Flickgrrl

Hetero male, pro-musical. It's a uniquely American theatrical idiom that I'm wired to appreciate, esp. Guys and Dolls, Hairspray, South Park: BLU, Les Mis, Grease. Not a huge Webber fan.

So is it safe to say you're reviewing this, not your counterpart, Steven Rea?

Carrie--

I can't figure out exactly when men became so self-conscious and insecure, and so limited, about their likes and dislikes in regards to movies - or so defensive about them. Both my wife and I had fathers who loved the musical theater and who took us both to out-of-town tryouts of big splashy '60s musicals in Philadelphia. And without apologies or hang-ups. They never considered them "feminine" or rather "effeminate." We also commiserate often about how going to the movies with our fathers was always widespread - a Western one week, a musical the next, followed by a war film or spy drama, then a comedy, then another musical. They really didn't discrimate. They were opened to everything, and my dad in particular loved musicals - and he was what guys would call a "real man." . I don't get it. Exactly when did men become so pathetically boring?

P.S. I forgot -- My favorite film musicals are "Gypsy" (the Roz Russell version, natch), "The Music Man," "Singin' in the Rain," "Flower Drum Song," "The Pajama Game," "True Stories" (yes, the David Byrne film, definitely a new-style musical) and, as you know, Carrie, "At Long Last Love." That's it, for now

Yes, Agador, I'm reviewing. But don't read this as an implicit criticism of Steven, who raved over "Moulin Rouge" and is not, to the best of my knowledge, a hater.

I wonder if the cult of "authenticity" that accompanied the rise of folk music in the early 1960s (and, perhaps, to a lesser extent the rediscovery of old blues artists by white musicians a little later in the decade), with both genres becoming part of the mainstream through rock and roll, played a part in the rejection of musicals by much of the era's younger audience. There are few things less "authentic" (whatever that means) than someone bursting into song in the middle of daily life.

At the same time this was happening, the great songwriters of the past who had written the cream of American musicals were dying off. The writers who took their place were not in the same class, to put it kindly. As a kid, speaking from personal experience, I thought all musicals must stink, based on seeing a steady parade of schlocky singers performing slections from "Oliver" and "Dr. Doolittle" and other hits of the day on Merv Griffin/Mike Douglas/you name it. It wasn't until I got to roughly college age and discovered the Gershwins, Rogers & Hart, etc. that I understood how great musicals could be.

The funny thing is, plenty of young people today are perfectly willing to suspend disbelief for actions in movies that seem at least as fantastic as someone singing and dancing: how are Messrs. Spider and Bat more fabulous than Astaire or Kelly? I'd argue that the latter are more realistic, in fact, since neither required CGI.

I'm of the heterosexual persuasion. I don't know if the trouble with musicals is sex-based or age-based, by the way - I suspect it's at least as much the latter as the former.

Among my fave musicals are "Swing Time," "Meet Me in St. Louis," and "A Hard Day's Night." The last has arguably the best score of any musical - especially if we don't count those from the Freed team in which a composer's entire body of work was cherry-picked for songs.

Well said, wwolfe. The transition from songwriters who wrote in the voice of characters to the singer-songwriter who wrote for his/her own voice marked a difficult period for musicals, although animated singing mermaids and meerkats kept the form alive. I agree that the CGI monster-trucks of "Transformers" require us to suspend as much disbelief as John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John singing "You're the One That I Want."

I like all of your choices, as well as those of Adam and Joe. I have a dozen favorites, but "Swing Time," "The Bandwagon," "Meet Me in St. Louis," "Singin' in the Rain," "Funny Face, "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg," and "A Hard Days' Night" would probably top my list. I prefer dance musicals to song musicals, but my 11-year-old loves loves loves "Calamity Jane" and "The Pajama Game." She's a bit of a Doris Day nut like Mom.

