is the musical a film genre? no? could grand inquisitor be right?
Benny Fitzoffheinseit
but grandie does raise an interesting point. the musical is one of the
oddest and most unsatisfying film genres.
i think the reason for this is that, excluding experimental
films--which belong in a category of their own and irrelevant to
mainstream cinema--, one of the hallmarks of cinematic art has been
realism/naturalism. when we see a movie, we feel like we're gazing
into a real world. it doesn't have to be THE real world but it's real
in and of itself. for example, the fantasy world of LOR is taken as
real for what it's worth. or it can be surreal dream world as in
mulholland drive. but we still accept it as a REAL dream world, as
hallucination, or nightmare. in cinema we wants things whole, to be
convinced of their reality. we want to believe in the plausibility of
the world before us. so even in a nonmainstream film of godard or
rivette, we still believe we're gazing into something that's whole in
and of itself, no matter how different, tricky, or challenging.
naturalism comes naturally to cinema. in fact, it's the main reason
why people love cinema. they can totally lose themselves in another
world, in the world the movie sets forth, whether it's bicycle thieves
or star wars.
but this isn't really the case with the musical. the musical has
always existed independently of cinema; however the film musical has
never existed independent of the stage musical. now, we can make
arguments for other genres as well. there was the western novel as
well as the western movie. the pulp novel as well as the noir film.
romance novel as well as the romance movie. however, the western movie
is fully independent of the novel, even when based on a novel. when we
see a western, we really feel like we're out there in the west, amidst
the reality of open ranges, canyons, indians, flying arrows, and
whizzing bullets. we don't think of the western novel or the wild
west show. we totally believe in the movie western as something wholly
independent. same with noir films. we believe we're in the seedy
world of gorgeous dames and tough guys, of decrepit dark corridors, of
men in trenchcoats with pistols in the pocket, of smoke rising from
cigarettes. when we see bogey, we don't think of the pulp novel. we
think the noir movie is an independent, even the fuller realization of
what, in other forms--novel or stage play--, had been realized
incompletely, sketchily, unsatisfactorily.
but, this is not so of musicals. musicals, because they depend so
much on artifice, cannot be truly naturalistic. who in a 'realistic'
universe(actual or fantastic) whether office clerk, statesman, cop,
mythic warrior, hobbit, jedi knight, hooker with a heart of gold,
cowboy, or etc, just starts singing and dancing out of nowhere? the
musical upends naturalism so integral to all film genres. in fact,
its artificiality prevents the musical from creating a completely
realized and believable--on its own terms at least--universe. you can
cross a sci-fi with a western or mystery thriller with war film, etc.
they all work. but make anyone sing and it's suddenly... wha?
in cinema, we want to feeling of watching actual characters going
about their business unaware of us, the audience. voyeurism is a big
part of the enjoyment of cinema and of the requisite naturalism. when
someone starts singing, he or she becomes a self-conscious performer
for the benefit of an audience and we feel we're watching not so much
a movie as a stage performance. instead of secretly peering into a
'real' world, it feels like we're watching people on stage in
performing for us, as though aware of our presence. now, the
awareness of the audience isn't limited to the musical. we often have
narration to the audience in woody allen's movies or in sunset
boulevard. but, these are still only minor or secondary aspect of the
movie whereas with the musical, it's the primary aspect. for example,
when we hear the narration in goodfellas, it's as though henry hill is
addressing a single viewer. each of us feel like he's telling only me
his dirty little secrets. a musical, however, like a stage
performance, makes us aware that we belong to a larger audience, that
it's being performed for us, not for 'me'. of course, blockbuster
movies are also seen by huge crowds. but when the movie starts, each
movie viewer connects alone to the killer shark in jaws or the good
guys in LOR. the adventures become that of each of us, not all of us
together though we may applaud and laugh together. however, in a
movie like rocky horror picture show, the audience experience it
together, as though they are watching a stage performance, as though
it matters more as a performance than as an a 'real' world. or,
consider a horror movie. a straight horror movie pulls us in and we
feel lost in a frightening haunted world. but if you had singing and
dancing zombies, instead of drawing us in it would keep us at bay,
constantly reminding us of its artificiality. it's also the nature of
the musical that when we see people dancing, we want to move back and
give them ample space. in an action movie or horror movie, we feel
like we're caught in the thick of the action. in a musical, we feel,
as spectators at a dance contest, obligated to stand back and applaud
the ace dancers who have the floor. it's not surprising that blazing
saddles, a musical comedy, ends with mel brooks giving the whole game
away, exposing the whole thing as a charade on a phony set. once the
musical numbers come, we lose faith in the film's realism. musical is
almost an anti-genre, unwittingly brechtian in its effect.
