PrintMusicals and movies go together like ramma-lamma-lamma ka dinga da dinga dong—to quote “Grease,” one of the most well-known movie musicals to date. Over the years, movies and stage musicals have overlapped so often that it can be difficult to discern what was first a stage musical and what originated in cinematic form.
Right now, movie musicals are hotter than ever. This fall, much-anticipated film versions of “Nine” and “Fame” will premiere. Discussions are also in the works for an “In the Heights” movie. In addition, a PBS special documentary on the Tony-winner aired this past summer—and two other musical documentaries were recently released. Ticket sales of recent movie musicals have been strong. Back in 2002, “Chicago” earned a whopping $170,684,505 at the domestic box office, and the more recent “Dreamgirls” (2006) and “Mamma Mia!” (2008) raked in $103,338,338 and $143,704,210 respectively.
But are the stage versions of shows thriving like their cinematic complements, or are musical films drawing potential audiencess away from the Great White Way?
Broadway box office returns indicate that not only is all well, but that movies are actually fueling live theater. “Many recent releases of movie versions of shows have helped the Broadway box offices hugely,” insists Brig Berney, company manager of Tony award-winning musical “In The Heights.” After working at The Producing Office—the production company responsible for the current revival of “West Side Story,” “In the Heights,” “Avenue Q,” and “Rent”— on and off for 13 years, Berney has witnessed the rescue of shows firsthand.
“‘Phantom,’ ‘Chicago,’ and ‘Rent’ [the 2004, 2002, 2006 film versions] added at least another year to each of those show’s runs,” he says. In fact, the revival of “Chicago” is still alive—much like the singing, dancing, guilty murderesses at its core—after over 12 years on Broadway. Strangely enough, even a bad movie adaptation of a musical seems only to benefit the live theater version. “Neither movie [Phantom, Chicago, or Rent] was really great, but there was so much advertising and press prior to the release, so many reviews mentioning it being based on ‘the Broadway musical,’ followed by all the ads while the movie is out, then more coverage with the DVD release,” Berney points out. “It’s an ongoing reminder to people that these shows still exist.”
This was not always the philosophy behind movie musicals. “In the late ‘60s,” Berney says, “producer David Merrick wouldn’t allow the movie of ‘Hello, Dolly!’ to be released before the original run of the show ended. He was concerned that no one would want to see it live, if they could see it in a movie theater with Barbra Streisand.” But movies are undeniably more accessible than Broadway theater. “It [a feature film] does give people who choose not to go to live theater, don’t live in a big city or cannot afford theatre ticket prices, a chance to see ‘versions’ of shows,” grants Berney. And because of this, more producers—unlike Merrick—have jumped on the motion picture bandwagon.
The idea is to keep theatrical work at the forefront of the audience’s brains no matter what the medium. Movie musicals are the financial aid of live theater. “If people see one, they may go to see another,” proposes Berney. “Seeing the movie of a show makes people want to see it live onstage.”
With this partnered marketing, it may come as a surprise to know that many Broadway producers don’t initially have film versions on their radar when putting a show together. After all, it took “Dreamgirls” over 25 years to make it to the silver screen and the upcoming “Nine” longer than that.
The dialogue between film and stage has offered a greater volume of theatrical art—despite some arguments from fans who claim that movies kill the art of theater. In Berney’s opinion, “Movies present Broadway shows in different ways. It’s not the same experience as seeing it live.” Cinematic interpretations add to the mix. “A film can be more realistic, plots can be opened up, songs added or cut,” suggests Berney.
But diehard fans of some shows adapted into disappointing movies, like ‘Rent,’ might not be comforted by the idea of extra “art.”
Filmmakers have begun to answer such complaints. The creators of the most recent wave of movie-musicals have been careful to take preservation of the original stage versions and initial creative processes into consideration. Spike Lee’s summer release of “Passing Strange”—a 2008 Tony nominee for Best Musical—mixes behind-the-scenes documentary with excerpts from the June 19, 2008 live performance. The objective of this film was to sustain a piece of black history and one man’s creative experience rather than to elongate the run of the show, which closed only three months after it opened at the Belasco in Midtown. The summer 2009 documentary “Every Little Step” also contributes to the conservation of theater history. As an investigative piece, it compares the original and revival stage versions of “A Chorus Line” before delving into the personal stories of those auditioning for the 2006 revival. Documentary and filmed performances, rather than movie adaptations, are an option to protect the original theatrical content while simultaneously appealing to the masses.
By cleverly marketing shows and catering to both theater fanatics and average Joes alike, movies and musicals maintain separate creative boundaries while participating in a joint endeavor. A mainstream vehicle, movies act as the fast-speaking, widely-heard auctioneer for the classic and staying tradition of live theater.