Legally Blonde the Musical.

Earlier tonight I was spending sometime with friends and we started talking about, I think it was Legally Blonde the Musical, or some light comedy along those lines remade into a Broadway show. I put in my two cents that I didn’t like this at a conceptual level, that it is a growing trend, that it extends into various other forms of recycling ideas and that it is a generally negative indication of things to come.

I wanted to put it to the group, see what others thing. Now I concede that I’m looking at this from a writer’s perspective. Reworking an existing piece is easier (usually-and note that this is different from adapting a novel or other work) and would likely not get a writer a full wage but rather a re-write wage which could be significantly less (We’re talking an 1/8th). That’s if a writer is employed at all since this is a producer/director’s dream- the dialogue, the structure it exists already- and thus the perfect project for someone who wants to write but doesn’t have as a strong a skill set or as high of a level of experience. So I’m looking at these projects as potentially taking jobs away from writers.

Also, and this is maybe my own bias, but when you take a play and rework it as a film you capture it permanently and allow it to be shared across continents, but when you take a film and rework it as a play I don’t feel like very much is gained. That’s not to say it takes less artistry just that it becomes more frivolous a thing. This is reflected in the cost and who can and can’t see it. A ticket for a show is routinely four to ten times the price of even the (generally considered expensive) $11 it takes to see a movie in New York. With a movie you can wait and get the DVD for twenty. With a show, if you wait, you may never see it.

Now I’m not arguing that it’s impossible to derive enjoyment from a play based on a movie. I enjoyed Hairspray a great deal. I wouldn’t go to see Legally Blonde the musical because I’m not the worlds biggest Legally Blonde fan and I wouldn’t go to see High Fidelity the musical because I didn’t think the movie needed it. So what was different about Hairspray in my eyes? Well, Hairspray, the original, was done so cheaply and with such basic tools at Waters’ disposal I can see where the camp elements would gain new life by having a shinier and more professional backdrop to pop out against. For me, that’s why Hairspray the Musical worked. With High Fidelity there really isn’t much to be changed. It’s not old, (’98 I think) and it wasn’t lacking in founding. Same goes for Legally Blonde. These movies aren’t really being re-imagined.

During our conversation we branched into the similar but distinct discussion of how we felt about Movie-to-movie remakes. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was central to the conversation. Nobody seemed too much like the movie. For my part, I thought it was fine. Saw one or two new flights, felt some of the cuts were major detractions and overall was just left with a feeling of, why? What was the purpose of this remake? On that we all generally seemed to agree.

On King Kong we had a more diverse discussion. Some of us thinking it was a purely profit-for-profit-sake summer block buster, and in truth, to a degree, it was. But I feel this was a good remake. King Kong, the original, was an achievement in special effects in stood out to a generation as the high water mark of what an adventure film could be. But seventy years later the material was largely forgotten. Sure everyone knew the basic story from cultural osmosis, but how many people in their teens or twenties or even their thirties have seen the movie? And here was a top tier director fresh off of a major cinematic achievement not just willing, but yearning to do it. For me, this is a worthwhile remake. Something great that was forgotten is given new life and expanded upon. King Kong is hardly my favorite movie, hell I don’t think it’ll crack into my top four favorite Peter Jackson movies, but it is a perfect example of a good remake. It brought something more to the table and reinvigorated the original.

I tend to more often than not like cover songs, which was the next topic of conversation. Again though, to me, a good cover is a departure from the original in tone or style. I loved Johnny Cash’s Hurt. His age and frailty coupled with the recent loss of his wife gave the song a power that I felt surpassed Reznor’s drug problems and failed relationships. I can see arguing the exact opposite, but I could never see arguing that it wasn’t a fantastic cover. And on a lighter note there are the very fun covers like the acoustic Hey Yeah, or the banjo and bass version of Move bitch. But, standing tall in the column for bad covers is Madonna’s American Pie. She just wanted to cover it. She’s Madonna so she could. But can you articulate why this is a good cover?

Jumping back to what originally set me off this whole path is Legally Blonde the Musical which just seems like producers trying to squeeze every nickel out of a property at the expense of the artistic community. We could conceivably reach a point where movies, plays and other media properties are revived in cycles with original material playing an ever decreasing role in our culture. I wouldn’t mind so much as long as they were long enough cycles that I couldn’t notice and the material was re-worked enough to gain relevance and keep artists working. Otherwise we may face a future full of Halloween 5 reimagining 2 and Ocean’s 26 in the theaters with Bratz and Rushhour 2 the musicals on Broadway.