Okay...So the musical has made a comeback...It took over thirty years for a musical to be proclaimed "best picture" (oliver-68)...here are a few milestones that lead to it:


2000- Dancer In The Dark: Made it okay for critics to like musicals once again...Bjork oddly enough receives a Golden Globe award for Best Actress in a "DRAMA" at the Golden Globes...if nominated for "Comedy/Musical" many felt she would have beat out the Renee Zellweger in "Nurse Betty. The film is a minor indie hit...Sadly Bjork declares the emotional pull of making a film made her feel like she was having an affair. Music is her true love and movie audiences everywhere cry along with film and in sadness that this is the end of a wonderful talent. (garners bjork an oscar nod for songwriting)..

2001-Henry & The Angry Inch: John Cameron Mitchell (editors note: a friend of a friend-hehehhee, name calling be damned..WUP WUP!!) makes musicals even more accessible..Easier to swallow than Dancer (but not by much)...It garners John an Golden Globe Nod for acting...But, uhhh..did anyone care about the characters? But it still gives Harvey Weinstein a major woody and makes him really push:

2001- Moulin Rouge!: An extreme movie that strangely catches on with the public. A horrid performance by Kidman is excused by catchy tunes and sheer camp. Sadly no shots of the wonderful looking penis that is attached to Ewan McGregor but hey, the film is fun. But someone needs to shoot the film editor. Extreme editing should never be used as substitution for good writing..Which this film lacks..

which brings me to:

2002- Chicago: A great musical..period! memorable tunes (something Dancer lacks)...great performances (something Henry lacks) and a great story. A bit too polished for many...but overall, this is the musical that musical haters can love...

so i ask, rate the four films that made musicals "cool" again... here are mine:

1)Dancer In The Dark
2) Chicago
3) Hedwig & The Angry Inch
4) Moulin Rouge!



stupid me edit!!!
[This message was edited Mon Sep 1 22:47:29 PDT 2003 by sosgemini]

actually, i'd push the beginning of the new musical era back to Evita. its success, after all, is what convinced the studios to go ahead with these other projects.



i'd put Moulin Rouge at the top of the list, though.

AaronSuperior said:

no way...Lars is on record as saying that Bjorks' "its o so quiet" is what inspired him to make Dancer..which was a pure indie film..ditto Henry..Studios had zero interest after Evita cause it flopped..It only made 40mil (and how much did it cost to make and market?) which reinforced the idea that musicals are to costly yet yield lil in return...

it wasnt until these indie films made major profits that Miramax (who i give complete credit for bringing the musical back) realized that musicals were a good thing...profit wise and critically...

actually..if we want to be technically..we have to credit disney for making musicals profitable (with lionking, lil mermaid)...

thats what allowed Evita..but it only recieved so/so reviews and didnt recoup its huge budget and the "live" musical layed dormant..which explains why Maddy couldnt get Chicago made..even with stellar people involved...

it took small baby steps via Dancer and Henry and then the huge success called Moulin...which makes me wonder...could that Sinead/Prince pinned musical have worked after all? hmmm...

NO

sosgemini said:

i'm not saying that Evita inspired these musicals. i'm saying that the critical and commercial success of it allowed for directors and producers to get these musicals made. when they saw a success, the studios put more faith in the ability of a musical to be successful.

as for the Disney stuff, that's cartoons, children's movies. a real-life singing and dancing musical that an audience composed primarily of adults is supposed to pay money to see is another beast entirely.

btw, Evita didn't flop. the per-screen gross intake on it was one of the highest that year.

Dancer in the Dark is head and shoulders above the others that I've seen.

sosgemini said:

again, you're wrong. Madonna wasn't trying to get Chicago made. she was only involved in the lineup as one cast member at one point. she chose another movie (one that she actually ended up backing out of) over Chicago in the first place. Madonna being attached to Chicago is one of the least problems it had in getting made. in fact, it was after Evita, and getting Madonna attached to it, that there was actually news that the thing might actually get made after how many years of languishing?

AaronSuperior said:

i know that..but the huge budget and low profit did reinforce the long standing belief that musicals are non-money making ventures for studios...and when a film is released in "limited" fashion, sure its per screen is going to lean in its favor...it took the two indie films low cost approach to prove that a musical can be profitable...filmthreat.com *and* Roger Ebert have done essays on the recent phenom of the musical..neither referenced Evita..both pointed out Henry and Dancer...

Evita, released in 96...The other films, released after 00...It took studios four years to see realize they could make profits from musicals? I doubt that..harvey is too wise and too fat..he would have been all over it..

