Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    36220
    11 Jan '20 08:15
    @duchess64 said
    First of all, an adaptation for the stage is different from one for film.
    It's wrong for Suzianne to presume, apparently, that none of the London-based
    critics of the film has ever watched the musical in the West End.

    I more or less enjoyed the 2004 film 'Phantom of the Opera', though I had not watched the musical before on stage.

    I wish that a better singer than ...[text shortened]... taken four voice lessons..."
    --Wikipedia

    Obviously, Suzianne and I have very different tastes.
    Maybe so, maybe no.

    I catch the stage musical Phantom of the Opera every time it comes through Phoenix.

    I enjoy this as much as I enjoy Cats.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Jan '20 19:371 edit
    @suzianne said
    Maybe so, maybe no.

    I catch the stage musical Phantom of the Opera every time it comes through Phoenix.

    I enjoy this as much as I enjoy Cats.
    "It [the novel Le Fantôme de l'Opéra] has been successfully adapted into various
    stage and film adaptations, most notable of which are the 1925 film depiction
    featuring Lon Chaney, and Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1986 musical."
    --Wikipedia

    'Phantom of the Opera' has much longer legs than 'Cats'.

    I don't have a problem with Suzianne enjoying 'Cats', even in its film adaptation.
    I simply have pointed out the objective reality that no critics (as far as I know)
    and few people would agree with her admiration, presumably, for the film.
    Even the film's actors are now trying to put distance between themselves and this flop.
  3. Houston, TX
    Joined
    03 Jan '03
    Moves
    14863
    21 Jan '20 02:112 edits
    I enjoy the stage version, and it is Cats in the pure form. However, the stage version does a poor job of telling the (albeit thin) story. The movie develops the story better with Victoria as a central narrator, but overall the movie is deficient in in the musical/dance numbers. Rum Tum Tugger, what can I say, except his screen agent should be fired (he's barely noticeable!) Overall, a newbie to cats may prefer the better plot development in the movie, but I find the stage version (now that I know the story!) to be better.

    One more thing: When "popular" singers are used in place of those with strong stage voices you get less good singing. The clarity and diction of singing in character was (at best) barely average for a stage performance. So be it, and it is one of the warts that comes with a screen adaptation.

    Regarding the Phantom comments above, I thought the movie was good. Not as good as the stage version, which (when well done) is a true masterpiece of music and performance. That is also one of the problems with Cats - which is trying to be worthy of comparison to the stage version. So it fell a little short, and I think it became trendy for the critics to pan it. Regardless, the music is still good. Skimbleshanks has a great number. It is what it is, and there are some silver linings. Enjoy it for what it is, don't hate it for what it isn't.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Jan '20 00:36
    @jefftx said
    I enjoy the stage version, and it is Cats in the pure form. However, the stage version does a poor job of telling the (albeit thin) story. The movie develops the story better with Victoria as a central narrator, but overall the movie is deficient in in the musical/dance numbers. Rum Tum Tugger, what can I say, except his screen agent should be fired (he's barely noticeable ...[text shortened]... it is, and there are some silver linings. Enjoy it for what it is, don't hate it for what it isn't.
    The film 'Cats' may draw curious diehard lovers of the theatrical adaptation.
    But how much appeal would it have to people who are not already 'Cats' fanatics?
Back to Top