because the singing and dancing are highly artificial, all musicals
owe a great deal to broadway musicals and fail to become full-fledged
movies. even the great and higly cinematic singing in the rain is in
good measure a filmed stage musical. the sets, the costumes, the
choreography all owe a great deal to stagecraft and choreography. and
when they try to bring the musical completely outdoors like in paint
your wagon or hair, it doesn't quite work because the artificial
musical performances don't really gel with the stark realism of the
locale.
perhaps, one could expand the argument by conceptualizing two more
film genres. the filmed play and the filmed opera. technically, both
can be considered film genres. and some have worked reasonably well:
oleanna, glengarry glenross, long day's journey into night, streetcar
named desire, tape, rosi's carmen, and the magic flute. however,
because plays focus mainly on dialogue within a limited setting, most
filmed plays feel constricted and claustrophobic. and, when they open
into realism--by going outdoors for instance or adding natural street
sound--, the dialogue which works fine on stage sound overly
rhetorical. or when the filmed play tries to preserve the
artificiality of the stage--as in schlondorff's death of a
salesman--the medium of cinema is subservient to stagecraft,
restraining itself from utilizing its own language.
the opera has the same problem. rosi's carmen is exciting but when we
see all that artificial singing and prancing about in natural locale,
it just looks somewhat wrong, even ridiculous. also, on the stage,
it's the performance that counts and we can have a fat or ugly woman
be a beautiful woman as long as her singing is beautiful; not so on
screen where her ugliness becomes as loud as her singing; she can't
simply play beautiful but must BE beautiful. and, bergman's magic
flute is cinema serving another artform instead of truly being itself.
in fact, if all of bergman's films suffer from something, it's this
staginess, the overemphasis on dialogue and characterization instead
of full and confident exploration of cinematic space, the world
outside the interiors of dramatic art. it's no wonder that bergman
considered tarkovsky the greatest since tarkovsky gave voice to the
earth, mist, rain, wind, beasts, water, etc, things ONLY cinema can
convey in their fullness.
in other words, no matter how naturalistic or cinematic you render a
play or opera, it remains in large measure, an opera or a play. same
applies to almost all musicals. there remains an overly artificial,
stagy quality that won't complete surrender to cinematic naturalism
unlike a western novel whose qualities can be completely tranformed
into a cinematic language. same with sci-fi, romance, horror, etc.
when we watch the best horror or sci-fi, we really believe in the
monster or the spaceship. when we watch a musical, we don't believe in
anything but the performance.
also, no matter how cinematic a musical may be, the visual strategy
and style must SERVE the stage originated material. the art of cinema
has to be subservient to the conventions already established on the
stage, as with filmed operas and filmed plays.
we may even doubt whether the musical can ever be as autonomous a film
genre like the other genres. while many westerns have been based on
novels, there were plenty of westerns written originally for the
movie. same with romance, horror, sci-fi, etc. but how many musicals
originated as a movie? almost every case is a cinematic servicing of
a broadway musical. and what would be the point of making a original
film musical? why choose to LIMIT filmic possibilities by choosing a
genre that is conceptually stage-centric? where filmmakes have
infused elements of the musical into their works--godard, allen,
resnais, etc--it was in a winking manner, as if to key us into the
artificiality of cinema itself. in other words, the musical subverts
the very strengths of cinema which we prize for its naturalism but is
in fact as artificial as any other art.
