What's new

DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Chicago - Razzle Dazzle 2-disc SE, DAZZLINGLY RECOMMENDED (1 Viewer)

Alejandro

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
186


Deef, I must tell you that CUTTING and EDITING are inherent to moviemaking, so if you rather watch someone dancing in a single head-to-toe shot from beginning to end of the number, I just have a word for you: theater;)
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
I know all about that Alejandro, it's why I'm in theater, and why... musicals made into movies don't really work (these days). Chicago (and Phantom and The Producers and Rent) are ALL far better onstage than their movie adaptations.

Sorry to dump on your review thread David. Feel free to remove my posts. Even if I don't have any enthusiasm for the movie reviewed, I still have enthusiasm for YOU and your reviewing, which is splendid! Keep it up.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
To be fair to Dee and his point, many older films would "pan out" and follow a dancer to let the audience watch them in a more continuous manner...as if they were on stage. That's true of 1930's musicals watchging Fred and Ginger as well as many big-budget widescreen musicals from the 50's and 60's...look at the long-shot dance numbers in Brigadoon, Oklahoma, or Seven Brides...the camera just hangs there with the full stage of dancers in focus letting you watch them as if they were "on stage" in front on you on the screen.

I can understand how if this style of directing/filming/editing is more agreeable for someone, then Chicago may seem a bit choppy and fast-paced by comparison as it doesn't "rest" and let you settle in to watch a continuous shot like that...it constantly throws different angles, fades, and jumps back/forth from "reality" to "fantasty" during the song/dance numbers (though not nearly as MTV-esque as Moulin Rouge). For some, this visual manipulation adds excitement and energy. For others, it could add frustration.

I like both styles, and I think that for what Chicago is trying to acheive on screen, that the editing is dynamic, provacative, and invigorating. I can understand how some folks might find it a bit jarring or frustrating if they're happier just being allowed to "watch" the dance numbers without this added layer of visual vocabulary distracting them from the actors' performances, but for me, Chicago's editing is *tops*!
 

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
60,695
Location
Rexford, NY
Alejandro: I yield to Dee's superior knowledge on these issues, but I believe that craftsmen like Astaire, Kelly & others found the challenge of film to be to try and present their art in a form that could be appreciated by the audience with a minimum of edits so people could know that it was talent and not trickery that they were watching.

Back to my Begin the Beguine example, there is only one edit during that entire challenging tap dancing sequence...and while I would like to believe it was made for artistic reasons (a simple "take" edit from a medium-close-up to a long shot) I know in my heart there was probably something in their performance that was not up to Astaire's standards of perfection and was left on the cutting room floor.

Now, does the lack of edits make it "theater" ( head-to-toe shots from beginning to end)? Not to me. There is plenty of camera movement and the performances (arguably) of Astaire & Powell's lifetimes. The magic of those performances make edits unnecessary and moot.
 

Alejandro

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
186
I know what you mean Deef (I didn't want to dump on your posts either). I've also seen those shows on stage first (with the only exception of "producers" I never liked Mel Brooks humor) and regardless of how wonderful Reinking's Chicago was on stage I never imagined a movie could improve on it. I think Marshalls's movie did it. At least for me. I've been an ardorous fan of Fosse for years and I always hated when movie critics "complaint" about his editing the numbers to "little pieces" in his movies (think Cabaret or All that jazz) because, again I think film medium asks for it. Anyway I understand you like it otherwise and it's ok.:)
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
I actually like the "style" chosen for the movie of Chicago, which makes the movie modern and helps to integrate the surrealism of singing and dancing into conventional plot reality. But there's a downside to it too -- because part of the real pleasure of musicals is watching people "land" performances, sing high notes, or take amazingly intricate dance steps or risky giant leaps... basically the reason for musicals is to see the quality of the performances. This is why a singer who is dubbed is vaguely off-putting, because it suggests that the person hired can't do it themselves. It's distracting.

The style of Chicago is very distracting. Even performers who "can" do it, like Catherine ZJ aren't allowed to simply bowl us over. Another performer who you know can really do it is Queen Latifah, but again, the cutting is distracting from her performance.