this whole discussion seems a non-issue to me. it is always batted around by entertainment writers who copy the musings of other entertainment writers. as for the general public, who doesn't "get" a musical, except for teen age boys? but then, they're faking it--they know what musicals are. they grew up on them. hell, we all did. WIZARD OF OZ, WILLY WONKA, DISNEY CARTOONS, even Sesame Street is filled with mini-musicals. with video today's young people had more exposure to them than we baby boomers. we had to go to the movies or see something on broadcast TV.
it seems like the arts, in general, are called "gay." my teen nephew loves to label just about anything by using the phrase, "that's so gay." he doesn't discriminate--Disneyland, Christmas, suits and ties, remembering birthdays, animation, fancy food, pastries, weddings, etc. pretty soon the only "real man" things will be t-shirts, money, pizza and Michael Bay movies.

one more thing:
why do movies always have to
be labeled like public restrooms?
what is a chick flick, anyway? are stories of women (or a woman and a man) of no interest to a guy? women watch adventure films, war movies, sci fi movies and don't label them as only male entertainment. ohhhhhh, why can't we all get along?

Good Morning, Carrie. I'm so glad you penned this post. And I love all of the responses, all of them seemingly from men (!) - although I guess it's a sad commentary that so many of them feel obliged to note that they are "hetero males." I agree with Bill about labels applied to movies but if we are going down that road, let's remember that film musicals were the original "feel-good movies" (and not necessarily "chick flicks"). I also agree with Joe who asks when men developed all these unattractive hang-ups. My dad was a burly guy who also liked movie musicals. I grew up during the "roadshow" craze and my dad couldn't wait to take us to see "Camelot" and "Half a Sixpence" at the movie palaces on Market and Chestnut sts. He wasn't embarrassed at all about it, the way some men are. To your growing list of favorite musicals, I'd like to add "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers," "My Sister Eileen" (the one with Janet Leigh) and "Damn Yankees" - oh and "Camelot," too. I love Vanessa Redgrave singing in that film. Personally, I can't wait to see "Hairspray" on Friday and I am REALLY looking forward to "Sweeney Todd" with Johnny Depp and "Mama Mia" with Meryl Streep. I feel good already! Oh, and by the way, I'm a hetero female.

I don't know about gender, but if you're a genuine film buff, if you truly like movies, there's no way you can't love the musical -- in my opinion, the definitive movie genre. I mean, it encompasses every art and craft. Not just cinematography, editing, special effects but also choreography, singing, dubbing, everything. I find the movie musical to be the most exciting of all film genres. Put me down for "Seven Brides," "The Young Girls of Rochforte" and "Top Hat."

Well, musicals are cheesy, annoying and bland to me.

Sadly, I know women who feel the same way. I think the disdain for musicals has less to do with gay panic (although it's surely there in some cases) than with a general disdain for non-realist forms, particularly optimistic ones. Dystoptian sci-fi, yea; bubbly song-n-dance, nay. Exactly why it's meant to be sillier when people bust into song (which modern movie musicals bend over backwards to avoid whenever possible) than when Shia LeBeouf talks to his car, I fail to understand.

Carrie,

Thanks for posting, as a hetero male I can honestly say I love musicals. What I don't like is schlock and that's what a lot of musicals lately have seemed to me.

I saw Dreamgirls, Rent, Wicked, The Producers and countless other productions on the stage and my main complaint about the film versions of most of those, save Wicked because it hasn't been made yet, is that the films tend to be flat when compared with the stage productions.

If I can just add a me too to the poster above who mused on the labels that films have garnered, "chick flick" etc. Some of my favorite movies are "chick flicks."

I just can't figure out why we need another version of Hairspray. The Ricki Lake version wasn't *that* long ago. Is everyone so scared of making new things that Broadway has to rely on TV and films instead of new material, and then it has to get recycled back into TV and the movies?

The key thing to me is not that hetero males are threatened by musicals; it's that the subject matter of most musicals is not something that interests us. I admit, we like violence, things that go boom and boobies, and I’m not ashamed to say that. Show me a musical that has that and I bet you guys would go see it. I do like some musicals and guess what they are? Sweeney Todd, Fame, Phantom, little shop of horrors, (loved the producers as a talkie, but the musical just missed some of the bite), singing in the rain…oh well anything with Gene Kelly & Fred Astaire who are masculine dance personified, and Of course every hetero males musical Scarface, West side story. Of course I have no respect for any hetero male who whines about seeing musicals with his mate, that's just a date thing like seeing the Steel Magnolias; it makes your girl happy, you suck it up and go..