i suppose anything can be a film genre and can be rendered
cinematically. for instance, we could film someone painting and
declare a genre of painting film. and i'm sure the process of
painting can be rendered cinematically--at least, rivette tried with
la belle nosy.
and, if godard's british sounds is any indication, we can also declare
a genre called proletarian workplace genre. after all, anything
caught on film is film.
but film, while absorbing and integrating aspects of other artforms,
also possesses something unique unto itself and some film genres
utilize this uniqueness to full measure. integral to this uniquenss is
naturalism. among all film genres, the musical is the least natural,
most subservient to another artform, the broadway musical. after
all, regarding other genres, we can say the movie western has
supplanted the western novel, sci-fi movie has supplanted the sci-fi
novel, and the horror movie has supplanted the horror novel as THE
main, most respected, and popular means of representation, whereas the
film musical has always played second fiddle to the broadway musical.
in other words, if given a choice, a western fan would rather watch a
western movie than read a novel. but, musical aficianados would
rather go see showboat the musical on stage than the movie. similarly,
while i've seen wonderfully filmed symphonies on tv and tape, i would
go see the actual thing if given the chance. same with sports; it's
fun on tv but being there is the real thing. seeing it on tv is a
substitute for the real thing, and there is something of this with the
musical. when you watch a western movie, you are watching the REAL
thing. when you watch a musical movie, it's largely because it's more
accessible than the much more expensive stage production.
singing in the rain--along with umbrellas of cherberg and young girls
of rochefort--is perhaps the only musical that liberated itself from
the limitations of the musical but only thru acknowledging the
musical's artificiality, only by laughing at it. american in paris
which tries to be serious doesn't quite work. and despite all its
ingenuity, i never could get into red shoes, and i had this problem
watching all filmed ballet performances. even when done
cinematically, it just doesn't convince as full-fledged cinema but
cinema servicing another artform. i remember seeing swan lake on video
once. technically deft and higly impressive, but somehow, it wasn't
what i'd call a real movie.
i think for film to be truly musical it has to render a kind of
musical naturalism, as evinced by silent films, tarkovsky, kubrick,
peckinpah, etc. the wild bunch has been called a blood ballet. matrix
reloaded and matrix revolutions have scenes that almost sing and
dance.
the notion that the musical is not a complete film genre is implicit
in singing in the rain and all that jazz. if singing in the rain was
simply a straight musical, it wouldn't be as fun. it's fun because it
plays with the absurdity of the musical being translated into film.
it's a parody of the film musical and it is precisely this parodic and
subversive aspect that makes it the most cinematic and greatest among
movie musicals. singing in the rain shows how film distorts and
reduces what is most essential to musicals; musicals are performances
where audience admiration of the performer is crucial. when we watch a
stage performance, we expect sustained virtuosity. but movie musicals
utilize deceptions. for example, it can use one actor's voice for
another. it relies on editing to make a performance seem seamless, and
this is certainly true in mtv style movies like moulin rouge. of
course, other genres use tricks too, but the tricks create rather than
translate. we don't feel cheated by peckinpah's action scenes in the
wild bunch. but if a real ballet or any dancing was shot and spliced
that way--no matter how technically brilliant--we'd feel cheated as
though the performance--possibly inferior--was obfuscated by technical
wizardry. it's the same with athleticism. when movie action heroes do
superhero deeds, that's cool, but when we see sports, we want the
action whole. we really want to see the actual performance by the
athlete. there is something of this kind of audience expectation with
dancing. we want to see the ACTUAL performance in its purity. the
thing about cinema is it's naturally manipulative and deceptive.
cinema as an artform wants to construct rather than represent reality.
eisenstein was cinematic though deceptive whereas early static
silents were not though more faithful to what they were recording.
