Shhh…hear that vaguely familiar noise echoing through the cineplex? This time, it isn’t ear-shattering explosions or whirring space ships or the screeching tires of a car chase. It’s melody. It’s rhythm. Believe it or not, it’s music. And for fans of the movie musical, it’s an awfully welcome sound.
“The Phantom of the Opera,” is the latest in a spate of Broadway musicals destined for the big screen, marking a melodious return to a once-ubiquitous genre of movie. The mostly faithful — and long awaited — adaptation of the quintessential musical opens December 22.
The fact that the Phantom is now haunting movie theaters everywhere means that millions more people — including many who can’t, or won’t, pay the as-much-as-$100-bucks-a-pop stage ticket prices — will now be able to experience Andrew Lloyd Webber’s sumptuous score.
But more important, the release strengthens the revival of a decidedly American genre of film that, after flourishing for decades, withered as dramatically as the Phantom’s shriveled face.
The sound of musicIn the ’80s and ’90s, traditional musicals went the way of the cinematic dodo bird. Cynical, late-20th-century audiences weren’t about to embrace irony-free songs on film. (“Uh, why are those people starting to sing for no reason?”) Musicals joined other dead or dying genres like Westerns, detective pictures and silent movies on the scrap heap of cinema.
But while contemporary moviegoers and the movie industry lost interest in the form, previous generations went nuts for the slightly schlocky, mostly whitebread, yet much-beloved movie versions of Broadway’s finest shows. Movie screens of the ’50s and ’60s were jam-packed with transplants from the Great White Way. From “The Sound of Music,” “The Music Man” and “The King and I” to “Carousel,” “My Fair Lady” and “Oklahoma!”, stage-shows-turned-movie-musicals ruled the day.
The surge in musicals’ popularity came just as filmmakers were experimenting with new technologies. Processes like Cinescope and Technicolor allowed filmmakers to take advantage of a sweeping, colorful canvas on which to paint. Making the jump to the big-screen allowed musicals to spread out — using panoramic vistas instead of the limited space of the stage. Movies let Broadway reach the masses in a way that live theater never could.
Still, producers seemed to feel that tweaking the stage shows for the big screen was well within their rights as purveyors of movie magic. They often replaced the actors who originated the roles on Broadway with more movie-friendly faces. But even then, they felt comfortable dubbing their strong-box-officed — but potentially weak-voiced — actors with melodic stand-ins. Audiences were serenaded by a single voice in three of the most beloved musicals, each starring a different Hollywood leading lady: Marni Nixon dubbed singing voices for Deborah Kerr in “The King and I,” Audrey Hepburn in “My Fair Lady” and Natalie Wood in “West Side Story.”
The death of the genreThen, one final surge, and the music died. After 1978’s “Grease” got moviegoers’ feet tapping, it all began to fade. Occasional all-singing!-all-dancing! movies resonated with audiences along the way (like 1982’s “Annie”), but folks had already turned their attention to goofier popcorn fare starring Clint Eastwood and an orangutan or Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise.
Musicals, for the most part, stayed off of Hollywood’s radar screen for a good portion of the past quarter-century. “Newsies,” the ambitious, original but ultimately non-newsworthy tribute to traditional musicals, took in less than $3 million dollars in 1992. Another good effort, the 1996 adaptation of Lloyd Webber’s “Evita,” went on to gross triple-digit millions worldwide, but it made only a disappointing $50 million in the States.
Eventually, a series of mid-’90s animated musicals managed to sidestep the curse and may have laid the groundwork for a new generation for whom “musicals” isn’t a dirty word; parents and children have become accustomed to watching teacups and lion cubs break into song. “The Lion King,” for instance, has grossed nearly $800 million worldwide, and spawned a Broadway musical of its own.
Although it wasn’t a Broadway adaptation, 2001’s “Moulin Rouge” kickstarted the effort to return music to the movies. Baz Luhrmann’s dreamy, imaginative fantasy seamlessly wove music into the fabric of the film, combining snippets of pop songs and Broadway-ready ballads into a memorable work that set the stage for the genre’s return.
But it took Miramax’s 2002 darling “Chicago” taking in more than $300 million at the worldwide box office and a half-dozen shiny gold statues for executives to get the brilliant idea that musicals are once again viable. The tried-and-true musical is now officially Hollywood’s Next Big Thing. But movie moguls are a fickle bunch. If the genre shows signs of weakness, producers will once again flee from the musical as fast as their little legs can carry them.
On, BroadwayOdds are, though, “Phantom” won’t be the flick that marks the beginning of the end. It’s hardly a risky property. It comes complete with an obsessively catchy soundtrack, more than $3 billion dollars in ticket sales under its belt, and 100 million people around the world who have seen the live show.
Near-obsessive “phans” of the stage production are no doubt trembling in their masks over the prospect of hearing the overture’s first notes in Dolby digital sound. Chat rooms have been ablaze with rumors of potential casting choices for years, from original Phantom Michael Crawford to Antonio Banderas to Hugh Jackman. (The coveted role ultimately went to lesser-known Scottish actor Gerard Butler.)
In true Hollywood fashion, the critical and commercial success of “Chicago” sparked talk of bringing dozens of musicals to the big screen: “Rent,” “Guys and Dolls,” “Damn Yankees.” Movie producers finally got the message that fans of theater productions will likely follow their favorite musicals from stage to screen. And new fans cultivated by the movie version will likely shell out the big bucks the next time the live show rolls into town. It reinforces, to quote Disney’s most successful stage production, the circle of life.
It helps that Broadway itself has experienced a resurgence of late, with audience favorites like “Hairspray,” “Avenue Q,” “Wicked,” and the single largest musical jolt in decades, “The Producers.” Mel Brooks’ zany, audacious paean to political incorrectness put huge numbers of butts in seats on Broadway, and now it’s about to travel full circle as well. Brooks adapted the mostly non-musical original flick into the stage production, built around the hilariously offensive tune “Springtime for Hitler.” (“Don’t be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party.”) Now “The Producers” is going back to the big screen, this time in musical form, with original Broadway cast members Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick at the forefront, and Will Ferrell thrown in for good box office measure.
What goes around, comes around, it seems, and the movie musical is coming around once again. But will it linger this time, or slip quietly back into the shadows?
The sound of successMost fans seem thrilled that the Phantom’s darkly romantic tale of obsession and unrequited love is finally coming to the neighborhood movie house — as long as director Joel Schumacher doesn’t fiddle with what they adore about the characters, tone and probably most important, music. Schumacher has earned his share of fan venom for past adaptation missteps (Bat-nipples, anyone?), but Lloyd Webber himself co-wrote the screenplay, ensuring that the beloved music, at least, will likely be at least recognizable to purists.
If “Phantom” fizzles, there’s no doubt that the movie industry will reject the musical once again. But, if it succeeds? Every single person with a stake in the genre’s success will hear another welcome sound wafting through movie theater lobbies: the jingling bells of cash registers ringing up ticket sales.