Image by Beri Garrett from Pixabay [NOTE: Follow the link here to read “Part One” of this blog.] A few weeks ago, I wrote about several classic movie musicals based on Broadway productions of the same name. To varying degrees, they worked in my eyes. But what about movie musicals not directly adapted from stage shows? Are they as effective at telling stories through song?
That’s what I’m going to try to find out today by examining four more movie musicals. I begin with one of the oldest and most timeless examples of this genre… The Wizard of Oz (1939) Following the success of Walt Disney’s 1937 animated film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, film studios came to the conclusion that adapting popular children’s books to the silver screen could not only be popular but also profitable. Within months, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer purchased the film rights to L. Frank Baum’s 1900 novel “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” Baum’s story had been adapted to film before, in a 1925 silent film, which was popular among audiences but largely lambasted by critics at the time. MGM hired several screenwriters to turn in drafts, treatments, outlines, and complete screenplays. Notable contributors were Herman J. Mankiewicz (Citizen Kane) and poet Ogden Nash, but it was the writing efforts of Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson, and Edgar Allan Woolf that ultimately received credit in the final film release. In addition, since the producers at MGM did not think that a contemporary audience could fully accept the land of Oz as an actual place, the idea of making Dorothy’s journey to Oz an elaborate dream sequence was conceived. Well known now is the fact that several actresses were considered for the role of Dorothy, including the most famous child star of the time Shirley Temple, before MGM cast Judy Garland (A Star Is Born, Judgment at Nuremberg). The production also experienced some other casting troubles with Ray Bolger switching roles with Buddy Ebsen to become the Scarecrow, the role he aspired to, going through multiple actors to play the Wizard (from Ed Wynn and W.C. Fields to Wallace Beery) before settling on Frank Morgan, and Jack Haley replace Ebsen as the Tin Man after the latter suffered a severe bronchial reaction to his own make-up. But all of these casting troubles pale in comparison to the issues that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer faced keeping down a director for the production. When filming began on October 13, 1938, Richard Thorpe (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Jailhouse Rock) was the director (although he had already replaced Norman Taurog who ended up only shooting some early Technicolor tests). Thorpe ended up shooting only nine days of footage before producer Mervyn Leroy reviewed some of his footage and, feeling that his rushing through principal photography was negatively impacting the performances, replaced him with George Cukor (The Philadelphia Story, My Fair Lady). It is under Cukor’s direction (and LeRoy’s advisement) that Judy Garland’s portrayal was altered into what we know today: rather than wearing a blond wig, “baby-doll” makeup and being encouraged to overact, Garland’s makeup and costumes became more grounded and Cukor encouraged Garland to “be herself.” It was also Cukor who first suggested that MGM hire Jack Haley to replace Ebsen as the Tin Man. Cukor ended up not shooting anything for the finished film, instead being more of a creative advisor along with LeRoy, and he left on November 3 to begin directing what would become MGM’s other smash hit of the year: the epic historical romance movie Gone with the Wind. So, MGM brought on Victor Fleming to get principal photography up and running again. Largely due to LeRoy’s apparent satisfaction with his predecessor’s creative insights, Fleming retained much of Cukor’s vision for the aesthetic and storytelling approach of the film. Ironically, Fleming left the production after only a few months to replace Cukor (once again) on Gone with the Wind. Thus, MGM brought in Fleming’s friend, King Vidor, (The Citadel, War and Peace) to finish production. However, until Fleming’s death in 1949, Vidor did not take public credit for his directorial contributions to the movie. After months of intensive, exhaustive principal photography from October to March, The Wizard of Oz premiered in August of 1939 to universal acclaim for its technical achievements, performances, and raw energy. However, during its initial run, the film only grossed three million dollars (considered a financial loss to MGM), and did not make a significant profit until its re-releases in the United States in 1955, 1989, and 2019 allowed the film to gross a total of just under thirty million dollars. Additionally, The Wizard of Oz went on to make its mark on cinema history and popular culture at