I remember when I saw Fantasia 2000 at the IMAX, I was very impressed and really enjoyed the new material; however, there was one thing that seemed off. It took me a while to figure it out, but what I soon realized was that it was the music. Now the sound at an IMAX theatre is generally pretty damn good, but the problem was the nature of what I was listening to. Now in case you're not familiar with the Fantasia movies, they're Disney animation set against classical music. And so here I was in the movie theatre, listening to classical music, but the problem was that I was comparing it to sitting in the Orpheum listening to the Vancouver Symphony play classical music.
I remember being blown away the first time I experienced a live symphony orchestra. It was so much more alive than listening to a CD on my stereo, or hearing a live performance broadcast over a P.A. system. It wasn't until I was at the IMAX presentation of Fantasia that I realized just how spoiled I had become in listening to live classical music. It was also strange to be at an IMAX presentation, and be thinking about the technical limitations of the presentation.
When turning a live musical into a feature film, it is also important to remember the limitations and the strengths of both a film and a live musical. A musical has many limitations that are overcome with film, such as being able to move from set to set and location to location. When a musical is created, it is created bearing in mind the constraints and strengths of a live presentation. Obviously all the sets have to be on the stage, special effects are limited to what can be pulled off in front of a live audience, live music adds an element of electricity, and an audience applauding after every major number adds to the overall atmosphere. Furthermore, dance routines are created from a viewpoint that they are seen from a distance and a stationary position; as opposed to a film which allows for many camera angles, close-ups, etc.
And so one big question remains when turning a musical into a film: do you film a musical, or do you convert a musical into a film and film it as such. The producers of Chicago chose to do it half-way, by going from one scene that is filmed as a musical number (presented as a musical) to the next scene that is filmed as a film, where peformances are done on movie sets.
I believe the film would have been much better if it had gone all the way and treated the entire film as a film. If I think of all the great musicals I've seen on screen, they've all done this. Sure the odd number can step away from the world of film into the world of musical, such as the "Greased Lightning" and "Beauty School Dropout" scenes in Grease, but the majority of the film is staged and produced as a film and not a musical that happens to be filmed.
I did enjoy Chicago. It was quite entertaining, but I think it could have been much better had they remained true to the movie format. If I want to see a live musical, I'll go to a live musical.
All that aside, the actors were great, the music was great, the singing was great. I was actually pleasantly surprised by Richard Gere, he owned his role and somehow didn't annoy me in a way he often does.
Bottom line: 6/10
I remember being blown away the first time I experienced a live symphony orchestra. It was so much more alive than listening to a CD on my stereo, or hearing a live performance broadcast over a P.A. system. It wasn't until I was at the IMAX presentation of Fantasia that I realized just how spoiled I had become in listening to live classical music. It was also strange to be at an IMAX presentation, and be thinking about the technical limitations of the presentation.
When turning a live musical into a feature film, it is also important to remember the limitations and the strengths of both a film and a live musical. A musical has many limitations that are overcome with film, such as being able to move from set to set and location to location. When a musical is created, it is created bearing in mind the constraints and strengths of a live presentation. Obviously all the sets have to be on the stage, special effects are limited to what can be pulled off in front of a live audience, live music adds an element of electricity, and an audience applauding after every major number adds to the overall atmosphere. Furthermore, dance routines are created from a viewpoint that they are seen from a distance and a stationary position; as opposed to a film which allows for many camera angles, close-ups, etc.
And so one big question remains when turning a musical into a film: do you film a musical, or do you convert a musical into a film and film it as such. The producers of Chicago chose to do it half-way, by going from one scene that is filmed as a musical number (presented as a musical) to the next scene that is filmed as a film, where peformances are done on movie sets.
I believe the film would have been much better if it had gone all the way and treated the entire film as a film. If I think of all the great musicals I've seen on screen, they've all done this. Sure the odd number can step away from the world of film into the world of musical, such as the "Greased Lightning" and "Beauty School Dropout" scenes in Grease, but the majority of the film is staged and produced as a film and not a musical that happens to be filmed.
I did enjoy Chicago. It was quite entertaining, but I think it could have been much better had they remained true to the movie format. If I want to see a live musical, I'll go to a live musical.
All that aside, the actors were great, the music was great, the singing was great. I was actually pleasantly surprised by Richard Gere, he owned his role and somehow didn't annoy me in a way he often does.
Bottom line: 6/10