*** Official "CHICAGO" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Nathan V]

As I myself am a photgrapher, I focus on the cinematography aspect of movies quite a bit more than most people. For this reason Moulin Rouge is fast becoming one of my favorite films of the new decade. It has some of the most creative cinematography and elaborate setups/fx shots ever. The gliding shots through the streets, great use of the scope frame, and overall furious (editing) energy of that film is incredible.
Editing is the one aspect of film that's indigenous to filmmaking. Cinematography is an extension of photography; acting comes from theatre; screenwriting-writing; but editing, the combining of random or non-random images, that's an art you only see in film. Thank God for Eisenstein.
By extension, I love films (like Chicago and Moulin Rouge) where the editing is one of the highlights of the film. I'm not saying MTV-cutting is great; we all know the opposite can be true. It depends on the material, director, and editor. When somebody like Fincher or Scorsese does quick cutting, it's masterful. Probably the "single" best example of editing I've seen are Scorsese's/Schoonmaker's Goodfellas and Casino, which I'm not going to get into because I just remembered this is a Chicago thread and I'm wildly off topic.
Anyway, I think we can all say the musical is definitely back. Look for this to get nominated next week.
Regards,
Nathan

 

[Seth Paxton]

I slightly disagree with Vickie regarding comparisons between Moulin Rouge and Chicago. Such discussion are quite natural since both are recent examples of the musical genre on film. Both were well recieved critically and by audiences. Both will at least be Bext Pix nominees.
So there is plenty to compare, contrast, and discuss here. And I think it's understandable that people would have their preferences between the two. In fact, it's the very contrasting nature of the two approaches that drives such a choice more than normal (where choosing between Cabaret and Chicago might seem less obvious to fans for example).
BUT, there is never any worthwhile point to "Y kicks X's ass" or "Y sucks". How about a little more "I preferred this aspect in film X to how it was handled in film Y". That's not so much to ask for.
And in return I would like to think that such criticisms would be appreciated by others even if they don't mesh with our own.
Criticizing Moulin Rouge in the wake of the noticably different approach toward the film musical taken by Chicago is well within bounds to me. I don't agree that Chicago's "goodness" makes Moulin Rouge "worse". Whatever was wrong with Moulin Rouge was wrong before Chicago was released.
I do think that the contrast between Baz's "contemporary" style and Marshall's more traditional approach will split many of the audiences.
But I for one think it's great to have such varied takes on the same genre rather than seeing copy after copy spit out of the H'wood machine.
If you throw Hedwig and Dancer in the Dark into the mix then the last couple of years have brought us at least 4 very different and unique versions of the film muscial. I enjoy each as a musical despite how different they are. And I love to compare the films and examine the similarities and differences in their approach to integrating musical numbers into the narrative.
It's notable that at least 3 of the them rely heavily on the "fantasy" angle to introduce numbers. Dancer uses that device alone, Chicago does almost exclusively as well. Hedwig is a bit more of a 50/50 mix and it often blurs the boundry between the fantasy numbers and the real numbers (including the end sequence). Moulin Rouge, however, is almost no fantasy moments. In that way it's actually probably the more traditional method, the backstage musical approach. Of course there are moments where characters probably aren't really singing outloud.
I guess I'm most surprised that we have these 4 dramatically different musicals, yet all 4 of them work within their design. None of them came out "bad" in the sense that very few people who saw them liked them. Polarizing, yes, but each had a good percentage of viewers leave as fans of the film.
Now we wait for the other shoe to drop and see the eventual "failure" musical that is probably cooking as we speak.

 

[Chris Farmer]

I would disagree abtou Moulin Rouge being non-fantasy. One of the things that struck me most abotu MR was that it watched like the filming of a play almost, with bigger special effects. Things like the giant elephant in the backyard of the Moulin Rouge club were obviously heavily stylized. Whereas Chicago Had a distinct split between the reality scenes and the fantasy scenes, MR was all fantasy. While most movies today strive overall for realism (special effects getting bigger and better, with the goal for characters like Gollum to be totally realistic and believable) I enjoyed MR acting like a play. A play isn't reallistic, its very nature invokes an automatic suspension of desbelief that's absent in most movies, and I enjoyed the way MR made the suspension a necessity.

