Musicals on Blu-Ray, why so few after all this time? (1 Viewer)

[Matt Hough]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell

I haven't read the whole thread so if I repeat a question, sorry. What I'd really like to see are some blu-rays of the stage productions of current or recent Broadway musicals. You would think there's be a good market for something like this.

Royalities for the participants (e.g. musicians in the pit) become prohibitive in most cases. When we've gotten some stage musicals on DVD/Blu-ray, it's because deals were struck with the various unions so that the discs could be released.

 

[RobertSiegel]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell

I haven't read the whole thread so if I repeat a question, sorry. What I'd really like to see are some blu-rays of the stage productions of current or recent Broadway musicals. You would think there's be a good market for something like this.

I would LOVE for them to release more of these. I hear that Mel Brooks is going to videotape in HD Young Frankenstein the musical (which I saw and absolutely loved), and you can already get Victor Victoria on Blu-ray from Image Entertainment. But I agree with you, I wish more shows would come out. I wish Universal would release Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and Cats on Blu-ray, both of which I think were taped or filmed in HD. But it sure would be nice to have more taped stage shows. I am really looking forward to owning Young Frankenstein anyway.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I'm with you guys. I may pick up Victor/ Victoria and He's a Very Naughty Boy in the current Amazon sales. There have been several others broadcast in HD on PBS in recent years, like South Pacific and Camelot. Bring 'em on!

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman

I'm with you guys. I may pick up Victor/ Victoria and He's a Very Naughty Boy in the current Amazon sales. There have been several others broadcast in HD on PBS in recent years, like South Pacific and Camelot. Bring 'em on!

i don't think you will see South Pacific on any form of Home Video. The Lincoln Center productions are for a one shot deal and they have never been released on DVD.

 

[RobertSiegel]

Originally Posted by ahollis

I'm with you guys. I may pick up Victor/ Victoria and He's a Very Naughty Boy in the current Amazon sales. There have been several others broadcast in HD on PBS in recent years, like South Pacific and Camelot. Bring 'em on!

i don't think you will see South Pacific on any form of Home Video. The Lincoln Center productions are for a one shot deal and they have never been released on DVD.

[/QUOTE]

Actually, the Victor Victoria disc is a stunner, great soundtrack and very nice high def transfer. For those of you who don't have it, right now it is only $5.99 on Amazon, way down in price and I paid 20.00 when it came out and was still very happy with it.

 

[RobertSiegel]

Originally Posted by RobertSiegel

I'm with you guys. I may pick up Victor/ Victoria and He's a Very Naughty Boy in the current Amazon sales. There have been several others broadcast in HD on PBS in recent years, like South Pacific and Camelot. Bring 'em on!

i don't think you will see South Pacific on any form of Home Video. The Lincoln Center productions are for a one shot deal and they have never been released on DVD.

[/QUOTE]



Actually, the Victor Victoria disc is a stunner, great soundtrack and very nice high def transfer. For those of you who don't have it, right now it is only $5.99 on Amazon, way down in price and I paid 20.00 when it came out and felt even that was very worth it.



.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Originally Posted by RobertSiegel

Actually, the Victor Victoria disc is a stunner, great soundtrack and very nice high def transfer. For those of you who don't have it, right now it is only $5.99 on Amazon, way down in price and I paid 20.00 when it came out and was still very happy with it.

I jumped on that. Thanks a lot.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

According to the reviews on Amazon, the DVD and BD editions of Victor/ Victoria are different performances! Also, apparently, there are extras on the DVD but not on the BD.

 

[RobertSiegel]

The performance on the DVD and Blu-ray are identical, I have them both. There were a few extras on the DVD that did not make it to the Blu-ray but they weren't very good anyway. To have this in HD with lossless is awesome. Besides,for $5.99, it's still a steal. I just put my DVD with the 2 extras in the Blu-ray case.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I'm in for a $5.99 blu of the Victor/Victoria. My wife and I love watching stage productions on video.

