"Chicago:" The Decadence of Elitist Cinema

The Rational Argumentator ^ | February 16, 2003 | G. Stolyarov II

[valkyrieanne]

Mostly, I do not mind action-replete films so long as the action is PURPOSEFUL.

I am with you here. Not many directors are able to blend action with a coherent story line.

Regarding musicals on stage versus screen, one reason I think Chicago left a lot of people cold was the fundamental difference between stage and screen. As a couple of other writers pointed out, musicals really aren't plot-driven, and often the stories have only a tangential relation to the songs. They "work" better on stage because of the peculiar chemistry that develops between a live audience and the singers/dancers. Paradoxically, there's more physical distance (unless you're in the first few rows!) and yet more physical and sensory "rapport" in the live theater.

In movies, the actors have to do very different things to connect with the audience. They have to *emote,* and film closeups let the audience see far more than they ever would on stage. Since the film actor never sees, hears, or communicates in any sensory way with the audience, in essence the audience is watching the film actor perform in a "private" sense.

This doesn't come across well either in Chicago or Moulin Rouge. We expect a kind of intimate revelation, or some insight, but we don't get any, because Chicago & Moulin Rouge both are essentially filmed stage plays. The physical chemistry between actor and audience is absent, and the intimate "camera's eye view" we expect in film is gone too (because musical theater is so stylized.) Thus we see the worst of both worlds.

[Captain Beyond]

The movie seems to be a metaphorical interpretation of the lives of Bill, Hillary, and the FOB's.

[stylin19a]

Intersting..I called it entertainment, you called it art.
Are you the "excellence in art" hall monitor ? Please, tell me what is excellent, so I know it next time.
Miss the point ? I didn't miss the point. When I think I found the point, I just disagreed with it. Pseudo-physco-babble notwithstanding.

Was the point the decadance of what little plot line there was ? Go rent and watch Johnny Dangerously.
Was the point the decadance of the way the actors dressed or the suggestive dance ? Go rent the 10 Commandments and watch the orgy scene before Moses comes down from the mount.

I'm sure Solaris's nudity is more tastefully done than Chicago's non-nudity.</sarasm off>

[SerpentDove]

I thought $8.00 was a lot to pay to see only half a movie.

Oh...and why did I only see half a movie? I walked out when Buddhist/pacifist Richard Gere's shyster lawyer said that if Jesus Christ had paid him $5000, the outcome would have been different.

/blasphemy

Plus I thought the part I saw was very thin on talent and execution.

Three thumbs down.

[Xenalyte]

Oh, I love opera. I somehow can't consider it a form of musical, although I suppose by my definition, it is.

[ShadowDancer]

Life goes on. I still want to see it.

[Ichneumon]

Harrison, the district prosecutor devoted to truth and the law over public perception (which is implicit, although never overtly stated about his personality.

This sentence no verb.

[TSgt]

"Since I wish to remain anonymous, that's all you need to know about me. ;)"

For someone who wishes to remain anonymous you sure are judgmental. My wife and I are Christians and have our own convictions. I appreciate your concern for my spiritual life however I don't believe that this is the proper forum to relay your concern especially in such a judgmental way. I assume that you do not go to the movies?

[G. Stolyarov II]

Here is the full sentence (you had only posted half of it):

Harrison, the district prosecutor devoted to truth and the law over public perception (which is implicit, although never overtly stated about his personality. There would have been a worthy character for the film to dwell on, but he is afforded no more than two to three minutes of attention) is framed by Flynn, who fabricates Roxie’s diary and places it into the hands of Harrison’s witness to subsequently be exposed for its evident artificiality.

Yes, there is a sentence within a sentence, but this is acceptable due to the fact that it is contained in parentheses. Any further grammatical concerns?