Two different takes on the musical, I enjoyed both, although I think I preferred Chicago myself, they're both fantastic movies.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I would disagree about Moulin Rouge being non-fantasy

Well, the elephant really existed and photos show it to be roughly like what the film depicted.

Baz states that the stylization was for EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE rather than as fantasy. The impact is meant to be as strong/shocking to modern audiences as the real MR was to visitors in 1900.

But beyond that, what I am addressing is the idea that the songs are presented as part of the diegetic world (the film world) rather than as step-aside fantasy moments.

The tango is really being sung, the MR scenes are, of course, the real performances, and the sales pitch song is probably meant to be mostly real (though without accompaniment). The songs between lovers seem to be at least partially really occurring (again without background music and the dreamy imagery of course).

So while some songs are enhanced, it appears that each one represents a real interaction between characters via song. "Like a Virgin" being the song that is probably the farthest into fantasy (I doubt any of that pitch is sung and the rest is clearly fantasy).

They are putting on a musical show and most of the songs are introduced via that story device, either as part of a show or as a song being pitched for the show.


Chicago is also a show, but we only have 2, maybe 3 songs that are really being performed. All That Jazz, I Can't Do It Alone (partially enhanced), and Nowadays. Of course Nowadays also begins as a fantasy version of the reality, but the reality is still that she is auditioning the song. And then the song is reused as a totally real performance.

I think I Can't Do It Alone is also not being sung in reality because she is showing her routine off, but the routine wouldn't have included a pitch on how to replace her dead sister since she was originally doing it with her sister. So that song is not a real song from her act and seems to represent Roxie's musical version of Velmas spoken pitch.


That was my point, while MR may be the heaviest use of art direction and style, it also is the film that introduces the largest percentage of it's songs as part of the diegetic world. In contrast, the least stylized of the 4 I mentioned, Dancer in the Dark, introduces NO songs in the film reality.

Of the 4 it's actually Moulin Rouge that is closest to Singin in the Rain or There's No Business Like Show Business which also introduce most of their songs as reality (even the final Broadway Melody of Singin is "reality" of the future production as he envisions it now). The characters are singers and dancers and they like to express themselves that way in reality.

It's funny to me that Chicago is the most traditional presentation of a musical, yet it is really blurring the lines more (well, not as much as Hedwig) and taking the more fantastical way out. This in spite of the fact that the nature of the characters would/could open the story up for them to sing, audition, perform in the film's reality much more than they really do.

Again, just think of how the film teases the audience at the end with Roxie's version of Nowadays.


Boy, we could do a whole thread just discussing how various musicals introduce their songs/dancing, and what that says about the film or the film's thematic goals. (thinking about how West Side Story and Soung of Music fit in - one almost all fantasy and the other almost all reality).

 

[Greg_M]

For those in the Los Angeles Area:
Director Rob Marshal and Screenwriter Bill Condon will discuss making the film after a screening at the Egyptian Theater on March 4th

 

[Greg_M]

just learned that footage was filmed for the song "I move on" and cut after a rough cut of the film was screened. (it came before the dance finale) The song was then re-recorded for the end credits. Heard it may appear on the DVD (along with "Class". By the way, on March 18th SONY will release a special edition of Chiacgo on CD with a DVD - which is to include three songs and rehersal footage. retail $24.99

 

[Nate Anderson]

By the way, on March 18th SONY will release a special edition of Chiacgo on CD with a DVD - which is to include three songs and rehersal footage. retail $24.99

Oh that figures...I just got the original CD not too long ago...Hmm...I wonder if it'll be worth it...will the three songs be clips from the movie?

 

[Tim Glover]

Just saw Chicago. Good Movie. Took me a little while to get in to it. (I'm kind of a sucker for needing to care about the characters:b )...

IMO, Richard Gere stole the show. Everytime he was on screen, the scenes picked up. Very surprising.

 

[Henry Gale]

.... the song "I move on" .... was then re-recorded for the end credits.

