Do you have to be a 'musicals person' to love musicals on film?

A couple of weeks ago I went to the cinema with my housemate to see Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

She LOVED it. I didn't.

Don't get me wrong, I thought it was good and I enjoyed seeing it, but it just didn't stir my passion in the same way as it did hers. When I couldn't find a reason why I felt this way, she concluded that maybe I just wasn't a 'musicals person', and I began to wonder if she was right.

Starting with what I did like about the film; Tim Burton's Gothic fantasy style was just perfect for the mood of the story. And of course, the dramatic, bloody and brutal violence was just the perfect foil for the relative sweetness of the singing. The sweet/bitter blend Depp gets between his voice and his acting was bang on the money too. All good so far.

There are oodles of musicals on screen that I have loved, especially the old ones like Singing in the Rain, The Wizard of Oz and all the Disney animated musicals, so I'm sure I don't have some underlying inability to enjoy people bursting into song. I even like quite a few of the modern ones, Grease and Moulin Rouge being particular guilty favourites of mine, musical or not. So I felt like I was running out of reasons not to like it. I think most relevantly of all, I also loved Tim Burton's take on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

So what was different about Sweeney Todd? Well, for one thing, it came at me a bit like a stealth musical. Despite having heard about it for months, I only found out that it was the musical version of the story about a week before I went to see it; when watching the full trailer online and Johnny Depp suddenly burst into song. It doesn't follow any of the norms of musical films, as far as when you can reasonably expect people to start singing. In fact, the near constant singing made it come across more like an opera.

And then we come to the singing itself. The thing that got to me the most was the vast difference in style between the lead actors and the stage school alumni. Both can sing in tune but Johnny Depp's rock voice just didn't fit in with the theatrical-ness of the whole film. From the cock-er-ney kids to the sets to the costumes, the film feels very much like a stage musical that someone has filmed (before you start, yes I know it is adapted from the stage, keep reading). This is especially apparent when the camera finally breaks out of its confines of the sets and follows Mr Todd through the streets for one of his songs. This short lived freedom to move beyond the claustrophobic sets only serves to highlight its absence from the rest of the film.

Some plays make great films when adapted, just like some musicals make great films, but the whole point in adapting it is that you are using a new medium now, and to waste the opportunities that film gives you for exploring artistic expression, in favour of staging the musical again for a camera, is quite frankly a crime. This phenomenon is quite possibly one of my biggest pet peeves in cinema. It's why I didn't like the recent Producers re-make, and its why I don't love Sweeney Todd.

Take someone who is a huge Brad Pitt fan. They will love any film that he is in, regardless of whether it has the qualities to make a good film or not. Having a passion for musical theatre makes you a shoe in to love musicals on film. I don't fall into this category. I am far more interested whether something is great cinematically and if that includes a musical then that's all good, but if it doesn't, well, then it doesn't. I think my friend got it half right, you have to be a 'musical theater person' to love Sweeney Todd, and I'm just not.


Coxy

The case of Cloverfield

This may sound a little obvious but viral marketing only works if you're there to see it.

Hearing about viral marketing campaigns from other people has to be one of the most boring things in the history of the world because no matter how well they describe it, its like trying to repeat an in-joke to a friend and then being forced to finish the story with "I guess you had to be there" because they just can't get what all the fuss is about.

By the time Cloverfield was released it seemed everyone and their uncle was excited about seeing it, except me, who seemed to have missed it all, and remembering the Snakes on a Plane disaster, I didn't hold out too much hope. I had seen the shaky-camerawork trailers at the last minute, but the only thing that really made me want to see it was to get my fix of all things J.J. Abrams while waiting for Lost to start again.

However, Cloverfield blew me away. (As you have probably guessed by its inclusion in my list of Top 10 favourite films at no. 7, see below)

I could say that it was because of the innovative use of shaky camerawork, home video footage and a LOT of exploding stuff, but these things aside, the thing that surprised me most was that after watching it: I quite literally couldn't have told you how long I had been in that cinema to save my life. It could have been 10 minutes or 10 hours later, I honestly didn't know.

As anyone who watches a lot of films will tell you, the more films you watch the harder it is to become absorbed in them, even in cinemas. You find yourself analysing them, or if it's a really terrible one, looking around the cinema in search of entertainment. In many cases you are frequently reminded that you are sitting in a cinema by the kids throwing popcorn, and the illusion is ruined. Add to this the fact that I worked in a cinema for a year, well, I'd come to the conclusion that cinemas just didn't have that all-encompassing-experience magic for me anymore.

So for Cloverfield to have such an unexpected effect on me really stopped me in my tracks. And moreover, I think it having this effect has a huge amount to do with everything BUT the camerawork that everyone else is talking about. The camerawork only serves to draw attention to the fact that this is a film, because, in narrative terms, it is a film we are watching, not invisible cameras placed in live action. It also makes a big comment on the stage we're at in society where people film everything, often looking at a lovely view through a camera instead of with their own eyes. It's the smart touches, like when Hud film the screen of another video camera recording the same thing, that really add depth to the film.