large. The movie was nominated for five Oscars (including Best Picture), winning Best Original Score and Best Original Song. For her performance, Garland won an Honorary Academy Award as well. Furthermore, it was one of the first 25 films to be preserved by the Library of Congress and has gone on to be viewed by cinephiles and average filmgoers alike as one of the greatest movie musicals of all time. There is little for me to say about The Wizard of Oz that has not already been said. First off, I (like many children over the last several decades) have a distinct memory of seeing the movie for the first time. My grandmother was babysitting me one night when I was pretty young, and to get me to stop crying over my mother leaving me there she put a VHS tape on and sat me in front of the TV. While I certainly do not recall my in-the-moment impressions of The Wizard of Oz, I look back on that memory as confirmation that apparently everybody on planet Earth has seen this movie. Does that make it a great movie? Well…that’s a complicated question. On the one hand, its achievements in cinematography, production design, and music cannot be understated. For its time, The Wizard of Oz was a technical marvel with its seamless transition from sepia-toned black and white to Technicolor and its staggering use of props and sets to invigorate every scene remain (in my humble opinion) the timeless aspects of the film. On the other hand, the story and (for the most part) acting leaves much to be desired for anyone over the age of five. Having re-watched The Wizard of Oz during quarantine last year for the first time in well over a decade, I found Dorothy’s journey from Kansas to Oz and back far from intriguing. While Dorothy herself is charming (thanks to Judy Garland and George Cukor), the cast of fantastical creatures around her are largely uninteresting except when they sing. Which gets to what I think makes this film still resonate with audiences today: the music. Not only are many of the songs fun to listen to (alongside the accompanying choreography and performances), but some of the tracks remain iconic to this day, namely Garland’s performance of “Over the Rainbow.” All in all, The Wizard of Oz is by no means my favorite musical. But as far as old movies go, it certainly is not one of the worst ones. The Lion King (1994) While flying to Europe in 1988 to promote Oliver & Company, Walt Disney film producers and executives Jeffrey Katzenberg, Peter Schneider, and Roy E. Disney (nephew of Walt Disney) conceived the idea of an animated movie set in Africa. Over the next several years, the studio commissioned treatments by writers such as Thomas M. Disch (The Genocides, Camp Concentration) and Linda Woolverton (Beauty and the Beast, Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey) and directors George Scribner (Oliver & Company) and Roger Allers (Open Season, The Prophet) were brought onto the project. Along with their creative team, Allers and Scribner traveled to Hell’s Gate National Park in Kenya to help them further develop the nature-inspired aesthetic for the film. But after six months of work, Scribner left the production due to creative differences with Allers and was replaced by Rob Minkoff (Stuart Little, Mr. Peabody & Sherman) as co-director. After Don Hahn (Beauty and the Beast, The Emperor’s New Groove) was brought on as a producer, the film’s story took on many of the characteristics that would define it as a classic. Specifically, the themes of facing the realities of adulthood were injected into the script and the final title was chosen to replace the working title, King of the Jungle, since the story took place on the African savannah rather than in a jungle. Furthermore, the brother relationship between Mufasa and Scar was developed to make the central thematic conflict of the film more absorbing from a dramatic standpoint. After several hundred artists and animators spent several years on the production, The Lion King premiered in June of 1994 and went on to gross over 950 million dollars, becoming the highest-grossing, traditionally-animated film of all time and the highest-grossing movie of the year. While it was received widespread critical acclaim, the movie did get some criticism for its rushed third act and off-kilter tonal blend of tragedy and musical-comedy. The film also won two Academy Awards (Best Original Score for Hans Zimmer and Best Original Song for Elton John’s “Can You Feel the Love Tonight”). Not only did The Lion King spawn a franchise of two direct-to-video films (a sequel and a prequel) and a CGI remake from Jon Favreau (Iron Man, Chef, The Jungle Book), but it ended up being preserved by the Library of Congress in 2016. Similar to Grease, I grew up with The Lion King. It was one of the VHS tapes I owned and would watch quite frequently throughout much of my childhood (perhaps second only to the Star Wars films). And in all of