Oforie,
As illustrated by the musicals you like, from the urban gangfighting of "West Side Story" to the athleticism of Gene Kelly, you can see how wide-ranging a genre that includes "Fame," "Chicago" and "On the Town" is. Thank's for your post.

What is the difference between Gene Kelly's athletic grace and a pro-football player? Not too much. Get over it, guys. Tiptoe through the tulips---or down the sideline to stay in bounds.

How about gay men who commit blasphemy and hate musicals? Well okay maybe West Side Story is okay. I think the question about Hairspray in particular is why in God's name did they make this? This falls right into line with Gus Van Sant's Psycho. THIS ALREADY IS A MOVIE!!! The only good that I can think that will come of this is that the great John Waters will make a mint. Otherwise this just seems symptomatic of the utter lack of anything original coming out of the studios. Now we make movies based on musicals made about movies? Burn Hollywood.

The reason a lot of straight guys go into a panic over musicals is, surely, that they actually like them, and feel the need to cover up. If only more could come out of the musical closet.

Ugh... so since I don't like musicals (yep, I'm a hetero male) I'm a homophobe?

I also don't like horror flicks, tear-jerking weepies or gross-out comedies. What else does that make me?

Carrie, you may be dismayed that straight guys don't like something that you happen to like quite a bit, but if you really are trying to get them to see them, accusing them of some sort of psychological defect like "gay panic" isn't a very good opening salvo.

It's not unusual for certain forms of entertainment to go from the mainstream to niche (see: opera, poetry, live plays, orchestral music, big-band music, literary novels or (almost, at least) printed newspapers) and I think that's what has happened to the musical films.

That isn't to say any of those things are "dead," simply that they are now primarily supported by a self-selecting group of devotees.

If I were to finger a culprit for the decline of musical films, I'd point to the rise over the last 25 years or so of the music video: short snippets of visuals often disconnected from the lyrical content of the songs. The music video has taught a generation or two not to pay much attention to lyrics, which is of course, exactly what you have to do in a musical when the numbers are being sung in character and are used to advance the plot or character development.

There are plenty of filmmakers who put music front and center in their films (Guy Ritchie, to name one who appeals squarely to the hetero make demo; or even such biopics as "Ray" or "Walk the Line") but their approach, which goes for tonal over literal, often owes more to MTV than Rodgers & Hammerstein.

hehe musical closet (is that where they keep the rock accordionists too?) another thing I though I should mention is the place of the musicals culturally. I saw my first live musical when I was 28, and my sister had been taken to many before that by my mom and grandmom. I think that it's important to take young males to them so they know is a genderless activity. Seeing musicals on TV is nothing compared to the technical marvel of a stage production. It’s a lot different now; parents are much more unisex in their activities, but I think my mom would have been shocked if I said I wanted to go, I picked up on that and sorta knew that musicals where not a boy’s thing. So for many guys we substituted sporting events for plays, and I think that for women of earlier generations it would have been just as out of place to request to go to a sporting event with dad as a play with mom. As I said things are very different now. Oh, and for the record, any hetero man who does not openly admit he likes singing in the rain and has a guy crush on Gene Kelly, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Michael Caine and Shawn Connery is in denial about something else ;).

Thanks, Dr. Freud!

Musicals are often the cheesiest, most gaudy form of the most mannered, most melodramatic form of drama; stage theater. I am a man who loves modern dance, who is very comfortable with my sexuality but who, like many men, just don't like the form for aesthetic reasons, not underlying psychological ones. Very funny or subtle musicals are great. The Hole, Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Little Shop of Horrors, and THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF HAIRSPRAY are great.

Bobby,
Riddle me this: You like Umbrellas of Cherbourg and Little Shop of Horrors but find that many musicals are gaudy and mannered. If you like some, why tar the genre?

Thanks for your post,

I just love movies. If it's a great musical or western or drama or tentpole summer flick or Jane Austen adaptation or horror film or romance...I'm there. No matter the genre, if it's done really well, that's a cause for celebration. A great musical is as thrilling as a great David Lean epic. A true movie lover doesn't pick and choose genres. I say long live musicals...and westerns, and dramas, and romance, and action pics, etc. etc.

