RENT
The release of RENT seems to have stirred up once more the debate around what makes a film adaptation of a stage musical “perfect”. Is it one that remains as faithful as possible to the material? Is it one that caters for the medium of film, even if a great deal of the show ends up being cut? One that just tells the story told in the musical? Or one that is simply a good film that doesn’t concern itself with trying to please fans of the stage show?
The point is that every film adaptation will have it’s detractors, so maybe there is no definitive answer. Maybe perfect is the wrong word to use. Off the top of my head, I’d say that Chicago, The Sound of Music, Fiddler on the Roof and Cabaret are great film adaptations of stage musicals. Even when they aren’t particularly faithful, they are good films in their own right.
Any thoughts?
Musical Cyberspace 
But they should sound good, so we don’t want to cut our ears off!
No movie musical is ever a perfect replica of the stage show and if we go in expecting that, we are going to be disappointed. Cuts have to be made and adaptations have to be made to make the movie musical work. I absolutely can’t wait to see what they do with The Producers.
I can’t wait for The Producers either. I’m completely unfamiliar with it though. I’m forcing myself not to listen to the CD. I like discovering shows without any preparation. I know, I know – The Producers is old news, but I haven’t seen it. Even my twin sister has seen it and we are like glue: we stick together and hardly ever see a show apart. I would’ve seen it by now, if only I would stop being so obsessed with 1980’s musicals. According to my sister, The Producers is really hilarious and she said she could definitely see it working perfectly on film. We’ll just have to wait and see.
No worries. I haven’t seen The Producers either. Unfortunately, I’ve been living in a bubble for the past year and half, and I’ve basically been immersed in opera and art songs for a while. I’m really missing musical theatre, so I’ve got to find some way to balance it with this degree.
But Jesus Christ Superstar has all the numbers in it, plus one new one. It has awe-inspiring performances from everybody in the film (I defy you to say anything against Neeley, Dennen, Anderson, Elliman, Bingham, Yajhan, Mostel). It was also filmed by a Canadian director who wanted to be faithful to the original work – the concept album – rather than Broadway. Chicago, The Sound of Music, Fiddler On The Roof and other movie musicals have numbers missing. They’re all great films, but I’d rather have evey single song from the show in the film. That’s why I consider Jesus Christ Superstar to be the perfect movie musical. It has everything.
Musical films that are adapted from stage shows are not meant to document the stage show. Therefore, expecting everything to be translated verbatim is unrealistic. Whether or not all the songs could work is not the issue; adaptation is about interpreting a text and filmmakers make choices based on how they want to communicate the narrative and its themes in the medium. So to imply that a musical film is good or bad merely because it includes all the material is misguided.
How does Norman Jewison’s interpretation of Jesus Christ Superstar make it true to the concept album rather than the Broadway production? As the concept album is merely that – an album – surely his film is just another way of seeing the material? And, by your argument, surely if the film adds material, then it is indeed not being faithful to the album – it is, by definition, an adaptation. I don’t think the cast is as proficient as you do; I think that some have great presence and some deliver great vocals and that Anderson certainly delivers a compelling Judas but that some cast members really don’t find a good balance between their acting and their singing. And the production design is piecemeal: all the elements never synthesize into one unit.
Except for ruining the song by being unfunny and embarrassing?