Yes, I remember the end credits. That was when the 7 teenage girls came in for the next show, chatting loudly. completly oblivious to those of us trying to enjoy the music.
I got up and spoke to them briefly. They really look concerned, confused and shocked at that point.

 

[PatrickL]

By the way, on March 18th SONY will release a special edition of Chiacgo on CD with a DVD

I wonder if this will be worth springing for. The listing at Amazon seems to indicate that it's going to include the "All That Jazz" music video currently in rotation on VH1, and behind the scenes rehearsal footage. I was sort of expecting this stuff to be on the movie dvd as bonus features?

One of the entertainment news shows said the other night that Zeta-Jones and Zellweger *are* going to sing "I Move On" at the Oscars. I couldn't find a press release to confirm this, but I'm hoping it's true.

 

[John_VI]

My wife and I just saw the movie. It took me about an hour-and-45-minutes to get into it, but then it really started to grow on me....about the time that "THE END" danced across the screen.

God, what a tedious bore of a film. I know it's nominated for Bext Pix, and it already won the GG, and it will probably do very well at the box office. I just wonder how well it will do in DVD/Video sales, since it does not seem (to me) like the kind of movie that many people will want to see more than once.

I admit that I'm horribly jaded, though, because I really deplore this movie. The only two positive things I can point to are Richere Gere's performance (which I did think was wonderful) and any time that Catherine Zeta-Jones was on the screen. God Almighty, she is stunningly beautiful!! And if I never see Rene Zellxxxxxxx again, it will be too soon!!

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I just wonder how well it will do in DVD/Video sales, since it does not seem (to me) like the kind of movie that many people will want to see more than once.

I disagree. My wife and I finally saw Chicago last night, and the first thing my wife said as we left the theater was "I can't wait for the DVD to see this again".

I am a sucker for a good musical, so I really enjoyed this one. The film had a lot of charm and humor, and the three main stars all did very well in singing/dancing roles that are not their forte. I loved the way the film was edited, blending the real and fantasy worlds.

 

[Richard Kim]

God, what a tedious bore of a film. I know it's nominated for Bext Pix, and it already won the GG, and it will probably do very well at the box office. I just wonder how well it will do in DVD/Video sales, since it does not seem (to me) like the kind of movie that many people will want to see more than once.

Well, I just saw for a second time yesterday (aside from the Star Wars films, I rarely do repeat viewings at the theater), and it was just as exciting and riveting as the first time. I already bought the soundtrack, and can't wait for the DVD.

 

[chris rick]

When Chicago wins Best Picture next weekend, for me it will go down as one of the most unworthy winners in the history of the entire show.
This film is hollow, trite, and completely unworthy of any awards; but hey it's the ultimate film for our age, and the fact that even older audiences seem to like it very much indicates the hold that the blietzkrieg style editing and overblown acting performances have on many in the filmgoing audience-and not just the quote "mtv generation". How in the world can anyone care about any of the characters in the film? I'm sorry, but I personally was too busy with my brain trying to keep up with my eyes due to the rediculously fast mtv-style editing. Hey but maybe it's me and I just don't get the musical genre and it is the nature of the medium to have the style editing for this type of picture; Moulin Rouge was even worse in this department, and that too is an abyssmal film for many of the same reasons cited here. But then on the other hand I seem to recall loving Oliver!, West Side Story, and The Sound of Music, three far superior films that all won Best Picture and deserved it. The problem with Rouge and Chicago is that the editing gets in the way, it impedes; the filmmakers are so nauseautingly high on telling this story visually (especially Marshall due to his theater background) that they forget to remember such things as character development, which only really works if you allow the film to slow down, at least for a bit. In Chicago, how can Rob Marshall honestly expect me to give a damn about these characters or his film when all it is is a visual slideshow with music? All right-well there is character development as I'm sure some of you will argue- it comes in the form of the songs telling the narrative, as there is not a lot of actual dialogue other than the songs telling the narrative. But this also is the problem with the film, combine this type of script with the editing, and you have a film that is nearly impossible to relate to on any level; what little character development Chicago gives through its lethargic screenplay is lost in the "sea of let me edit that as quickly as I can" mentality that is so pervasive throughout the film. Boiled down to its essence, what you are essentially left watching when you sift through the razzle dazzle veneer of Chicago is a 2 hour music video that is a bit more fleshed out and has better production values. What you are not watching is anything near a BP winner.

