Like two filmless filmstars

[sovay]

I see that there is now a film of the musical of Fellini's 8 ½ (1963). I do not understand how this happens. I mean, I was nonplussed enough by The Producers in 2005—having thought the stage version was fantastic; I was lucky enough to get tickets before it won all its Tonys and sold out for several years—and I think it is no insult to Mel Brooks to agree that his original movie is not one of the acknowledged masterworks of the screen in any language: 8 ½ is so purely and deliberately cinematic, I can't see the point of fitting a stage adaptation back into 35 mm just because you can. This version has Sophia Loren. I approve of that. But otherwise I don't know what I'm going to get from the inside of Rob Marshall's head that I couldn't from Fellini's unreliable, free-falling, dream-slipped, embarrassing, transcendent beautiful confusion. Onstage, whatever. Theater is reperformance; it should never be the same twice. But onscreen is time immortalized in light, and the ghost of Guido Anselmi, clown and magus, is hiding under the table, laughing at you.

Comments

[tuppshar-press.livejournal.com]

I like your statement about the difference between theatre and film, that theatre involves change with each performance. Much like Homer, I think, whose stories were oral before they were written, and which therefore changed... until they were written down.

In our world where storytelling has become synonymous with the mediums of the written word and film, I wonder how many of us consider this distinction?

[sovay]

Much like Homer, I think, whose stories were oral before they were written, and which therefore changed... until they were written down.

I've been trying to decide if fanfiction is evolving back toward a kind of oral tradition, or whether it's merely the same human impulse to retell that affects everything from classical tragedies to book reviews. It's certainly multivoiced, but by definition not viewed as valid as the author's original work; it seems you need at least half a century before it becomes literarily acceptable to ring changes on novels or plays or operas as well as myths. (I originally wrote "at least a century," but then I remembered Sherlock Holmes, who has been pretty much in a constant state of retelling since Conan Doyle wrote him down.) And of course it's still a fixed medium, unless you're thinking out loud at a con.

In our world where storytelling has become synonymous with the mediums of the written word and film, I wonder how many of us consider this distinction?

I think about it a lot, but that's my brain . . .

[mamishka.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I saw a trailer for this movie, not knowing what it was or what it might be based on, but it looked beautiful and interesting in its own right, though albeit in a very Chicago-esque sort of way, which is of little surprise since it is made by the same director. The title was my first tip off that perhaps it was, in fact, based on Fellini's 8 1/2. But I think I'll see it anyways and judge for myself. I think I can keep the two films separate enough that I will be able to enjoy this for what it was. It certainly looks MUCH better than the dreadful film remake of The Producers. *shudder*

[sovay]

But I think I'll see it anyways and judge for myself. I think I can keep the two films separate enough that I will be able to enjoy this for what it was.

All right; I'll look forward to your review!

It certainly looks MUCH better than the dreadful film remake of The Producers.

That's true; I should not tar all movie musicals with its brush. I'm just trying to think of an alternate case where a movie was made into a musical was made into a movie and I liked the results. I haven't come up with anything.

[mamishka.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* To be fair, there haven't been that many films that have been made into musicals and then back into films. It's a pretty 'new' genre. But I can think of several musicals that were then made into films quite successfully - Sweeney Todd, for one. Chicago was also well done, though I can't remember which came first, the original movie or the musical. ;)

[sovay]

But I can think of several musicals that were then made into films quite successfully - Sweeney Todd, for one.

Oh, yeah. I have no quarrel with the genre. I happen to prefer the film of Pygmalion, but My Fair Lady is a classic and deservedly so—and if that's not the best example, having started life as a straight play,* I will gladly point to 1776 for a movie musical that originated from scratch onstage and Singin' in the Rain for one that was written for the screen and they're both terrific. And there are films that have been turned successfully into musicals: Sweet Charity retells Le notti di Cabiria in New York City, A Little Night Music is Smiles of a Summer Night straight with Richard Strauss; the idea of a musical Sunset Boulevard still troubles me slightly, but I'm incredibly fond of A Man of No Importance. There just seems something profoundly unnecessary about a movie of a musical of a movie that was all about movies! I could never see the point of a stage version of Singin' in the Rain, either, and no one even tried to film that.

* And there is a direct and visible line of descent from play to film to musical—and then back into film—so, yeah, I think that just complicated the argument rather than solving it. Never mind. But if you haven't seen the 1938 Pygmalion with Wendy Hiller and Leslie Howard, I love it.

Chicago was also well done, though I can't remember which came first, the original movie or the musical.

The 1926 play, I think. : P