Carrie, when you posted your musings about the AFI list and the comments were made about the ranking of SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, my immediate thought was "gay panic" because no one should ever get THAT upset because a musical happens to be in the Top Ten. And now i see a whole range of responses, most of which simply confirms my belief that the idea of niche-marketing has indeed come to mean everything, including critical sense.

I should like to add that this year, at least four "musicals" have been released (at least in NYC) which belie the idea that there is simply a formulaic approach to "the musical". The four that i'm thinking of are: COLMA, ONCE, Tsai Ming-liang's THE WAYWARD CLOUD, and Tata Amaral's ANTONIA. In fact, in THE WAYWARD CLOUD, you had everything from full-on production numbers to hard-core sex. What more could you ask for? (John Cameron Mitchell tried something similar in SHORTBUS as well, though that was last year.)

Nice post Carrie,

One of the most interesting, and widely reviled, experiments to make a full-frontal attack on the phenomenon you're describing was "Cop Rock." I was only 15 when it was broadcast, and I thought it was fantastic. I watched it with my dad every week. But it wasn't till I bought a bootleg DVD off of Ebay last year (as a 31yo hetero) that I could appreciate just how ground-breaking a show it was! It was a hard-nosed cop drama (Steven Bochco) punctuated by choreographed musical interludes (Randy Newman). And after all these cop-show-saturated years the show still holds up. Sure, the music sounds a little dated, like the still-novel rap, but it's actually not all that bad. Sadly it didn't make it a whole season, and, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think anyone took a stab at musical television dramas until some Ally McBeal episodes (which I also loved) and that show's surrealist heir Scrubs (which is losing me). Scrubs in particular would seem to me to be most likely to make it safe for straight men to like musicals again.

BTW, one of my favorite musicals is utterly unfilmable: URINETOWN. The Brechtian stuff can't possibly translate to the big screen.

I don't like them for many of the reasons already stated. The unbridled optimism of most of them annoys the heck out of me. The garish colors and overall cheesiness drives me away.

Musicals also seem to be a bad comprimise. "We don't have enoug music to make an opera and the plot isn't good enough to sustain itself. What should we do? I know, let's make a musical"

That being said, one of my favorite films of all time is a musical and I bet most guys love it as well. The Blues Brothers.

I would imagine that the timing of men vehemently stating that they hate musicals could possibly coincide with the more open world of homosexuals. Once the performers in these musical and other theatrical productions (movies, etc) "came out", there was probably a knee-jerk reaction to the occurence.

Personally, I don't like musicals because I find them contrived and ridiculous.

Look at the guys in West Side Story. No one can claim they're not manly, but yet they sure do love to frolick in allies and on rooftops. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

Good point. I am a 60 year old hetero man married for 41 years to the same woman, father of three grown, married men, a Vietnam era vet, and multiple gun owner. (Don't hunt, but like to target shoot). I was so against musicals as a young man that I wouldn't go see "Gone With The Wind" because I thought it was a musical. Dumb !

By the time I was in my thirties, I grew up enough to become a subscriber to the Pennsylvania Ballet, and the Philadelphia Orchestra, but I still approached musicals as akin to wearing my wife's underwear.

Alas, at the ripe, old age of 55 I sat down to watch "My Fair Lady". I liked it! I followed with The Sound Of Music", "Oliver", and "West Side Story". Damn that's good stuff!

By the way, my wife tells me I'm still pretty virile. How about that?

Tony Borrelli

Tim,
Is the idea of people speaking in song any more contrived than Shia LaBeouf talking to his car in "Transformers"?

Carrie--

Aside from men being uptight these days (about everything it seems, not just musical films), people have also grown out of the habit of going to musicals because so few of them have been made in the past few years. People in general see them as something alien, akin to subtitled films, while men in particular think they impinge on their manhood. Nothing is worse for a man or boy to hear than the words "sissy," "fairy," the other "f" word, or to hear that they "play like girls." How often have you heard macho men refer to other men, disparagingly as "ladies." Nothing is worse than for a man to be compared to a woman. I'm really starting to believe that homophobia is rooted in a general hatred of women. Anyway, I got off the point. Few musicals have been made in the past couple decades and when they were made, critics treated them as an offense to mankind. I'm thinking of the excessively negative critical reactions to "Annie" and "Th Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," movies that - from where I sat - were perfectly fine. Not perfect, just perfectly fine. BTW, I think both made money, despite the reviews. Anyway, back to my point: People have to get back in the habit. If they can get back in the habit of seeing corny pirate movies, why not corny musicals?

