It is my practice not to decry movies before they’re on the screen. Particularly if they’ve just been announced, as Variety has just done with a new film about the life of P.T. Barnum. It’s slated to star Hugh Jackman and–it was announced–it’s a musical! Which I was fine with until the article said:
“Pic will have a contemporary musical score, and the studio is in talks with British singer-songwriter Mika to write music and lyrics.”
Good lord, why? There is a stupendous musical about Barnum called–wait for it–“Barnum.” In its original Broadway incarnation, it starred Jim Dale and Glenn Close. They’d have to tinker with the book to make it work as a film, but the songs are fantastic. It’s like saying, “We’ve decided to make a film focusing on the life of the Wicked Witch of the West and we’re going to Elton John to have him write a score.”
There’s a video version of it starring the Phantom of the Opera himself, MIchael Crawford, if you want to scrounge around a bit.
What a dumb-ášš waste of a great score to commission something completely new.
PAD
• 
A regular movie about PT Barnum starring Hugh Jackman would be something I’d like to see… but a musical?
Not so much.
I’m with ya here, PAD.
Darin
Trust me, if you’d seen “Barnum” you’d be singing a different tune (no pun intended) about wanting to see a musical. Jackson certainly has the chops to carry off the role.
.
Check out the Crawford version if you can. It’s available on Amazon.
.
PAD
I never would have thought of Hugh Jackman in “Barnum,” but now that the idea’s been brought up I want to see it. I want to see if besides singing, dancing, and playing superheroes, he can walk on a tightrope and do magic tricks, too.
Too bad that’s not the musical he’d be playing Barnum in. That’s a total waste, indeed. They should either just adapt “Barnum” for the screen or do something really new.
Not a fan of musicals, actually. Not saying the genre is bad or anything. They’re just not my cup of tea.
Darin
You think writing a new bunch of songs is the problem? Wait until you hear the new stuff that ‘Mika’ will come up with.
A more talentless gobshite there could not be. He’s like a cheap tacky version of richard cheese. And that’s saying something.
This just makes me really, really glad that my guy John Barrowman, who was originally rumored to be considering this part, isn’t involved. It’s hard enough defending “Torchwood” already.
barnum is available from netflix. just added it to my queue.
“Good lord, why?”
My guess is that, rather than pay a licensing fee to whomever owns the rights for “Barnum,” they’d rather enter into a deal with this Mika person whereby they can share in the royalties for the songs.
Two things:
1. I would be careful calling out Hollywood for creating original content unless you are prepared to only have sequels or remakes for the rest of your daughter’s lives.
2. Maybe Jackman isn’t interested in singing the stage version? If he’s going to be singing and associated with something, certainly he deserves to be completely happy with it?
I find it hard to believe that Jackman wouldn’t want to perform the musical that exists. It’s freaking brilliant. It’s not as if he only does stuff he gets to originate; he did “Oklahoma,” for cryin’ out loud.
.
PAD
Heck, he did Beauty and the Beast!
That’s right up there with whoever the genius was who commissioned a novelization of Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula'”.
“Just join the circus like you wanted to, when you were a kid./Climb aboard before it moves on and you’ll thank your lucky stars you did.”
I’ll remember the commercials for BARNUM I saw as a kid as long as I live. (Although apparently not the lyrics: I always misremembered a line as “the ever-living Barnum”, which always gave my visions of a vampire ringmaster. I think I prefer my lyrics better. 🙂 )
Well, to be fair, it would be pretty odd if a Hollywood studio suddenly decided to make a movie based on a 30-year-old Broadway musical that most people haven’t heard of. That’s why it’s not really the same as your Wicked analogy.
I didn’t see the original Dale/Close Barnum but I did see it on stage.
I remember the musical, I liked it very much, and I still like what I’d describe as show tunes in the classic style.
But that style belongs to the musical era before “Chicago” and “Sweeny Todd.” It’s more in line with “Lil Abner” or “The Court Jester.”
So it does make sense to me that they’d want to update the songs.
Well, “Chicago” was rooted in jazz age and “Todd” was basically operetta with a healthy dose of Grand Guignol, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
.
Why update the songs? What’s so great about Broadway songs of the modern era? As opposed to the old days when a show would have half a dozen tunes that stuck with you, and even became standards, most today have–if you’re lucky–one. And even those that have a few catchy tunes, the songs are so plot-specific that typically they make no sense out of context. I don’t see that as an improvement. Nowadays most successful musicals are revivals, jukebox shows, or based on movies.
Quality songs from quality shows are becoming a lost art. Just seems kind of a waste to do an entirely new musical about Barnum when a perfectly good one already exists.