Looking at what did help the illusion; firstly, the special effects are flawless. That's not meant to just be a big-up to the CGI people, but that in a film like this, it really matters. If at any point the effects looked, well, like effects, then although I could have easily forgiven it, anyone who has seen I Am Legend will understand the thoughts I would have had that I wished it had been done better. Secondly, I thought the characterisation and acting was superb, especially the ever inappropriate cameraman Hud. His comments on flaming tramps made what would otherwise have seemed like a rather formulaic set piece in the tunnel, into a hilarious come terrifying, and more importantly, in-keeping part of the narrative.

Finally, I want to say a little about the ending. I am completely undecided as to whether I wish they had left the final scene off or not. When I first saw the film all I could think about was 'what a sell out'; tacking a happy ending onto a sad one. But I've seen it again and I think the rhythmic interruptions of the original video add something: an element of the human. This is, after all, really not about the monster. As they say themselves in the film, what is doing the damage is irrelevant, this is about them and their escape, and this little coda unites the end with the beginning. That said, there is still a huge part of me that would have loved the video to have just cut out and left us hanging!

And in case you were wondering, I agree with Empire magazine in their review: just like with The Matrix, make a sequel and you'll ruin the original film too.

Coxy

The most annoying thing people ask when they find out you're a film student....

..."Have you seen [insert obscure, straight to video, indie offering that only the person asking you the question has ever heard of]?"

Especially when immediately followed by "Call yourself a film student?!" when you invariably reply no.

And the question that comes a close second is:

"So, what is your favourite film?"

How you answer this question relies entirely on what characteristics you find most valuable in a film, and one of the most frowned upon is the most simple of all of these: "Was it entertaining?" Some people, pretentious film students in particular, have come to believe that entertainment is a cheaper form of satisfaction to get from a film, falling behind such things as a political/social message, breaking new ground in style or technique, or even employing literary devices such as a complex plot or a big twist at the end (M. Night Shyamalan take note).

Now these things are great, and if you like these things then they can all add to the entertainment factor of a film, but we are talking FAVOURITE film here! Everyone has found things in even the naffest films that have stuck a personal chord and I think that you should ignore these at your peril. Sure, a film might be great on paper, be extremely well reviewed, have a fantastic director and so on but films are a bit like food. For example, I know Rick Stein is an excellent cook, he makes shed-loads of money and is reviewed extremely well but it doesn't matter how great his meals are is in theory, there is one fundamental reason why I would never include one of his personally cooked dishes in a list of my favourite meals.....I hate seafood.

Personal preference is by far the most important aspect of any choice, discussion or argument regarding film and more often than not it is the first one abandoned in favour of the opinions of others who are more 'reputable'. At the end of the day, you watched the same film they did, they don't have a pair of fancy glasses that allow them to see a better version of the film than you (as cool as that would be) and your opinion is therefore just as valid.

So, back to my favourite films: it is physically impossible to pick just one.

FACT.

One film cannot possibly satisfy all your needs (which is fortunate for the film industry) and for times when you want to be scared silly, watching The Jungle Book just isn't going to cut it, no matter now much you love it. I just so happen to be a big fan of 'Top 10...' lists so that's exactly whats coming next. It's important to note that this list is a work in progress, not only because new films are constantly being released but also extenuating circumstances frequently cloud judgement. The recentness of the film makes a big difference, as does your experience when viewing it for the first time (good films watched on bad dates automatically drop down in my estimation).

I personally like films that have brought something new to my understanding of films, cinema and maybe even life. Whether it was the first film to do it or not is irrelevant, if it was the first one I saw do it, then that was the one that changed my view. On top of that, I love dialogue that's fresh and unexpected, and naturally that 'je ne sais qua' that seems to make fantastic films sizzle off the screen. Of course there are a couple of classics on my list, but I hope there are also some that make you think about whats important to you, and not to be ashamed of your choices.

In my opinion, if you don't find a film entertaining, no-matter how many of these other elements it has, including said film in a list of your favourites, quite frankly, makes you a fraud trying to look cool in front of your friends.


My Top 10 Films

1. Jurassic Park - 1993 - Steven Spielberg


2. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - 2001 - Peter Jackson


3. Shallow Grave - 1994 - Danny Boyle


4. One Fine Day - 1996 - Michael Hoffman


5. Adaptation - 2002 - Spike Jonze


6. Singing in the Rain - 1958 - Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly


7. Cloverfield - 2008 - Matt Reeves


8. If... - 1968 - Lindsay Anderson


9. The Breakfast Club - 1985 - John Hughes


10. Alfie - 1966 - Lewis Gilbert

All questions, comments and personal lists welcome!

Coxy