its glory, from the characters and visuals to the soundtrack, the movie remains forever cemented in my memory as a staple of my young life. Similar to The Wizard of Oz, I have no doubt that this is the case for many children from my generation. Having gone back and watched The Lion King in 2019, it somehow exceeded my expectations for how good it was going to be. Honestly, it will be easier to start by outlining what little criticisms that I have which mostly relate to the story structure. I actually agree with critics from the time of its release that the movie’s third act (specifically Simba’s confrontation of Scar) feels pretty rushed. It almost seems like the production staff ran out of money and just cut an extra five minutes of animation (possible considering Disney’s lack of faith in the film during production). And that’s pretty much it. I love virtually everything else about this movie. HOW COULD YOU NOT?!? The opening sequence is both iconic in every sense of the word and a precursor for the rest of the movie’s breathtaking animation style. The performances are all fantastic, from the stately and wise yet ignorant Mufasa (James Earl Jones), the headstrong and arrogant Simba (Jonathan Taylor Thomas/Matthew Broderick), the menacing, power-hungry Scar (Jeremy Irons), the warm and confident Nala (Niketa Calame/Moira Kelly), the zany henchmen trio of hyenas (Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin, and Jim Cummings), and the indelibly charming pair of best friends Timon and Pumbaa (Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella). Furthermore, the story’s exploration of deeply engaging themes via compelling tragedy between father and son makes The Lion King one of the greatest examples of a “kids movie made for adults.” Of course, the most amazing thing about The Lion King is the music. Virtually every song on the soundtrack is iconic both in the world of cinema and the world of musicals, from “The Circle of Life” and “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King” to “Hakuna Matata” and “Can You Feel the Love Tonight.” From my research about the making of this film, I was shocked to learn that George Scriber, the original co-director alongside Roger Allers, protested making the story a musical due to his preference for a more grounded, nature-focused animated feature. Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose. Needless to say, The Lion King is one of my favorite animated films of all time. And it might just be my favorite musical ever made. 😊 La La Land (2016) Long before making his mark in the world of cinema with 2014’s Whiplash, writer-director Damien Chazelle wrote a script for a musical in 2010 while a student at Harvard University because he wanted to “ground” the musical in the real world “where things don’t always exactly work out.” Chazelle also wanted to pay tribute to the “city symphony” films of the 1920s by shooting a movie that captures the distinct, unique vibe of Los Angeles. Initially, Chazelle received pushback from studios who were unwilling to finance the project. In addition to Chazelle’s anonymity at the time, they also saw funding an original music without any familiar songs as very risky. However, after the critical commercial success of Chazelle’s film Whiplash (which ended up earning five Oscar nominations that year, including Best Picture), Chazelle found that studios had renewed interest in his movie-musical script. Chazelle initially had cast Miles Teller (The Spectacular Now, Thank You for Your Service) and Emma Watson (The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Beauty and the Beast), but after both actors left the project, the director embraced the idea of looking for older replacements to explore the idea of the two main characters having experienced struggling for their dreams as opposed to young upstarts fresh to the Los Angeles scene. Ultimately, Chazelle cast Emma Stone (Zombieland, Birdman, The Favourite) and Ryan Gosling (Drive, The Big Short, Blade Runner 2049) were cast in the lead roles. After months shooting the film and another year spent editing, La La Land premiered at several film festivals over the course of the summer and fall of 2016 before its wide release on December 9, becoming one of the highest-grossing live-action musicals of the 21st century and receiving a tying record 14 nominations at that year’s Academy Awards (winning six, including Best Director and Best Actress for Stone). Despite my love of Chazelle’s other films Whiplash and First Man, I was skeptical about La La Land when I sat down to watch it. I had heard only great things about it, yet I was convinced from the trailer that it was just a narcissistic, self-righteous love letter to old Hollywood and artists. Fortunately, I was proven wrong when I watched it. There are many things to like about La La Land: the actors, the songs, the energy of the music and choreography, the