Film The death of the musical

What is it that has made musicals so largely unappealing in the Western movie landscape nowadays? I specify Western, as by all means, musicals are the bread and butter of Bollywood and have not faltered there, to my knowledge. But in the land of Hollywood, the musical genre is something that, when we see one nowadays, generates its hype based on how rare it is to see a contribution to the genre, moreso than the movie itself. Generally, if they are not Disney feature films, they are considered artsy throwbacks to the days of Hollywood past and often are made solely to court Oscar voters. I think Chicago was the last big musical before La La Land to have the critical and commercial appeal that La La Land apparently does, and that was 15 years ago.

I have a couple of thoughts/opinions, but I'm interested in what you guys have to say first.

Personally, I never really liked musicals because they're too formulaic. I can often forgive that in the plot/story, but the music itself can't be that way or I'll just think to myself "I've heard this before" and then it's really going to need a good story to keep me interested.

From what I can see the main appeal of a musical is the music, with the story and all the rest being secondary, so if the music isn't appealing then the musical won't get any notice. Music changes and adapts and unless you are a musical buff you probably have different tastes in music from most people who went to see Singin' in the Rain when it was first released. I think that's why something like Hamilton is doing so well. It's adapted for a modern audience.

But overall I think musicals are too long, too niche. They're like the dreaded "concept album" - over an hour long, similar songs throughout, following one story/theme. Do people have the patience for that? Some will, sure, but it's gotta be something that appeals to their particular tastes.

I think, and I'm no expert, that back when musicals were more popular, Hollywood in general was more geared towards films that behaved like plays -- it wasn't until, like, the early 60s with the French New Wave that film In General was moving away from that (and even that isn't Hollywood), even though it was still crafting a language of its own apart from theatre leading up to that. the two were a lot more intertwined when musicals were prominent, so it follows that something more play-like or Broadway-like was popular.

I've not seen La La Land. I'm kinda talking out of my ass here. Oops.

honestly as us as a generation moves away from plays/musicals in non-film form, so will films aimed to emulate that experience. la la land, for me, was kind of a "yo remember when this was cool? jazz and shit? well watch THIS". somewhat of a look back in pop culture, meaning we've evolved past that genre.

maccrash said:

it wasn't until, like, the early 60s with the French New Wave that film In General was moving away from that

I've not seen La La Land. I'm kinda talking out of my ass here. Oops.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen it either - may end up relenting and downloading one of those DVDScr like I did for Arrival (Which is amazing). But yeah, as you kinda touch upon there musicals declined from the early 60s onwards with the "collapse" of the traditional studio model of "old hollywood" (as tributed in Hail, Caesar! last year). Just like Westerns were far less common by the late 70s, you got far less action movies with cheesy one-liners in the 2000s than the 80s, and presumably superhero movies will eventually become less common again. It may yet turn out that it's all cyclical and they'll come back into fashion, or something else will become the dominant form. Who knows?

maccrash said:

I think, and I'm no expert, that back when musicals were more popular, Hollywood in general was more geared towards films that behaved like plays -- it wasn't until, like, the early 60s with the French New Wave that film In General was moving away from that (and even that isn't Hollywood), even though it was still crafting a language of its own apart from theatre leading up to that. the two were a lot more intertwined when musicals were prominent, so it follows that something more play-like or Broadway-like was popular.

Click to expand...

You're talking about the relatively brief period between the collapse of the studio system in the early '60s and the consolidation of studio power after 1981, the time where directors had more control over their own projects than any time in film history before and perhaps not again. You're right when you mention French New Wave - people like Cimino and Coppola and de Palma saw the freedom created by Godard, Truffart and their compatriots and with the weakness of the studios at the time, it allowed for Hollywood directors to push for what they wanted, when they wanted, etc. Ergo - darker, edgier stuff.

Musicals were (and predominantly still are) seen as tacky, star system fare. The Sound of Music is really the last 'big' studio system musical, possibly because it was the last Rodgers & Hammerstein musical at that. Plus Julie Andrews was/is simply an incomparable darling. After The Sound of Music, Hollywood's intelligentsia rarely looked at musicals with a positive eye. It became all about the nitty gritty and The Deer Hunter and all that. That being said, All That Jazz is an interesting example of a '70s director-driven musical, stereotypes and all. It's all about deconstructing the genre while simultaneously serving as a love letter to the process of creating Edgy Art. It really is fantastic. It's a shame that more musicals of the time weren't adapted to similar extents, you might see a longer-lasting critical appreciation of the genre that isn't prefaced by nostalgia. The only musical around in a similar vein that I can think of is Victor/Victoria, and that was in 1981, right around the collapse of the era of directors.

I've not seen La La Land. I'm kinda talking out of my ass here. Oops.

Click to expand...

it's nothing to write home about