Hello, my name is Chris, and I'm a male non-heterosexual musicals fan. [Voices in response: "Hi, Chris!"] I'm working to come to terms with my internalized musicals-phobia, and I've come to realize that I'm powerless over the original cast album of KISS ME KATE.

I'm also an admitted Cole Porter fan, which means that I love movies like the Minnelli-directed PIRATE and M.G.M.-ized KISS ME KATE, and have even been known to express guarded affection for AT LONG AS LOVE. [Lone voice in the crowd: "Oh no, not that!"]

wwolfe's comment seemed to me on-the-money. Too large a portion of movie audiences is, I believe, "empathy-impaired" -- hence derisive terms like "chick flick" and that fear that, if one watches a genre too closely associated with biological females and gay men, one might be placed in the same pigeon-hole with them.

There's also the problem of willingness to accept artifice. Which images are in accord with an audience's self-image and notions of its own taste? Why is it that they're able to accept Natalie Portman in her neo-Asian STAR WARS get-up but not Ginger Rogers in silver lame looking down at Fred Astaie during "Never Gonna Dance" (a favorite image of mine)? Why can they accept a flaming skeleton riding a motorcycle and not four people singing in rhyming couplets about tales where "A ghost and a prince meet / And ev'ryone winds up mincemeat"?

Accepted musical language also enters the question here. Song is acceptable if it's a matter of emotional declaration (cf. the musical language of DREAMGIRLS songs and their similarity to testimony in church), but not if it rhymes too conspicuously or includes jokes. That might be deemed other-than-"heartfelt."

*

'Scuse me if I become too agitated. Let's just say that I love musicals and artifice and I enjoy a chance to sample 'em. I'm also the same person who, when he filled out an audience reaction card to the DREAMGIRLS movie, wrote "Lorenz Hart Wept!" -- but that's another story.

I'll just sit back down in my folding chair and return to my contemplation of Madeleine Kahn singing "Find Me A Primitive Man" ...

Chris:
As you might not know, Joe Baltake -- who posted here -- and I bonded on "At Long Last Love" (or ALLL). We gave it the only two positive reviews in the country. So we three can form an ALLL support group. Naturally "Never Gonna Dance" is for me the apex of Astairogers. And because I am a Porter devotee, I love love love "Kiss Me, Kate" -- despite an antipathy for Kathryn Grayson. Thank you for restoring -- and affirming -- the faith.

Carrie-- I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but I believe both Corliss and Ebert also liked "At Long Last Love." And Canby's was mildly positive with a few reservations. That film is long overdue for rediscovery, particularly given that it's never been put out on home entertainment in any format. Also, I'm convinced that the only people who condemn it haven't actually seen it. But, again, how could they? It's been impossible to see. Also, you wrote of manly men Sinatra and Martin making musicals. Don't forget that Burt Reynolds made two - ALLL and "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas."

Joe,
When I introduced Peter Bogdanovich at the Free Library a few years back, he told me that you and I gave ALLL its only positive reviews. You're a much more reliable source than a director. Thanks for the correction.

C

My memory is fairly good when it comes to things/people/movies about which/whom I obsess, but there is a remote chance I'm wrong about Corliss and Ebert, although I don't think so.

Chris mentions Kahn's "Find Me a Promitive Man" number from ALLL. Yes, that's a keeper, but he might want to know that it is topped by her opening (deleted) number in the film, "Down in the Depths on the 90th Floor." A classic. I also feel compelled to mention her trio with Cybill Shepherd and Eileen Brennan, "Most Gentlemen Don't Like Love" (They Just Like to Kick It Around)."

People must see this film - they must!

One of my fave movies of all time, Grease, is a musical. Back in 1978, when I was 13, I saw it 12 times (no joke). Other musicals that I enjoy: West Side Story, The Sound of Music, Woody Allen's Everyone Says I Love You and Dreamgirls.

