The Music Man... and Remakes
Feb. 17th, 2003 06:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tarotgalI watched the new vesion of 'The Music Man' tonight, excited as I'd heard many good reviews by critics and I particularly like Matthew Broderick. I was, however, rather disapointed. I have seen a lot of remakes of musicals and movies I loved in my childhood that have not measured up in my opinion, and I must add this to that list.
I know Matthew is a wonderful singer, and the entire point of plays and musicals on broadway is to reproduce wonderful stories in different ways- and I'm sure he is fabulous in that capacity... but once that idea gets translated into a movie that is already exists and is wonderful, I just don't see it. Take Annie, for example. *shakes head*
Let's see... first off, the racial issue. Half my family lives in Iowa, I've been there for months on end probably about 15 times in my life and I have honestly never seen a black person. Now, as this is a period piece set after the turn of the century (votes for women sashes and talk of model-T's as the only things I can remember to distinguish the era) the presence of so many blacks in fancy clothes and 'white' roles struck me as odd. But in these days and times, I've grown accustomed to the multiculturalness of remakes (like Cinderella with an asian prince) and I usually really like it. But something about it this time put me off... maybe it was my own experiences with Iowa or maybe it was the fact that Hill was telling about how *horrible* ragtime is and there are several black people there agreeing with him. All right, not all black people liked ragtime but I personally like it!
Anyway, it felt to me like they were trying to be too much like the original. People were cast with similar looks or forced into similar ways of speaking. Matthew managed a few original tone changes and movements, though he looked like jello wiggling around at times when he was with a baton, rather than the original Robert Preston who was straight and stately when he led the band. Details like that stood out because I liked the presentation of the original. For example, the way Amaryllis giggles with her hand to her face looks as though that's how she's supposed to laugh because the other one did, and when she does it, it's forced and unnatural looking. The movements seem more movie-like, yes, but not realistic. Many of the critics seem to like it because it is a movie and high budget quality... well goodness, that's not what real life is like and this didn't feel real to me when I watched it.
I don't know... I love plays, and I love musicals. But I didn't like the remake. It really felt like they were trying to be just like the original in appearance and dialogue and tone and everything. And if that's the case, I like the original better! I've nothing against the way it was done- the singing and dancing were excellent, and the cast was great in most parts... but the same can be said about the original and its appearance, etc. weren't forced!
Gah... why must they do this sort of thing? It hurts. *sniffle*
I know Matthew is a wonderful singer, and the entire point of plays and musicals on broadway is to reproduce wonderful stories in different ways- and I'm sure he is fabulous in that capacity... but once that idea gets translated into a movie that is already exists and is wonderful, I just don't see it. Take Annie, for example. *shakes head*
Let's see... first off, the racial issue. Half my family lives in Iowa, I've been there for months on end probably about 15 times in my life and I have honestly never seen a black person. Now, as this is a period piece set after the turn of the century (votes for women sashes and talk of model-T's as the only things I can remember to distinguish the era) the presence of so many blacks in fancy clothes and 'white' roles struck me as odd. But in these days and times, I've grown accustomed to the multiculturalness of remakes (like Cinderella with an asian prince) and I usually really like it. But something about it this time put me off... maybe it was my own experiences with Iowa or maybe it was the fact that Hill was telling about how *horrible* ragtime is and there are several black people there agreeing with him. All right, not all black people liked ragtime but I personally like it!
Anyway, it felt to me like they were trying to be too much like the original. People were cast with similar looks or forced into similar ways of speaking. Matthew managed a few original tone changes and movements, though he looked like jello wiggling around at times when he was with a baton, rather than the original Robert Preston who was straight and stately when he led the band. Details like that stood out because I liked the presentation of the original. For example, the way Amaryllis giggles with her hand to her face looks as though that's how she's supposed to laugh because the other one did, and when she does it, it's forced and unnatural looking. The movements seem more movie-like, yes, but not realistic. Many of the critics seem to like it because it is a movie and high budget quality... well goodness, that's not what real life is like and this didn't feel real to me when I watched it.
I don't know... I love plays, and I love musicals. But I didn't like the remake. It really felt like they were trying to be just like the original in appearance and dialogue and tone and everything. And if that's the case, I like the original better! I've nothing against the way it was done- the singing and dancing were excellent, and the cast was great in most parts... but the same can be said about the original and its appearance, etc. weren't forced!
Gah... why must they do this sort of thing? It hurts. *sniffle*