even movies relying on mise-en-scene rely a great deal on camera
movement which though invisible is just as crucial. also, just by
framing alone, cinema manipulates our perception. it's paradoxical,
but for the musical to come across in its essence, cinematic
possibilties have to be suppressed; the camera has to be made
relatively static in relation to the dynamite performance. when the
camera takes on a life of its own, it takes precedence over the
performance. for example, take dancer in the dark. the numbers in the
movie are not impressive as performances but the visual trickery make
them interesting. when the camera starts to dance, the dancers become
merely secondary players.
as for 'all that jazz', it works brilliantly because it's not really a
musical but about a man who directs musicals. it's a full-fledged
movie because the musical numbers that we see are really the man's
dreams, hallucinations, and imaginations. the musical numbers in all
that jazz are akin to the fantasy world of diane selwyn in mulholland
drive. they are mindscapes of a musical director, not musical numbers
in a musical movie. in a musical movie, there is no clear divide
between reality and fancy, but in all that jazz, actual reality does
clearly exist; the musical numbers are the unraveling dreams of a
dying man. more tricky is 8 1/2 which maintains a clear divide
between reality and fantasy, between subjective and objective
throughout but then at the end melts both into a whimsical musical
number.
Kingo Gondo
"Benny Fitzoffheinseit" <bennyfito...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f40c70a.04062...@posting.google.com...
> is musical a film genre? of course it is. no question...
>
> but grandie does raise an interesting point. the musical is one of the
> oddest and most unsatisfying film genres.
I'm not going to read all the psychotic horseshit that followed hereafter,
but many of us have posted that musicals--in general--don't float our boat.
I managed to do so--twice--without provoking global thermonuclear war here.
It's not a controversial opinion--if you realize its just that, an opinion.
As I recall (having skipped almost all of that thread), GI seemed to posit
it as some eternal aesthetic truth. Since he has been buried up to his neck
in what he perceives as eternal truths all his life, perhaps this is not
surprising.
Opera bores me, and I find it utterly useless; one of my best friends loves
it. I love old country music--many I know despise it. It's a big world, with
room enough for all. Just don't mistake your own preferences for eternal
verities and you'll get along with most intelligent people here just fine
most of the time.
Pam or C. Wayne Owens
know those who cannot fathom why anyone would want to watch a western. Or a
subtitled film. Or a film in black and white. Or anything made before 1980.
And don't get me started on the people who run when the words "Silent movie"
is used. Does this make any of these less worthwhile? I don't think so. I
know people who believe if you watch Science Fiction there is something in
you that cannot accept the real world, and I know those who feel exactly the
opposite. I hate cats. Does that make cats something that should be
disallowed? I would hope so, but I know better. Different Strokes was a good
saying back in the '60s and it still works today.
Kingo Gondo
"Pam or C. Wayne Owens" <pnwo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YF8Cc.2491$NY1...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Yeah, but in between then and now it was a bad television show in the late
70s, early 80s.
Also, GI would likely accuse you of laying the foundation for moral
relativism...and before you know it we're buggering aborted male fetuses on
network TV, under a huge portrait of Lenin.
Seriously, I don't dislike all musicals. Explained it once this year
already, here (http://snipurl.com/744h) if you care (don't know why you
would!)
All is one.
Pam or C. Wayne Owens
dismissing what they don't "get" as unworthwhile that upsets me. I like
something of every genre, but that doesn't make me superior or inferior to
anyone. Hey, 80% of everything is crap. You have the right to like what you
like, and not enjoy what you don't enjoy. But you'd don't have the right to
say "That's not art," if it doesn't appeal to you. If it gets understanding
from anyone, it has communicated, and therefore is art. Hell, I did a piece
on the fact that they're making a musical out of "Fight Club," and I don't
expect to fall all over myself to get to see it.
wayne
http://www.movieandtvnews.com/
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@zor.org> wrote in message
news:%h9Cc.18106097$Of.30...@news.easynews.com...