Oh and by the way, I loved Requiem For A Dream, a film far too ballsy for the Academy to handle on any level because it is about addiction on every level- and it slams you smack in the face with the addiction- and this is largely due to its editing!!! But I sorta-no I really really cared about these characters in this film, because there was something far far below the veneer in this film-there was an actual screenplay, and a director that understood how to make his stylistic choices work without taking away from the film.

 

[Vickie_M]

And the backlash begins.

I just wonder how well it will do in DVD/Video sales, since it does not seem (to me) like the kind of movie that many people will want to see more than once

I've seen it in the theater 4 times, and would love to see it again. It's just so fun and flashy. The songs are good, the acting is good, the cinematography is breathtaking, as are the costumes. I think it's a very repeatable film.

 

[chris rick]

quote from vickie:

"And the backlash begins"

My post was not intended to be backlash, Vickie. Frankly, I don't care if this film wins Best Picture in an Awards show that has become increasingly a sham in the past years nominating such films as The Green Mile and The Sixth Sense and The Cider House Rules in a year when their were such rediculously superior films out that it was downright laughable. But I digress; did you even bother to read my post? I think those are some pretty valid points I made in criticizing the film, IMO there are far better films out this year than Chicago, and that's simply the way I feel given the reasons I stated in my post.

 

[Vickie_M]

did you even bother to read my post? I think those are some pretty valid points I made in criticizing the film,

I did read your post, and disagreed with every single thing you said, so none of your points are "valid" to me. They're valid for you. What good would it do to go through your (hard to read, btw) post point by point just to say "I disagree" over and over again?

As far as your opinion of the Oscars, I would like to suggest you go to the Movies front page, find the "*** Official 2002 Academy Award Nomination Discussion Thread" thread, click on the number in the "Replies" column, find Seth Paxton's name, and click on the number next to it. Spend a bit of time reading his posts. You'll find some of the most intelligent and common-sensical writing about the Oscars on the web. It may not change your mind, but maybe your views about Oscar nominations and wins will a bit more broad-minded.

 

[Angelo.M]

Arriving late at this thread, which is par for my course.

Caught Chicago Monday night and thoroughly enjoyed it, and plan to see it again when time permits. I find the constant Moulin Rouge comparisons tedious and unhelpful--they're both great films, with different strengths.

Deserving of Best Picture? I don't know, and could care less.

The professional half of my brain would like to purchase Ms. Zellweger a hearty meal.

'Nuff said.

 

[Stephen_L]

Watched "Chicago" tonight and enjoyed it, but I have one complaint. Broadway style dance numbers like martial arts fights are absolutely splendid to watch and are best appreciated uninterrupted by dozens of cuts. The artists, in this case the dancers are the 'special effect' and don't need elaborate editing to spice them up. The "All That Jazz" number at the opening of the film was so good but I was endlessly disappointed when the camera cut away from the lovely Catherine Zeta Jones in the midst of her fine dancing moves and interrupting the flow of the number. I realize that in the film medium a static camera would never work, but it does remind me why seeing musical-dance performances on stage is so wonderful; I decide what to look at, not the director.

That being said, I really loved the film!

 

[CraigL]

In response to the person who said that there is no "re-watching" factor...

I went to a Q&A session with Bill Condon and he talked about how this movie has people of ALL ages going to see it more than once. I saw it 5 times in the theater and that was before it even went wide and own the dvd and have watched THAT several times. A lot of the people I know that have seen it have seen it more than once. Of course, 95% of the people I know that have seen it either liked it a lot or loved it.

And yes, I agree. The backlash is there. People will hate this movie or find reasons just to hate it because so many people love it so much. I liken it to the group who love The Hours simply because they think they're sophisticated in doing so. Entertainment Weekly said it best a couple of weeks ago. Have to find that quote.