I love musicals. I grew up with them. I literally cannot remember a time in my life when I didn't sing songs from musicals. My mom has a rich musical background as both a performer and a musician, so it was second nature to her. My parents started taking me to see plays, musicals and operas in college and community theaters as soon as I was old enough to sit through them. My mom used to record movies for me when they aired on television, so I could watch them over and over till the VHS tapes stopped working properly. We always had a vast library of musical soundtracks. Lots of these musicals I had never seen, so I had the fun of listening to the music and imagining what the staging would look like. I have a great memory from when I was about 7 years old, and the filmed stage production of Peter Pan starring Mary Martin was aired on television for the first time I was ever able to see, and our whole family gathered in the living room to watch it together. I was so DELIGHTED, because I'd been listening to the cast recording since I was a tiny tot. And those of you who know me know that I've done my fair share of stage performing myself. I LOVE MUSICALS.
Having grown up obsessed with musicals and having probably 50 or more of them utterly memorized, I've been really disappointed with their fall from grace in the film industry. Movie musicals have been out of fashion for a long time now, and there are lots of popular theories about why this is. It would have been so much fun to grow up in the days when musicals won Best Picture at the Oscars year after year, instead of being an rarity like when Chicago won the award in 2002. In the past 20 years of cinema, I can think of only a handful of musicals that have even come out, and so few of them that I actually thought were decent to good. Rent was okay - at least they brought back most of the original cast, but the adaptation was on the corny side. Moulin Rouge, Hairspray and Sweeney Todd, along with the aforementioned Chicago, are the only three that come to mind that were really good, in my humble little musician's opinion. It's sad. If you count animated films, then you could add several more to the list - but animated films have always celebrated music, and I really don't think they count in the same vein as a "musical."
You're probably thinking, "But there have been lots more musicals in the past several years in addition to the ones you named!" True. But I was listing the GOOD ones. Most of the musicals that have come out have been on the meh-to-terrible end of the spectrum. Dreamgirls. Mamma Mia! And worst of all, Phantom of the Opera. Hooo-boy. Talk about a wasted opportunity. It was beautiful to look at, but just. not. good. Phantom's a great example of the problem plaguing movie musicals today - star power triumphing over talent in terms of casting.
It's true that filmmakers have always considered star power and ticket sales when casting a film adaptation of a musical. After all, Audrey Hepburn famously won the starring role in My Fair Lady over Julie Andrews, a star of the stage who had played the role on Broadway for years to much acclaim, but who was unknown in the film industry. In order to make Audrey work for the film, a voice double had to be hired - the very famous Marni Nixon, who also sang for Natalie Wood in West Side Story and Deborah Kerr in The King and I. You could argue that the tactic worked - all three of those films were nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and the first two I mentioned won the award. Both Natalie Wood and Deborah Kerr picked up Best Actress nominations, but neither won, while Audrey Hepburn wasn't even nominated. The winner in her year? Julie Andrews...for Mary Poppins (which has to be my favorite Oscar story of all time).
So in terms of critical acclaim, sure - sometimes you can cast a more-famous actor and the movie still does well. It worked in Chicago. Bebe Neuworth wasn't cast in the film, though she won the Tony for her portrayal of Velma Kelly in the Broadway revival - and Catherine Zeta-Jones did an incredible job and rightly won herself an Oscar. But the reason that worked? All the stars of Chicago could sing. Every. Single. One. And not only could they sing - they were appropriately cast in their respective roles. Another recent favorite of mine was Sweeney Todd, which is an interesting example, but in that case, instead of trying to replicate the feel of the Broadway experience and the big voices who made the roles famous, director Tim Burton went an entirely different route and created his own look and feel for the movie and also for the singing - and it worked.
Which brings me back to The Phantom of the Opera. I would argue that the film is almost one hundred percent miscast. The only person who was able to hold his own with the music is Patrick Wilson, who played Raoul. But Patrick Wilson is also a stage veteran, so really, it makes sense. The rest of the cast is completely off. Emmy Rossum was lovely to look at, and her voice had a purity that was nice enough, but she simply lacked the chops to sing the role. Minnie Driver didn't even try - they had to dub her entire performance. And Gerard Butler, while intensely sexy and appealing, was just one thousand percent wrong for The Phantom. His rock-style vocals were absolutely second rate, a far cry from the now-legendary Michael Crawford performance. Clearly, the filmmakers spent scads of money on the film's look and feel, but it flopped critically and at the box office - and it shouldn't have. It's one of the most successful stage musicals in all of Broadway history. Had they been true to the score, I believe the movie would have succeeded. The star power shouldn't have been in the actors' names, it should have been the musical performances - and the filmmakers totally missed the mark.
And the next movie poised to aim big and fall short? The upcoming film adaption of Les Miserables, the cast of which is being filled as we speak with BIG NAMES. But CAN THEY SING? That is the question. And to be more specific, is their vocal talent on par with the score? I'm guessing director Tom Hooper isn't going to make an "edgy" Les Mis in the vein of Burton's Sweeney Todd - so riddle me why on Earth someone like Russell Crowe would be set to star as Javert, the police officer obsessed with capturing Jean Valjean. Who will be played, FYI, by Hugh Jackman, the only part of the cast that currently makes any sense. Hugh Jackman is a very talented stage actor and singer. Though he's 44, he somehow seems young for the role made famous by Colm Wilkinson. But I'd say he's more than likely capable of playing the role, all in all, if they can age him properly. But Russell Crowe? I'm pretty skeptical. And please, PLEASE don't get me started on the travesty that nearly was - Taylor Swift almost landing the role of Eponine. OMG. The HORROR OF IT. It makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Not much better? Amanda Seyfried as Cosette. I have seen Mamma Mia! and it wasn't good. It pains me to see one of the best musicals of the modern era about to be demolished on the silver screen, just like its sister The Phantom, all in the name of STAR POWER!
Nothing would delight me more than to be wrong about this, because I would dearly love a good Les Mis. But I've learned not to get my hopes up. If I'm wrong, I will throw a party and go see the movie three times, but I'm usually not wrong about these things, unfortunately. And all I have to say is, Amanda Seyfried is NO Audrey Hepburn.
