Andy! Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I'm just watching channel 4's musicality and the finalist are performing in Londons "Chicago" at the Adelphi Theatre. I think that they are a very good cast and I got a discussion brought up about there version of the show, and that they believed that now they have seen the film of Chicago they do not like the musical version. Well I strongly disagreed, and in relation to the other post that was brought up about, Theatre vs TV/film. I still think that Theatre will always win out of the them. So what are your views on the Chicago film and The stage performance. ;) To change the subject slightly has/does anyone work/ed for Chicago at the Adelphi Theatre. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Funk Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I really liked the theatre version, but haven't seen the film. To be honest I don't think films can compare to theatrical productions generally speaking. But then again I dislike most films with singing in them (having been brought up on Disney ;) )... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy! Posted December 1, 2004 Author Share Posted December 1, 2004 The film does have a very glamours side to it. But the Theatre version does have the true meaning of chicago to it. I have to just comment that there is a very clever lighting design for the theatrical version. The light curtain is great, gives a great effect for the jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Funk Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I wondered what the point of that was though.... to give the cast an idea of how full the house was? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jot100 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I do not really like stage musicals but was taken to see Chicago as a surprise and found my self totally blown away. Even my partner who hates theatre enjoyed it. I then went on to buy the film (I didn't get round to seeing it at the cinema) and was not disappointed as such but not overly impressed. I think the difference here is the energy of a live show that takes you on a journey and not just a story being told. The film was a story and didn't gain anything by having the singing. Can I just say working in a college I am now sick of Chicago. I know the words and if you asked nicely I could do a lot of the dances as well ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Funk Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 He had it coming... He had it coming... He only had himself to blame... ;)I have to say that, being in year 13, doing music A2 level, and recording most of the external exam performances lower down the school, there are DEFINATELY some songs I don't want to hear again... *any* AWL stuff...*any* Oliver! stuff..."Cry Me a River" by whatshername..."Tonight" from West Side Story (which is a perfectly good song ;) ) you get the idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcT Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I love Chicago! Its one of my all time favorite musicals... We did it in March '96 whilst I was at Uni. I board op'd the show on and off for two weeks and could pretty much recite the entire script afterwards. With a slightly different cast it also toured to Edinburgh that same year, and I just had to see it again! I saw it in the West End a couple of years ago, and the film numerous times. Of all those productions I most enjoyed our original version at Uni - but perhaps that just because I had some small personal involvement with it! I'd definitely recommend seeing the show & watching the film. The film is beautifully lit and is worth seeing by any aspiring lighting designer for that alone. Rent it at the weekend! Go on - you should! Anyway, I've been distracted long enough... I've got a lighting design for a panto do do... ;) Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peternewman Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 *any* AWL stuff...<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Surely you mean ALW as in Andrew Lloyd Webber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisW Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 He had it coming... He had it coming... He only had himself to blame... :PI have to say that, being in year 13, doing music A2 level, and recording most of the external exam performances lower down the school, there are DEFINATELY some songs I don't want to hear again... *any* AWL stuff...*any* Oliver! stuff..."Cry Me a River" by whatshername..."Tonight" from West Side Story (which is a perfectly good song ;) ) you get the idea...<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm doing the same course as yo (A2 Music) and I do the recordings for the lower external exams but another song would be: Le Miss "Castle on a Cloud" ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Funk Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Yes I did mean ALW - I should really read over my posts before I submit them... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goofy Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 The problems with the film in my view were firstly that they used Hollywood names in the cast rather than proper music theatre performers (although Catherine Zeta-Jones was trained in song & dance, Richard Gere and Renee Zellweger weren't). And secondly, they took the opportunity to show the action in lovely flashy settings. Well it doesn't need it. The whole point of Chicago is that it's down and dark and the strength of the whole thing lies in its music and the acting with clever lighting but no flashy set. Much more atmospheric that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucy_ironside Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 The problems with the film in my view were firstly that they used Hollywood names in the cast rather than proper music theatre performers (although Catherine Zeta-Jones was trained in song & dance, Richard Gere and Renee Zellweger weren't). I think Richard Gere does have a musical theatre background - I recall that he was, amongst other things, in Grease on Broadway a long long time ago ... many years before his film hey days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterT Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 The problems with the film in my view were firstly that they used Hollywood names in the cast rather than proper music theatre performers (although Catherine Zeta-Jones was trained in song & dance, Richard Gere and Renee Zellweger weren't). And secondly, they took the opportunity to show the action in lovely flashy settings. Well it doesn't need it. The whole point of Chicago is that it's down and dark and the strength of the whole thing lies in its music and the acting with clever lighting but no flashy set. Much more atmospheric that way.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you'll find that all of the musical numbers were set on a stage of a theatre it's only the intervening story that used 'real' locations and Lucy is correct, Richard Gere started many years back doing West end and broadway musicals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.