And Renee and Richard seemed to be edited *because* they couldn't actually do it, either the dancing or the singing. Why not hire real talents in their place?

I think this dialogue is a bit of a conundrum, sorry to hash it all over again. I applaud Chicago's success, which did usher in a new series of musical movies. I just wish there was one of these that I could receive with the same enthusiasm I have for Swing Time, Meet Me In St. Louis, Singin' in the Rain, Gigi, The Music Man, and Fiddler on the Roof.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826

Dee,

I think you're points are valid and I can certainly see how some folks might find the visual editing to become a distraction. For me personally, I find it invigorating, but I still see where you're coming from (and also agree that Renee's casting didn't work for me...Catherine is spot-on but Renee seems a bit weak for her role and is less deft and song/dance).

I appreciate your comments and especially the willingness to share them in an open and balanced manner. Conversation like this teases out the greater truth and it's enlightening to contemplate these points...both for those who love and those who don't love Marshall's film Chicago.
 

Alejandro

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
186


:D DaVid, I was about to say the same thing:D

I agree with Deef in the point that editing Renee's performance had the clear intention of hiding the fact that she can't either sing nor dance, but then again, if this device (editing I mean) works, who's complaining?
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
An interesting and ironic codicil to these discussions is that the new DVD has an extra featuring Liza Minnelli, who went into the original show after only 4 rehearsals and basically saved it (Gwen Verdon needed surgery).

And there's a broadcast of Liza doing some of "Nowadays."

It's ironic because, Liza isn't in the movie at all -- had nothing to do with it, or the revival of the show.

But isn't she the saving grace of the new DVD? Because she's Liza Minnelli, a great performer, both singer and dancer, and we're dying to see what she does with the material. We want to see the material *performed.*

This is pretty ironic, I think.
 

Alejandro

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
186
Finally I must agree with you again Deef;)
The jewel of this DVD edition is Liza singing Nowadays. As much as I like the film I would have killed to see/hear her onstage. ironic? Yes;)
 

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
60,695
Location
Rexford, NY


:b Removed, Alejandro. I wasn't quoting you, but by adding the word to a phrase that you yourself used it was easily construed to be an unfair insinuation that you implied. And you didn't. I'm sorry.

I loved the "style" Marshall gave the film of Chicago. In many places it worked with great effect...for example, the puppet-effects in the "I reached for the gun" number. Well-done. I just imagine how much better the film would have been with someone other than Gere. Frankly, I thought Zellweger acquitted herself rather nicely considering her amount of experience in singing/dancing.
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
I think it's important to understand the particular biases of a critic. So, I need to tell you all something about my own biases. I love theater, and musicals, and I have a huge library of DVDs, since home theater is my hobby. I love movies, and I particularly love movies that use that very peculiar cinematic device, the collage, basically a lot of pieces of film put-together like a puzzle to make a point. Hitchcock is one my cinema idols.

But cutting in the 21st century has gone too far (partly the fault of Spielberg and partly the fault of Lucas). It's exhausting, whether in Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, Chicago, Batman Begins or King Kong. I need to see actors, I need to see landscapes, and I need to relax into them, and not have to make an adjustment of my brain and eyes every .001 of a second.

One of the reasons Brokeback Mountain is superior as a movie, is that you can actually watch it, and see the transformation of the characters done by the actors and not the film editor.

As soon as I watched the opening credits of Chicago, I knew it was going to have that modern MTV kind of editing, and I turned away from it immediately. And it never grabbed me back with the quality of performances.
 

Alejandro

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
186
Thanks, Mike.
Believe me, far from me to make this debate last longer but I regard Renee as an excellent actress. I guess Marshall relay on her acting abilities to make her role more simpathetic. Someone the audience liked. Great singing and dancing didn't worry him. Besides, Ann Reinking (I adore her, don't take me wrong) isn't a great singer either, but my! those legs!!!!:D
 

Alejandro

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
186
Wow! You just have won me over Deef!
You loved Brokeback Mountain!. You are just right now my favorite person in this thread:D
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
Hey, I just realized, Ginger Rogers herself is the star of Roxie Hart! Oh, she's sensational...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,724
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top