"Chicago" has so much going for it, it almost seems wrong to criticize. But that's what this forum is for.
First, the music, the top criteria for a musical. The morning after you first saw "Cabaret," you probably woke up humming the tune. You wake up humming the top tunes from all the great movie and stage musicals. Not so with "Chicago." Although this work has been around since Bob Fosse staged it in 1975, none of the tunes from "Chicago" have become standards over the past quarter of a century. There's a reason for that. The music simply is NOT memorable.
What does stick in your mind from "Chicago" the movie, are camerawork, editing, staging, costume and production design, as well as the acting and directing. They are all very first class. I did, though, have my problems with both Renee Zellweger and Richard Gere. I am not a particular fan other either, and so I found their characters probably less than what they could be. Gere's mugging for the camera, especially during his musical numbers, rather bothered me.
But hats off to Catherine Zeta-Jones, who in my mind stole the picture whenever she was on screen. The film would have done well to feature more of her and less of Zellweger in my view.
But something else here needs to be addressed. That's camera work and editing. Although brilliant in both categories, they were also both disturbing, for they robbed the audience of the pleasure of sitting back and fully enjoying the musical numbers. Apparently convinced today's audiences don't have the attention span needed to watch a number play out, director Rob Marshall had his people move the camera in for the tight shot, rather than pulling back for the full view. The cutting, which takes place at a blistering pace, also districts. It's almost as if that's the intent, to possible cover up less than stellar work by the performers.
Ironically, a few days ago I looked once again at "Swing Time," perhaps the best of the Astaire and Rogers musicals of the 30s. That one was directed by George Stevens, not really known for his musical work and it showed. One of the films very best numbers is Astaire's solo performance in "Bojangles," done as a tribute to Harlem song and dance man Bill Robinson. Politically incorrect today because Astaire appears in black face, the number is nonetheless one of the best Harlem nightclub acts ever put on film. But the camera work is nothing to write home about. Stevens for the most part just puts his camera on a crane, pulls back for an elevated master shot and simply leaves it there. It doesn't matter. Astaire's dancing and the dancing of the chorus line he whips around in his own, effortless style, just captive.
Unfortunately, perhaps it takes performing talent like that to make that kind of unimaginative camerawork fly. Busby Berkeley did lots of tricks of his own in "42nd Street," and "Golddiggers of 1933" and of course, the movie makers who followed followed his lead.
But you still can't escape the feeling that cinematic slight of hand is used so often today to cover up flaws in the performances. But then, this is not the era of Astaire and Rogers, this is the era of Madonna, of manufactured boy bands and of girl singers who are carbon copies of one another.
Anyway, "Chicago", despite its flaws, is very much worth seeing and Catherine Zeta-Jones is pretty much worth the price of admission all by herself. In many ways,this is a very, very enjoyable movie, even if its camera and editing techniques tell us, "Hey, you wouldn't like this movie half as much if you had to sit and watch a whole dancer number."
First, the music, the top criteria for a musical. The morning after you first saw "Cabaret," you probably woke up humming the tune. You wake up humming the top tunes from all the great movie and stage musicals. Not so with "Chicago." Although this work has been around since Bob Fosse staged it in 1975, none of the tunes from "Chicago" have become standards over the past quarter of a century. There's a reason for that. The music simply is NOT memorable.
What does stick in your mind from "Chicago" the movie, are camerawork, editing, staging, costume and production design, as well as the acting and directing. They are all very first class. I did, though, have my problems with both Renee Zellweger and Richard Gere. I am not a particular fan other either, and so I found their characters probably less than what they could be. Gere's mugging for the camera, especially during his musical numbers, rather bothered me.
But hats off to Catherine Zeta-Jones, who in my mind stole the picture whenever she was on screen. The film would have done well to feature more of her and less of Zellweger in my view.
But something else here needs to be addressed. That's camera work and editing. Although brilliant in both categories, they were also both disturbing, for they robbed the audience of the pleasure of sitting back and fully enjoying the musical numbers. Apparently convinced today's audiences don't have the attention span needed to watch a number play out, director Rob Marshall had his people move the camera in for the tight shot, rather than pulling back for the full view. The cutting, which takes place at a blistering pace, also districts. It's almost as if that's the intent, to possible cover up less than stellar work by the performers.
Ironically, a few days ago I looked once again at "Swing Time," perhaps the best of the Astaire and Rogers musicals of the 30s. That one was directed by George Stevens, not really known for his musical work and it showed. One of the films very best numbers is Astaire's solo performance in "Bojangles," done as a tribute to Harlem song and dance man Bill Robinson. Politically incorrect today because Astaire appears in black face, the number is nonetheless one of the best Harlem nightclub acts ever put on film. But the camera work is nothing to write home about. Stevens for the most part just puts his camera on a crane, pulls back for an elevated master shot and simply leaves it there. It doesn't matter. Astaire's dancing and the dancing of the chorus line he whips around in his own, effortless style, just captive.
Unfortunately, perhaps it takes performing talent like that to make that kind of unimaginative camerawork fly. Busby Berkeley did lots of tricks of his own in "42nd Street," and "Golddiggers of 1933" and of course, the movie makers who followed followed his lead.
But you still can't escape the feeling that cinematic slight of hand is used so often today to cover up flaws in the performances. But then, this is not the era of Astaire and Rogers, this is the era of Madonna, of manufactured boy bands and of girl singers who are carbon copies of one another.
Anyway, "Chicago", despite its flaws, is very much worth seeing and Catherine Zeta-Jones is pretty much worth the price of admission all by herself. In many ways,this is a very, very enjoyable movie, even if its camera and editing techniques tell us, "Hey, you wouldn't like this movie half as much if you had to sit and watch a whole dancer number."