PAD
Who says that they’re merely updating the songs? According to the blurb at IMDb, the movie’s called “The Greatest Showman on Earth”. I somehow doubt that they’ll be referencing the old Barnum musical at all.
Revivals of old properties aren’t always a good idea anyway; that’s usually a sign of commercial desperation.
PAD Wrote “Just seems kind of a waste to do an entirely new musical about Barnum when a perfectly good one already exists.”
I kept looking for some trace of sarcasm that I was missing becasue this just sounded so unlike you. I mean, with that kind of rationale, why do Battlesttar Galalctica when a “perfectly good” version already existed? Maybe the new version will be better. Who knows? Sure, it may tank, but slamming the very idea of is just short signted. The new one could be better. the odds may be against it, but I’m surprsied you would be one to say this. Especially given your stance way back when Michael Keaton was cast as Batman. this is the same, only different.
PAD,
I agree with you that Barnum would succeed on stage as a revival.
And if they did it as a film, I would buy a ticket.
The hair I’m splitting is whether songs like “The colors of my life” and “I like your style” would go over well with a modern movie audience.
I kept looking for some trace of sarcasm that I was missing becasue this just sounded so unlike you. I mean, with that kind of rationale, why do Battlesttar Galalctica when a “perfectly good” version already existed?
.
Because the original incarnation of BSG wasn’t particularly good?
.
PAD
How about Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and the HBO series ‘Rome’? People have enjoyed both of them, even though someone could have said, “There’s no point in making a series about Caesar, there’s already a great play about that.”
How about Peter Pan? Someone could easily say that there’s no point in writing a new version of Peter Pan.
PAD, I can see that you really liked the Barnum musical and think that it would be a good idea to make it into a movie. But do you really want to say that having a good version of something means no one should ever try to make their own version?
I’m not PAD, but I would say that it depends on (a) just how good the previous “good version” was, and (b) just how similar the two really are. Your “Rome” example is iffy on the second point; yes, there’s Julius Caesar (and I, Claudius), but Rome is a vast canvas upon which to draw a story — the fact that it’ll have a few elements in common is not really germane.
.
As for Galactica, I think you could make strong arguments on both (a) and (b).
.
I haven’t seen the original Barnum musical, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I think it really is primarily a question of specificity. If there really is a musical that’s specifically about the life of a single individual, and there is now an attempt to make a second musical about the life of that same individual without taking a significantly different approach, I think it’s reasonable to ask why.
.
(If they’re taking a hugely different approach, then I say have at it.)
.
TWL
“Rome” wasn’t about Julius Caesar. It was the story of a section of Roman history told from the POV of two soldiers.
.
As for “Peter Pan,” well, that’s exactly what they tried to do back in the 70s. They produced a new musical version of “Peter Pan” because of rights snafus with the 1950s musical version. It starred Danny Kaye as Hook, it was utterly ghastly, and it aired exactly once. So, y’know, that worked out great.
.
All I’m saying is that there’s a great musical version of “Barnum” already extant and it seems absurd to produce a brand new musical version, especially when no one’s ever made a film of the first one.
.
PAD
PAD, you yourself have written a Peter Pan pastiche. So yeah, someone else has redone a Peter Pan musical when the original musical was good, but you yourself have redone a novel when the original novel was good.
.
PAD, as a creator yourself, don’t you sometimes make something new just because you want to make a new thing? It might not be a choice between making a new musical just remaking the old one as a movie. It might be that they genuinely want to make their own musical about P.T. Barnum and they feel they can make something good. If that’s the case, then them choosing not to do it wouldn’t result in them making the old musical into a movie, it would just mean they’d work on some other project entirely.
.
I don’t think that them doing this makes them dumb áššëš. It just makes them people who aren’t making a movie out of the play you like, which is also true of everyone else making movies right now. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that they’re doing something wrong because they’re making something that’s been made before.
I kept looking for some trace of sarcasm that I was missing becasue this just sounded so unlike you. I mean, with that kind of rationale, why do Battlesttar Galalctica when a “perfectly good” version already existed?
.
Because the original incarnation of BSG wasn’t particularly good?
.
-Hence the quotes in “perfectly good” —
But, “Eye of the beholder” and all that.
I did a sequel to “Peter Pan.” I didn’t simply rehash the original novel.
.
I have no doubt that they want to make their own musical and that they believe they can make something good. But there’s already a good musical, is my point.
.
PAD
Michael Crawford’s Barnum is an absolute delight. For those who have never seen it, go out and find a copy. You won’t be disappointed.