AaronSuperior said:

sorry mate..wasnt trying to emply that maddy was trying to make chicago..but, if madonna and evita were such a profit making endevor..wouldnt studios have jumped at the chance to make ago at it again? but even with maddy attached, Chicago went no where...until after the success of Dancer and Henry...And sure, while neither film garnered as much dough, they did make a sizable profit based on cost to make...and both received much higher critical acclaim then Evita...

but, what im more interested in knowing is, how do you rate the four above mentioned films?

sosgemini said:

you do realize that getting a script, director, and cast in place, and getting a film in production does take some time, don't you?

after the success of Evita, it took a few years for the acknowledgement that a musical could succeed for each of the studios to find the right projects and people to put into place. unless you're saying that within the span of 2 years, 4 musicals just came out of nowhere, all based on the success of one film less than a year earlier than the next one. is that what you're saying? because it's nonsense to think that things can happen that quickly in hollywood.


for example, after the dismal success of Batman & Robin and the Avengers in 1997, there was a moratoriam on superhero-type movies. until X-Men came along in 2000. after its success, properties were bought up very quickly, and it wasn't until TWO years later that the next one (Spider-Man) came out, and since then, it's been on a steady pace (Daredevil, X2, and Hulk, all this year).

sosgemini said:

Chicago's backstory is more complicated than you seem to realize. it spent nearly as long as Evita waiting to get made, and for many of the same reasons. shakeup of ownership, director, producer, cast, etc. as soon as Evita hit, within 3 months, they were saying "okay, Chicago is a go" and it actually would have been the first out, of the ones you mentioned, if it didn't have even more behind-the-scenes trouble.

I thought it was "Hedwig and the Angry Inch", not "Henry"?

no comic book films in 2001?

josey and the pussycats, scooby doo, blade2, ghost world, spirited away (original release), hearts in atlantis, and donnie darko were all films based on comic books or anime and released in 01...scary enough...scooby was a hit!!

yes i know how studios work..i have a couple friends "working" the studio system..and i hear stories enough...


and yes, im aware of the chicago backstory...are you aware that Harvey swears on the success of Moulin as the triggering factor to allowing Chicago to go "as made"? he gave a specific budget and a specific schedule that were all made...years after Evita...

im a bit of a film buff...and like i said, Roger Ebert and www.filmthreat.com (one of the premier independent film sources) have detailed the emergence of musicals...neither parties mentioned Evita..but hey, thats their opinion...lets add Evita to the bunch...

my choices are as follows;

1) Dancer
2) Chicago
3) Henry
4) Moulin
5) errr...Everyone Says I Love You

AnotherLoverToo said:

shit, Mike is going to kill me...lol..let me edit!! i seriously did "not" like this film...it was a bit to "artsy" for artsy sake...

Both suck

sosgemini said:

i didn't say comic books did i? no. i didn't. i said super-hero movies.



that's what he says now. it was after Evita that the production actually picked up steam and had a chance to be made. and without further complications, would have been out in late 98/early 99. the fact that Moulin Rouge is also one of his films wouldn't give him a vested interest in touting it as the catalyst for Chicago, would it? no, never. one would never promote one movie through another, and give the impression that one was responsible for the whole idea of the modern musical... would one? no, never and especially not Harvey Weinstein.
[This message was edited Mon Sep 1 23:28:53 PDT 2003 by AaronSuperior]

chicago all the way, it has the best music and some of the musical numbers are stunning. It could have used a better director though

moulin rouge gets on my last nerve, I loath that piece of shit with a passion

My favorite musical was, is and always will be Bugsy Malone. Its brilliant.

btw, Kee, i don't want you to think this is my usual rahrah cheerleading, just because Evita is a "Madonna movie." I'm actually ambivalent about the film itself and her performance of it. I'm just telling you how I see the situation, and remembering things as they happened after it came out.

I slept through both.


The last "musical" I enjoyed was Purple Rain.

Does Showgirls count?

Actually, I never saw Moulin Rouge mostly because I've heard people say it was the worst movie they ever saw and I generelly don't like modern musicals. Then, I recently saw Chicago (on the plane). I never had any desire to see it and everyone was saying, "Oh you HAVE to go see it!" and normally when I hear that, or if a movie is over-hyped, I will not see it then. But I watched it anyway since it was on, and I reluctantly really liked it and wouldn't mind seeing it again on a bigger screen. I was prepared to hate it but I didn't. I didn't see the other two you mentioned.

okay,there are several movies missing from this list including "evita" and "everyone says i love you"

that having been said,

1. Dancer in the Dark
2. Chicago
3. Hedwig and the Angry Inch
4. Moulin Rouge

and hearts in atlantis wasn't a comic book

cborgman said:

No. It's based on a Stephen King book.

minneapolisgenius said:

was donnie darko? i thought it was a book as well?

cborgman said:

i was under the impression that both of these movies were based on comic-book novels...no? like Road to Perdition...

but hey, im sticking with my original theory..Cause Roger Ebert said so!! And Roger Ebert ROCKS!!...and well, eats..but thats another thread.

sosgemini said:

i know hearts in atlantis was not a comic book, i read it. and i am pretty sure donnie darko was not a comic book either

sosgemini said:

I don't know about Donnie Darko, but Hearts in Atlantis is based on a Stephen King novel that consists of four short stories. The movie version is based on only one of the stories in the book. All four stories share the common theme of the Vietnam War. Unless there is some other movie called Hearts in Atlantis that I don't know about.

Ok, I am the BARON of movie-musicals (and I'm straight. Go figure). Might as well get my input on this list.

I think "Dancer" is the BEST of the films being discussed, followed by "Hedwig." I love "Dancer" for its sheer emotionally wallop (I'm STILL seeing stars) and "Hedwig" because 1) it's inspiring 2) It's the most decadent movie musical since "RHPS". I would choose "Chicago" over "Moulin Rouge" for two reasons: 1)I'm a Bob Fosse nut 2)Queen Latifah's performance (and her cleavage). U-N-I-T-Y, baby!!