As far as folks who think it's strange for folks to burst into song ... all I can say is that I've been known to burst into song - usually singing to my wife or my cat (yes, they both think I'm odd!). As far as why some guys find musicals a tough sell, I think it's less of a male-female thing and more generational - MTV and music videos being the main culprit. Just as video killed the radio star, MTV killed the musical.

Or maybe it's just that there haven't been many good ones made in the past 20-odd years.

Popular music (be it hip-hop, rap, pop, whatever) is still part of people's lives. Kids are still listening to music. Why can't anyone make a musical which expresses how kids feel about music?

It doesn't have to be a doctrinaire "book musical"... since the 1970s, i can cite things like Altman's usage of Leonard Cohen's songs in McCABE & MRS. MILLER, the usage of Arlo Guthrie's music in Arthur Penn's ALICE'S RESTAURANT, Alan Rudolph's usage of Teddy Pendergrass's songs in CHOOSE ME, or his usage of Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson and Leslie Ann Warren in SONGWRITER, or the way John Badham used music in BINGO LONG (and, of course, SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER).

In the 1990s, VH-1 used to have those shows BEHIND THE MUSIC, and when you watched some of those... it was hard not to think that someone should have made a movie with these people. It's like TLC: VH-1 had a recent documentary, THE LAST DAYS OF LEFT EYE, and when you look at her, her dramatic intensity is so overwhelming, and the songs themselves... such as "Waterfall" or "Scrubs"... have such a dramatic impetus... a great new musical was just waiting to happen, but it didn't.

But the panic that musicals seem to provoke is so strange: it wasn't that way until the last decade. (The thing is: those guys who "hate" musicals, don't they like Green Day? Or Systems of a Down? Or Maroon 5? Hey, if Jay-Z can use a song from ANNIE....)

...Speaking of Jay-Z and Beyonce, nothing the latter did in the accomplished "Dreamgirls" was half as good as her bring-down-the-house rendition of Crazy in Love in the Jay-Z concert film, "Fade to Black." Lordy, lordy, lordy.

OK, Carrie-- Here's a loaded question for you: Why is it that only men are concerned with their "image" when it comes to picking out a movie to see? Why do men think it's unmanly or unmasculine to see a musical or even a romantic comedy (or something like "Brokeback Mountain")? How come you never hear a woman saying that she would never see, say, "Rescue Dawn" because it wouldn't be "womanly" or that if she went to see "Desert Hearts" (to pick an old title) she might be labeled a lesbian because of all the subject matter? Why is this seemingly just a male hang-up? (Ok, I know that's more than one question.)

Wow, Joe. Great question. I don't want to tar all men with the same brush, but for me this relates in part to your earlier post about your Dad being a movie omnivore and the younger generation being more nichey. I hear from readers, male and female, about their very narrow tastes -- Japanimation, horror, action films -- and wonder if they have a similarly narrow range in food tastes.

I heard from many make readers -- including ones very close to home -- that they would never see "Brokeback" or "In Her Shoes." It was like the complaint about musicals, I felt they feared their manhood would be compromised by exposure to a homosexual love story or rom-com. But then "In Her Shoes" was in heavy cable rotation and I heard from some of these very same men that they "kinda liked it." And some of the Brokeback-phobes e-mailed me that they were moved by it. I don't know how to analyze these phobias except to say that maybe men get the message from the time they're two when they pick up Mommy's lipstick and everypne freaks that playing with girl stuff makes them less manly. Girls on the other hand get laughs and hugs for trying on Daddy's shoes.
Maybe it's this feedback that makes girls more secure. Then agaian, the more I read about neurology, the more it seems that women are hard-wired for empathy (there are more neural bridges between the thinking and feeling areas on female lobes) and thus perhaps more able to counter-identify with a male at the center of a movie or a novel. I remember hearing Jo Rowling on, I think, Terry Gross a few years back saying that she had originally conceived Harriet Potter but that publishers told her that boys would never ever ever ever ever read a book with a heroine and thus Harry was born.

