recognized as the first American Musical to do narrative songs. Songs that tell us about the character, her feelings and/or move the plot, but don’t exist solely as entertainment pieces. It’s also the first to tackle “serious” issues (racism) as opposed to being pure light and fluff.
Nowadays, musicals are often about performers because of the Writers are Writers rule, but in the old days, it was because no one thought people could suspend their disbelief long enough to accept a character breaking out into song. For some people, they were right.
“The Ballet” - that extended fantasy dance number somewhere in Act II - that you can thank Oklahoma! for. It was used beautifully in that, and was so popular that producers called for it in everything else for decades.
I would disagree - I think A Chorus Line was one of the worst film adaptations of a musical ever to hit the screen. The stage musical was brilliant - the film sucked on every level. They have professional dancers in that film, but you would never know it from the artsy-fartsy film footage close ups of arms, elbows, ankles, thighs - as if the cinematographer was not aware of the big picture that these were dancers, not just individual moving body parts. Plus, the original idea was to cast relative unknowns in this film but it was decided to throw in Michael Douglas (for box office appeal) at the last minute…not the best of choices. So while I would strongly suggest seeing A Chorus Line on stage - even some high school version - I would suggest avoiding this film version at all costs.
Yeah I know. But I sort of feel that way about most filmed musicals. If he is just looking for some stuff he can tolorate, everything about A Chorus Line is very good…except the execution of the film aspect. Still, it’s a good strong story.
I am not saying it’s perfect, but, ok I will admit that I am sort of sneakily hoping that DCnDC might decide to go see some live theatre as a result of this experiment. Musicals of the type he is describing only really work on the stage, for the most part. The real exceptions being noted in the thread already.