Just another pre-holiday purchase. I can't help myself!


Thanks everyone!

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman

According to the reviews on Amazon, the DVD and BD editions of Victor/ Victoria are different performances! Also, apparently, there are extras on the DVD but not on the BD.

Of the 1982 film, there's only a DVD. But of the 1995 stage version, the BD is out (the one referred to above) and the DVD is the same performance. To the best of my knowledge, because a.f.a.i.k. there only is one stage recording..



Cees

 

[MatthewA]

I saw the touring company of Victor Victoria, and I enjoyed it at the time, but not nearly as much as the movie (which is more than welcome on Blu-Ray). For $5.99 it's worth it to see if it holds up. Either way, it's Julie Andrews' last vocal performance before medical negligence robbed us of one of the great singing voices of the stage and screen.


But how did it get marked down so much so quickly?

 

[BBbrowd]

Originally Posted by MatthewA

I saw the touring company of Victor Victoria, and I enjoyed it at the time, but not nearly as much as the movie (which is more than welcome on Blu-Ray). For $5.99 it's worth it to see if it holds up. Either way, it's Julie Andrews' last vocal performance before medical negligence robbed us of one of the great singing voices of the stage and screen.


But how did it get marked down so much so quickly?

The BD of Victor/Victoria is part of the Black Friday deal on Amazon and yes, the BD version is a different performance than the one on DVD. It's very worthwhile though. It looks stunning.

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by BBbrowd , grouping the BD and DVD (and a Digital Video) together with two (three) tabs. The running times of both are exactly the same also.


What are the differences? Was it recorded on a different night?



Cees

 

[BBbrowd]

The only thing that is the same is the footage of the celebrities arriving at the Marriott Marquis for the opening night at the start. The performance itself is a different one though. Not sure when it was from exactly. The differences are mostly subtle, but on occasion not so subtle. It makes me wonder why Image used a different performance for the Blu-ray. The one that was used on the original DVD is slightly better at times and unfortunately there is no intermission included on the BD like there is on the DVD.

 

[Cees Alons]

That's rather misleading, because there's no mention of it at all. As I said: even the running times are listed as equal (which is quite possible, of course, but takes some effort to achieve, if true).


Thanks for letting us know!



Cees

 

[jerauf]

It was filmed for Japanese television and then released on DVD in the US. They most likely filmed multiple performances and edited together the best parts. Wonder why they would spend time and money re-editing.

 

[GMpasqua]

They should just release the 1982 film version - it should look lovely on Blu-ray - especially "Jazz Hot"

 

[RobertSiegel]

Originally Posted by BBbrowd

The only thing that is the same is the footage of the celebrities arriving at the Marriott Marquis for the opening night at the start. The performance itself is a different one though. Not sure when it was from exactly. The differences are mostly subtle, but on occasion not so subtle. It makes me wonder why Image used a different performance for the Blu-ray. The one that was used on the original DVD is slightly better at times and unfortunately there is no intermission included on the BD like there is on the DVD.

Can you give us a few examples where there are not so subtle differences? I would like to compare performances.

 

[Virgoan]

Originally Posted by Dick

I like South Pacific, but I keep hearing that the movie doesn't hold a candle to the original Broadway production (which won the Pulitzer for Drama). I've always wondered about the stage version, which distracts me from enjoying the movie.

I've seen video clips of the original Broadway show, but have no idea whether a complete film or video recording exists.

It does NOT hold a candle to the Broadway production. For one thing, whether Joshua Logan or the studio imposed this upon the film, the color filters used during the musical numbers just about kill the film. Incredibly bad, pretentious decision. The casting is also many levels below the Mary Martin and Ezio Pinza original. Those who were unable due to proximity or age to see this show might find the movie acceptable. I find it deplorable.