Surprised no one yet mentioned "Funny Girl" or "Hello, Dolly!" Love them both. HD! didn't do that well in the theaters, but has covered its cost and then some in the video market. The stage musical of FG actually tried out in Philadelphia. "Funny Lady" also good, but much smaller budget. Made money, though, as all Streisand's films have except "The Main Event." She employed a helluva lot of chorus boys in NYC and Hollywood from 1964 through 1968. "Moulin Rouge" is also pretty close to perfect, in my view.

Carrie--

There's one other factor that we've all been overlooking, re the decline in the production of movie musicals, and that's the growth of, and importance of, international markets. For years, musicals were traditionally popular on the homefront, both among men and women, but they never traveled well into foreign markets for reasons that should be obvious. A musical such as "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying," for example, had all of its songs excised (a la "I'll Do Anything") for its European showings. Now, as a professional, you are well aware of how important foreign markets are to the studios in this new millenium. Movies often open in Europe on the same day as they do here, sometimes earlier, as in the case of the new "Harry Potter." Bottom line: Musicals, which are expensive to produce to begin with, are simply too much trouble in terms of foreign sales. The songs are a major stumbling block in terms of translation, and apparently, the worldwide movie scene is as resistant to subtitles as American audiences are. The studios were fairly certain that Spiderman 3," "Pirates 3" and "Shrek 3" would open big overseas; "Hairspray," however, remains a huge question mark.

To complete my thought in the post above, what I'm getting at is that, even if Americans did flock enthusiastically to movie musicals (men, as well as women), it is not likely that you're average studio would be anxious to produce one because of the limited revenues overseas. End of diatribe.

Joe brings up a compelling point. I've always felt that, in spite of focus groups and polls, the studios and filmmakers make the films that they want to make and then hope to create a desire for them via their publicity machine. Now they have an eye on the foreign markets. This may help explain why, after "Chicago" won an Oscar and made big bucks at the box office, the studios were still reluctant and slow in making more musicals.

Joe's point about international markets is interesting. Two immediate thoughts: "Bollywood" is really an attempt to graft conventions (primarily derived from Hollywood musicals) onto a "foreign" market (in this case, the Indian subcontinent). The other is that our popular music (current popular music, e.g., rap, hip-hop, et al) continues to be popular (and in many cases dominate) in markets overseas. As mentioned: musicals were a form of popular music "back in the day"; so the obvious correlation is that "musicals" must adapt, and the music in those musicals must be current popular music. If Glenn Miller and Duke Ellington were in the juke boxes in the early 1940s (and can be seen in SUN VALLEY SERENADE or CABIN IN THE SKY), then we should have Missy Elliot or Snoop Dog (hilarious in his recent guest shot on MONK) or Christina Aguilera in something which develops from their music, and not plunking them down in some inane story and grafting a few songs around them. If these people can develop music videos which are like little 3-minute movies, why not let them go and come up with a feature? That's when "musicals" will once again be a "popular" artform, as in the 1930s through the 1950s.

Daryl's idea of films exploiting today's popular music stars by putting them in musicals can be extended to popular stars not necessarily known for music. For example, if Warners wanted tor re-do "The Music Man," I wouldn't go with Matthew Broderick (as the recent TV special did, disasterously) but with someone like Vince Vaughn or Will Ferrell as Harold Hill. To put it bluntly, I think those guys could put arses in seats - even for a musical. It's just a matter of creative casting. Steve Carrel would be terrific in a film of "Promises, Promises," if anyone had the guts to make it. Guys turned out for "Chicago" because, frankly, I think they like looking at Catherine Zeta Jones (a real fantasy figure for them) and they genuinely like Renee Zellweger (a "guy's gal" ever since "Jerry McGuire.") Why not put George Clooney and Julia Roberts in "Guys and Dolls"? It could work and I think people would show up. It's called casting.

Joe's right, but I'm afrad Hollywood would cast James Woods or John Turturro as Nathan Detroit and the whole thing would crater under that kind of weight.

