About Time

NOTHING beats the sheer spectacle of a live theatrical performance.  However, when those of us do not live within reasonable driving distance to take in a professional show less than occasionally and scraping the $100+ for a single ticket… WELL…. Fifty years ago or so many of the bigger shows would be given the big screen treatment at “Affordable prices.”  However, the popularity of the movie musical has all but gone by the wayside.  There is the occasional offering… Chicago (good), Evita (ok, I suppose), and The Phantom of the Opera (not so ok).

It was announced today that a cinematic treatment of Schoenberg and Boublil’s Les Miserables (really, is there any other?) is finally in the works.  “In the works” insofar as the announcement that Hugh Jackman is attached to the project and a screenplay is being written. Wolverine as the “pup” Gavroche… I can see it now… with an Australian accent.   Of course, I have heard that the musical has been in development for ten years or more and we got nothing more than a Liam Neeson starring flick that “is not the musical” and I have not seen. So, we will see if this comes to fruition.

Until then, the musical itself is coming to the area in November!

7 thoughts on “About Time”

  1. Haha, D! Actually casting has not been set but I don’t think my suggestion would go over well, either 😉

  2. “NOTHING beats the sheer spectacle of a live theatre performance”
    Hmm, I’ll have to politely strongly disagree on that one – I feel quite the opposite. The one professional theatre experience I did really enjoy was Joseph with Donny Osmond in Chicago in the 90s – being in front row center didn’t hurt. But I’ve seen some real stinkers (Grease, Camelot, Les Mis, Phantom…), and I can’t see myself getting excited about spending money on something like this as an adult. Different strokes for different folks; variety is the spice of life and all that.
    A piece of theatre related news I did hear the other day: I guess Michael Jackson was interested in being the Phantom? That might have been a sight to see, but alas, no one will ever know what it would have been like.

  3. Hmm… MJ as the Phantom…. would have been different. Did you know that Robert Guillaume (If you remember “Benson”) played the role.

    Grease… I’ll have to remember to ask about that one. I had an experience being in a CT production that had one sparkling result which continues today! Heard about the rest of them.

  4. I can’t imagine the Phantom being in the octave I’m used to hearing MJ sing.
    I thought you meant Robert Goulet (whom I saw in Camelot) at first, but nope, I’ve never seen Benson 🙂

  5. Just read an article on MJ and his desire to play the Phantom in a movie. Apparently, he had visited the Broadway and London productions on numerous occasions and talked to Sir Andrew more than once. As early as ’89, Lloyd Webber seriously considered the idea but decided against it at that point because he was unsure of the impact a movie would do to the stage version’s popularity…. Especially that early in the show’s run.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.