A few years ago, I saw Michael Crawford perform on Broadway in Dance of The Vampires. Now that show could have been better.
BJG
Years ago, John Landis wanted to make a movie about P.T. Barnum, starring John Belushi. Shame that never happened.
PAD’s suspicion that the whole project is a waste of time may be correct, or perhaps not. If the new book and score are good, and the performances are as well, the new show will be worthwhile, despite the subject having been handled before. If none of them are, the existence of “Barnum” won’t make it worse or better. To personalize this a bit, here goes. Stan Lee and half a dozen others had written about the Hulk for a few decades before PAD did so. I should be forgiven if I think some of the previous stories are good: There are others who feel the same way. Now, how DARE he write something – GASP – nonidentical to every story ever told before? Who did he think he was writing stuff? Everyone knows Stan Lee – STAN LEE (genuflect now) – had already written quite a few stories dealing with transmogrification, muscles, dual identity and all that kind of thing. This whippersnapper (and many thousands of fans) thought it was all right to tell new stories when it was perfectly obvious that there were already scads using the same cast of characters! What a bunch of philistines – thinking that just because a good writer had dozens of good ideas it was permissible that he express himself.
Michael – Yeah, probably a copyright thing. Wouldn’t be the first time. ROCK & RULE was intended for the big screen but never made it there thanks to copyright problems. Then, when it was released to tv, it had an alternate soundtrack. It’s only recently that, with the DVD release, it became available with both the original, and the alternate soundtrack. And, yes, most people prefer the former by far. Or, how about when THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES had its instantly recognizable theme changed for one release … again due to copyright problems? I can believe the makers of the new (why?) Barnum going with a new set of tunes.
I just had to wonder why they’re going with contemporary music when Barnum is clearly NOT contemporary. Then I realized I’d answered my own question.
Why go with contemporary music? Because different people like different things.
.
I generally don’t like musicals, but the two main exceptions are “Grease” and “Doctor Horrible”. The songs I like best out of them are the ones that sounds the least like older musicals, songs like “Greased Lightning” and “Brand New Day.” Does that mean those musicals are good and “Oklahoma!” is bad? No, I’d be wrong to say that, but I can guarantee that I’d be more likely to watch a musical if you told me that the songs didn’t sound like something from the 40s.
.
(I say the 40s just because that’s when “Oklahoma!” hit the stage.)
.
I don’t know if there are a lot of people like me. I don’t even know if the music in the new musical will appeal to me. However, I’m guessing that the makers of the new musical are trying to get music that appeals to them.
I don’t have a problem with this, personally… It seems to me that, if someone wants to redo what’s been done before, with their own spin on it, that’s their right. (The comics biz is built on it, let alone Hollywood.)
Peter, you may have been sarcastic, but The Wizard of Oz has directly or indirectly inspired at least six musicals or near-musicals. I’d hate to think we can never have another musical about (say) Jesus, ever, because Rice and Webber did a well-regarded one 35 years ago.
If the new Barnum musical is lousy, then no one will care and it’ll quickly become a footnote. If it’s popular and/or good, then it’s added itself to the canon. It’s a win/win, as far as I’m concerned.
Steven – “If the new Barnum musical is lousy, then no one will care and it’ll quickly become a footnote.”
I tend to worry about this as I see it as an excuse for studios to pass on future musicals (or whatever’s being remade) because, obviously this genre is pssĂ©, look at how this one flopped, not bothering to consider it might be because it ignored what made the original work. Look at the ROLLERBALL remake, for example.
I don’t know, I think musicals as a genre will continue no matter what. If the genre survived Cop Rock, it’ll survive anything….
COP ROCK … you had to mention that. And here I’d almost managed to put it blissfully out of my mind. Bochco didn’t do much that was bad, but as bombs went, this one was practically thermonuclear in scale.
It’s an interesting concern, but I note that studios could pass on future musicals if they take an existing musical score and adapt that. (The Producers failed to set the world on fire, and I think Rent pretty much bombed in theaters.) So I’m not sure it matters one way or the other…
Almost on topic: I saw “Boy From Oz” in final dress rehearsal (friend of a friend… yaddayadda…), and it was unbelievably horrible. Later in the run, maybe after it got nominated but before the Tonys, I was persuaded to give it another shot and was absolutely floored. Jackman is one heck of an entertainer, and a really strong talent who (in that instance) was able to lift the whole production above and beyond what the basic material gave him to work with.
So … the guy can be a miracle worker in certain situations, and I’m inclined to think he could make lemonade out of whatever re-re-NEWLY SCORED version of Barnum that got thrown at him.