Joe, Daryl, JDM:

Three types of musicals have predominated in Hollywood, a) movies built around singing/dancing actors/personalities (Jeanette MacDonald, Judy Garland, Rita Hayworth, Fred Astaire, The Nicholas Brothers, Julie Andrews, Liza Minnelli) , b) those built around recording stars (Frank Sinatra, Doris Day, Elvis, The Beatles, Prince, Andre 3000 and Big Boi) and c) Broadway adaptations with movie stars (the 1936 Showboat with Irene Dunne and Paul Robeson, Gypsy with Roz Russell and Natalie Wood).
As Daryl notes above, lately we've seen more organic musicals (Once), Bollywood-style productions (Bride and Prejudice) and more and more concert films (the Neil Young musical directed by Jonathan Demme, the upcoming Stones musical by Martin Scorsese). People who download music like to see the people they like in concert movies -- i.e. the Jay-Z "Fade to Black." one of the better concert films I've seen in a long time. I think all four forms are viable and would love to see more of them. I say, bring it on and sing it on.

I notice nobody has cited Lars von Trier's "Dancer in the Dark" starring Bjork.

I do second the notion, advanced earlier, that an appreciation of Studio Era movie musicals is something matured into. As a kid, I was dutifully taken to elephantine '60's musicals like THE SOUND OF MUSIC and DR. DOOLITTLE, and, while I certainly enjoyed them, when given a choice, as a moviegoer or tv viewer, I opted for other genres. I could tolerate an old musical on tv if, say, Abbott & Costello were in it. That remained true through my teens and into my twenties.
In the second half of my life, though, I now rush to revival houses when they show restored or archival prints of Astaire/Rogers or Freed unit classics, and eagerly pursue enhanced DVD releases of the cream of cinematic song-and-dance. Much of this is the realization that--the estimable HAIRSPRAY or MOULIN ROUGE notwithstanding--they simply don't make 'em like SWING TIME and FUNNY FACE any more.
If I want to win someone over to appreciating movie musicals, I tend to opt for those musicals that are more "movie," meaning those films where the director isn't content simply to capture a song or dance performance (admittedly not an inconsiderable pleasure when
the performer is, say, an Astaire) but goes whole hog to marry cinema literalism with florid style. Thus, I take him/her to SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and THE BANDWAGON, yes, but also to THE RED SHOES and FRENCH CAN CAN, the latter two hardly Hollywood but nonetheless the quintessence of movie musicals to me.
And next time someone tells you s/he doesn't like musicals, ask the skeptic if that includes
classic pix like KING KONG, CITIZEN KANE, and CASABLANCA, all of which are inconceivable without the music scores (and, in the case of CASABLANCA, the songs) so brilliantly wedded to their images. In "real" life, we don't have orchestral melodies swell up behind us at key moments, but happily accept music accentuating emotion in our "reel" lives. Accept that, and it's only a little ways to being comfortable with characters breaking into song and dance on screen...

I really have no good answer for this, especially considering I'm a woman... but from my experience with at least my father, I think a lot of it has to do with generalization rather than an adversity against the genre. My father says he hates musicals, but he associates them with the happy/bright coloured musical of the 50s more than anything. He thinks musical, he thinks Singin' in the Rain, Silk Stockings, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, etc. Without realising he hates nearly all films like that, musical or not. He does have exceptions though, and I've noted this about those who hate musicals "I Hate all musicals", they say, and then you bring up a name or two and they say.. oh yea, I forgot about that one, or oo I didn't even realise it was a musical etc. My dad's exception is Oliver!, I don't know what it is about it but it's the only musical that I've ever seen him and enjoy and actively choose to watch. Maybe because it defies what he associates as the musical genre, maybe he really likes Dickens... I don't frankly know.

I'm a hetero male and I generally don't like musicals. It's not that I don't like music or singing. It's just that the songs written for musicals generally don't appeal to me. It's not the kind of music that I like. Exceptions might be when the lyrics are funny or parody("Team America World Police", "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut"). Or when the music isn't of the typical musical variety. An example of this is last year's "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny". The actors broke out spontaneously into song just like in any other musical...but it rocked hard, and was also funny. I do admit that Bride and Prejudice was enjoyable...but that too had a good mix of comedy in with the drama, and the singing didn't dominate the film, as in the intolerable Dreamgirls. So to sum up my persective, musicals are good when it is a comedy or a "dramedy" that doesn't take itself too seriously.