[/QUOTE]


I have a different point of view on this. The stage production was a "stage production." "South Pacific" on stage is one of the glories of the musical theater. BUT...Mary Martin was never the right age for Nellie Forbush, and Ezio Pinza was right up there with her. Their voices, of course, were wonderful for the songs. The character of Emile de Becque is grossly underwitten, IMO. You never get a sense of who he is or what he stands for...only that he killed a man once, and that he'd do it again. Nellie is flighty, a bit bubble-headed and conflicted. This is so whether it's Mary Martin or Kelli O'Hara playing the role. They are delightful, but Nellie is a ditz.


In the film, I believe you "feel" more for the characters than you can possibly feel from the stage version. Mitzi Gaynor was a perfect and far more substantial Nellie Forbush. She was also beautiful to look at, and the film fleshed out the character. Emile de Becque is far more appealing as played by Rossano Brazzi. Even though he was dubbed by Giorgio Tozzi, the character is more solid, more noble and more sympathetic in the film. Paulo Szot's acclaimed revival Emile is wonderful, and he makes the most of the limited character as written for stage.


There is also the curious case of Joe Cable. On film, as played by John Kerr, I think he's mostly "right" in terms of character presentation, but he's thwarted seriously by the rewritten script in the second half. Cable has some powerful scenes on stage in the second act backstage at the Thanksgiving show. There, having left a field hospital where he was recovering from malaria, he encounters Mary and Liat and declares both his love for Liat and tells Mary he cannot marry Liat. During this scene, Cable suffers bouts of feverishness. On screen his only impact in this sequence rests with "You've Got to be Taught" which has no power to suggest the mental/emotional dilemma of the character.


The music in the film is far more beautifully presented than was true of the stage version. This was due to the masterful approach to the material by film music genius and legend Alfred Newman. All the original orchestrations by Robert Russell Bennett are in place, but then they are magically, beautifully enhanced by Newman and a team of orchestrators/arrangers (including Bennett) who make the music soar as it never soared before in various extensions to musical sequences. Even with the revival restoration of original orchestrations, the film tops them all musically. Add to that the exquisitely shot and arranged film version of "Bali H'ai" with stunning choral work. The stage version could have benefitted from that. On stage, Bloody Mary is singing to all the Seabees in the scene plus Lt. Joe Cable. Cable's character just sits on stage like he's not particularly interested. On film, the screen is filled with Seabees, but Mary is singing directly to Joe Cable, and he's drawn in -- and us along with him -- in one of the most powerful musical number presentations ever committed to celluloid. There are some stunning moments in the stage version...don't misunderstand me. There is an economy to the second act that might have been employed by the film. It needn't be as long and drawn out as it is. The sequence of events surrounding the Thanksgiving show, in the stage version, is far more rewarding than what was done on film.


I'm also less than satisfied with the presentation of "Happy Talk" on film. On stage, it's powerful...very powerful. On film, it's passable...just. The film's arrival on Bali H'ai and Mary's taking Cable to meet Liat was perfection. And, there is the "war time" aspect of the setting which, on film, seems a bit in the way of the love stories being told. On stage, it has equal weight, as it should, and culminates in a stunning scene of Seabees and nurses doing a march-style presentation of "Honey Bun." That was too stylistic for 1958 Hollywood, of course, but it was theatrical perfection.


The filtered sequences are a fact of life. They cannot be undone. However, they are not film-killers nor do they heavily distract from the emotional wallop those sequences provide. In the "Bali H'ai" number, they are actually part of the number's all-consuming power...you are drawn into the scene in a way that would not have been possible without them.


Joshua Logan never made a film musical that satisfied everyone. He wasn't a great choice for "South Pacific" or "Camelot" or "Paint Your Wagon." On stage, he worked with economy and made the most of limited resources. On screen, he had infinite resources and squandered them.


By all means, check out "South Pacific" on film...and watch ONLY the "roadshow version". The theatrical version is gorgeous to see, and the roadshow version has some uncorrected footage that is slightly distracting at first. But it's the roadshow version that is the most glorious presentation of "South Pacific" anyone is ever going to see and hear!