Putting great Movie Musicals on Stage. Does it ever work?

I haven't actually watched a lot of the 'classic' screen musicals. I've never seen Top Hat and High Society. It's a lot easier to take a stage show as a stage show when you haven't seen the film!

I think there's a big difference between Shows "impersonating" someone because the copy will only ever be a copy.

But when it comes to putting classic movie musicals on stage, I think it's slightly different. Singin' in the Rain may be a cinematic masterpiece, but there's just something amazing about seeing THAT scene on stage with actual rain.

And while I wasn't keen on American in Paris on stage overall, the big second act ballet was nothing short of spectacular and (almost) worth the (discounted) price alone.

Dance especially is just on a different level when seen live on stage and I don't mind seeing other performers taking on classic roles and perhaps even give them a new interpretation. However, I can understand your misgivings as there are some classic movies I also absolutely can't see done differently or by other performers.

I adore the film, however I have seen it on stage 4 times (3 different productions). Unfortunately the lack of Gene was a problem in 3 of those performances. The first time I saw it on stage was a production in Bristol (either BLOC or a tour, can't remember). I went because I was interested in seeing it on stage but was very disappointed. I then decided to give a different version of the show a go so I went to see it at the Palace Theatre and didn't manage to enjoy that either. Adam Cooper just wasn't right for the role (and I didn't enjoy Scarlet as Kathy). However I thought maybe it was the casting I hadn't enjoyed so I went and saw it on tour. I remember enjoying it a lot more than in London but Don still wasn't Gene (assuming I saw James Leece). Even after those productions I still decided to give a different production a go this year (went in Salisbury). However this time I went in knowing that the person playing Don was someone who'd previously caught my eye in Funny Girl (Matthew Croke). The production itself wasn't the best but for the first time I was happy with the casting of Don. Of course there wasn't anywhere near enough dancing especially with such a tiny stage. Maybe I was more forgiving since it was such a small production and I knew that going in. If only I'd seen Matthew as Don in the West End when he was a cover, that would have been interesting to see what my thoughts on that would have been.

Will I watch Singing in the Rain on stage again? Probably. Will I ever find a production I'm completely satisfied with? Absolutely no idea but if I do I'll be very happy!

In my eyes Gene in Singing in the Rain is very difficult to forget. I'm much happier with the idea of seeing An American in Paris, possibly because I've seen the film a lot less. I'm actually happy with both men cast in it and if there are cheap tickets to be found somewhere I'd happily watch it twice from what I've seen of the Broadway production. Maybe if Robbie Fairchild played Don in a good big production of Singing in the Rain I'd finally be happy (doubt I'd see it unless it was over here though). From the clips I've seen he moves in a similar way to Gene which is usually the biggest let down.

I'm less fussed about seeing other people play Fred's roles. I loved Top Hat and saw it 3 times with 3 people playing Jerry (Tom Chambers, Gavin Lee and Alan Burkitt). I had no problems with any of them and enjoyed it each time (which is why I went back).

So can it work? Yes it can but I think it really depends on how well I know the film and if those performances are ingrained in my head. If they are, it's much harder to get the stage musical right. If not I'm happy to give them a go.

Eh if it follows the basic storyline then it's too much like it for me.

I knew I'd be hoisted on my own something or other   

42nd Street  on stage - Loved it.    Pretty sure we saw the first change of cast with someone called Catherine Zeta Jones. Wonder whatever.....


Spoiler alert.  the curtain rising just enough  to see the tapping feet and the BANG with the I'm in the money props. Fantastic Theater.  Didn't feel like it was trying to recreate Busby Berkeley at all.

It wasn't? What was it then? And why did they claim the first rows were a splash zone? I was pretty sure it was water. 

Aaah, okay. Whew. I was starting to worry about my own senses

They are generally very disappointing, in my opinion.

Mary Poppins is the shining example for me: I came away completely cold from what was an extremely slick and polished production. I think Julie Andrews is so synonymously attached to the role that the average popular young stage actress du jour is just not going to cut it for me. Even if they are doing what is ostensibly a Julie Andrews impersonation. In that particular show, as visually arresting as it was, I felt the new material was weak as well, really adding nothing new to the movie and taking a whole lot away,

The Wizard of Oz - I felt exactly the same. The producers essentially sell the show through nostalgia of the movie. The problem there is that in these two examples I wished I was home watching the much superior movies!

Mary Poppins is pretty amazing. They've done great with that one.

Legally Blonde was more suited to a musical than a film, in my opinion. A big improvement.

Hairspray is a good example no ones mentioned yet. Which has the rarer distinction of being turned back into a film again as a musical.

There's no reason an adaptation of something can't be better than what it comes from, but obviously if you've fallen in love with the source material then you're going to be predisposed to being disappointed if the adaptation isn't objectively much better than it. The best shows will adapt different aspects than originally focuses on and do something different. Bring out other emotions or concepts, develop characters in different ways.

Musicals in particular are guilty of almost always being adaptations of something (I notice no ones complaining about shows not being better than the novels they're adapted from), both because it's easier to take a story that already works on some levels and develop it, and because classically they sell better. Much better. New original musicals are a nightmare to get produced.

So there's nothing wrong with good adaptations, I certainly have never had the attitude that classic films shouldn't be transformed for the stage, as long as it's done well.

IMHO Grease often suffers from bad casting. These kids are... well, kids. Teenagers, who behave like foolish teenagers virtually all the time. As soon as you cast them with performers in their mid-twenties it all starts looking very silly. The recent TV version with the albeit hunky but way too mature Aaron Tveit was a case in point. But when it's done well, it can be fun.

The best Grease I ever saw was a lucky accident - it was playing in Rome while I was visiting and I had nothing better to do that evening, so I bought a ticket despite my Italian being limited to "una pizza per favore". I had a fantastic time because general Italian male body language and the wannabe macho attitude of the T-Birds were a match made in musical heaven.