cinematography and how it captures the glamour and grime of Los Angeles. But there is one thing about this movie that I love more than anything else: Chazelle’s grounded, realistic take on the musical romance. By telling a story about two young struggling artists, Mia (Stone) and Sebastian (Gosling), falling out of love as they step onto separate paths in life, Chazelle pays respectful homage to the movie musicals of old while reinventing the genre for modern sensibilities. More than anything, I am grateful to Chazelle and La La Land for making a movie musical that excels at this balancing act without losing the integrity of his artistic vision. For this reason, among others, this film is one of my favorite movie musicals bar none. A Star Is Born (2018) There were plans for a four adaptation of the 1937 film A Star Is Born as far back as the 1990s, but after several different actors and directors were attached the project was eventually shelved. It was not until 2015 that Warner Brothers confirmed that Bradley Cooper (Wedding Crashers, The Hangover, Silver Linings Playbook) was finalizing a deal to be the adaptation’s director and potential male lead. Cooper ended up refusing an upfront salary in order to get the film financed, ultimately earning nearly 40 million dollars for his role in the production both in front of and behind the camera. A year later, it was confirmed that Grammy-winning singer/songwriter Lady Gaga was cast as the female lead in Cooper’s adaptation, with actor Sam Elliott (Tombstone, The Big Lebowski) and comedians Andrew Dice Clay and Dave Chapelle being announced as part of the cast in 2017. Principal photography began in April of that year, and the film premiered at the Venice Film Festival on August 31, 2018 before having its wide domestic release in October that year. A Star Is Born ended up bearing over 400 million dollars on a 36-million-dollar budget and gained widespread critical acclaim, focusing largely on the acting and musical performances, and wound up on multiple top-ten lists that year. Additionally, the film garnered eight Oscar nominations that year (including Best Picture and three acting nods for Cooper, Gaga and Elliott), but won only Best Original Song for “Shallow.” I vividly remember my experience seeing A Star Is Born in the theater over two years ago. From start to finish, I was thoroughly engaged and emotionally absorbed thanks to Cooper’s sensible direction and his chemistry with Lady Gaga from the moment they lay eyes on each other. Undoubtedly, this movie is the least cheesy of any of the movie musicals I have blogged about thus far. In fact, the film is often tonally the opposite: dark, nuanced, cynical, and grounded in the grim of reality. I can perhaps compare it to most to the 2014 romantic drama Beyond the Lights from director Gina-Prince Bythewood in that it explores the negative consequences of stardom on a relationship. However, unlike that movie which focuses on the blooming romance of a young celebrity singer and an everyman, A Star Is Born adds a complex layer into the story by contrasting Jackson Maine (Cooper), the washed-up country star, with Ally (Lady Gaga) whose star becomes too bright and outshines Jackson which indirectly leads to his personal and professional downfall. This is perhaps my favorite aspect of the movie. Similar to how La La Land elegantly balances old-school movie musical cheese with a realistic portrayal of young love, A Star Is Born expertly portrays the destructive atmosphere of 21st century fame while also offering a glimmer of hope in showing the positive influence that such a self-destructive person can have on someone else. Not only is the movie one of my all-time favorite musicals, but it remains one of my favorite films of this century (and perhaps of all time). So, why do I like musicals so much? Ultimately, my affection for this genre of cinema has a lot to do with Kristin Chenoweth’s quote from Part One of this blog: “We sing because we can’t speak anymore.” Perhaps some universal ideas about the human condition are best conveyed through song. Certainly, some musicals like West Side Story and The Wizard of Oz struggle to escape the inherent cheesiness of the genre because they rely on song and dance to address themes such as interracial gang violence and the end of childhood. Other musicals, from Fiddler on the Roof and The Lion King to La La Land and A Star Is Born, are only propelled by their use of music in their insights about love, guilt, family, tradition, and tragedy. Or maybe I’m just being my typical, overanalytical self and should just remind myself: “Hakuna Matata.” 😊 With all that being said, here is my ranking of the eight musical films that I have discussed in both Part One and Part Two of this blog:
What is your favorite movie musical? Do you think musicals work as well as I think they do? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|