La La Land

It's interesting, how the passage of time can change one's perspective.  If you know me, you know how obsessed I am with music.  When I was young, my preferences were for music that was contemporary.

As I matured, I kept up with new music as it came along; The Beatles, Dylan, and Hendrix were joined by Yes, U2, Dave Matthews ... Katy Perry?  Yeah, even her.  At the same time, I came to appreciate music that came before my time, from early rock, jazz, classical and so forth.

One of the things I learned to appreciate was the Hollywood musical.  I came to a point, probably while listening to something by Yes or ELP, that I was complaining because there were no more Mozarts or Beethovens in the world.  Then, I saw this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpCLxnVpgbo

I couldn't find a video of the full "Broadway Melody" from Singing In the Rain, but it proved that there were, indeed, people in the world who were writing long-form daring things.  And they didn't stop in 1952.  Since then, I've become a fan of the Hollywood musical.  Turner Classic Movies is one of the channels I am happy to binge-watch.  As such, and having become something of a beginning student of the genre, I think the best musical of the last 50 years is ...

... High School Musical.

Wait a minute, what?  Looking up above ... yeah, the title of a recent musical. We DVR'd it the last time we had a free HBO weekend.  I finally got around to watching it, and ... it ain't bad.  I've also seen Chicago, and Rent.  Not bad.  Haven't seen Mama Mia yet, and have been warned away from it.  Almost turned off La La Land a few times, but the story sucked me in.  In a lot of ways, it resembles a classic musical.  In a lot of ways.

So I'm watching, and a couple times Ryan Gosling would do a move that shows how hard he was willing to work.  Less about his skill as a dancer, more about his work ethic.  And during the movie, he and Emma Stone were surrounded by people who could have danced them both into the ground.  Those people struggle along, take whatever gigs they can get, do a lot of commercials and music videos, and actually made it through a cattle call for a big-budget musical.  It earned awards, even.

And that's the problem.  Back in the day, Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Cyd Charisse, Debbie Reynolds, Donald O'Connor, would pull off moves and the side dancers would watch in awe.  Now, they watch movie stars and actors to be on hand if they need help figuring out how to do what the choreographer has asked of them.  Yeah, Emma, Ryan, Richard Gere, they all did serviceable jobs of their steps and their singing.  But it's clear how good they are at acting; even to the point that they can act like singers and dancers.

BITD (back in the day) a musical would feature singers and dancers.  If there was enough of a story, they would have an actor/singer be the co-lead, and the dancer would play the happy-go-lucky friend.  Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire in Holiday Inn.  Really, the only dancers that could regularly get away with being the star were Astaire and Kelly.  But the first movie that Astaire and Ginger Rogers were in, they were in supporting roles.  (Flying Down To Rio, 1933.)

The simple fact is that the market for movie musicals is very limited.  Chicago and the rest have been attempts to bring them back to prominence, with limited success.  As you might suspect, I think they're doing it wrong.  High School Musical, a production of the Disney Channel, proves that there is a sizeable audience for a good musical, well written, acted, sung and danced.  Nobody had really heard of Zac Efron or Vanessa Hudgens before.

The Disney Channel wisely turned it into a franchise with several spin-offs for its supporting cast.  To me, the break-out star of the franchise was Corbin Bleu.  He played Zac Efron's best buddy in the original and the 2 (3?) follow-ups.  He also got a movie of his own (Jump In!).  He's an amazing dancer, and has gone on to some success as an actor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T502xRlrkIM

Personally, I think that the big studios could learn a lesson from the heyday of the record industry.  BITD, the '60's through the '90's, every Beatles, Michael Jackson, U2, etc. paid for a hundred Pat Metheny Group, Captain Beyond, Steve Hillage, etc.  Their largess, some of it at least, got invested in art projects that never made them a dime.

These days, the studios or production companies rely on a handful of big blockbusters for their primary income.  This is nothing new, but again, learn from the record business.  BITD, the big money recording acts paid for the small ones, but now it's the small ones that are keeping the doors open and the lights on.  For instance, Yes hasn't been on the charts in a couple decades, but most of their stuff is still in print and still sells in profitable numbers.

A big studio or production company can take some of the hundreds of millions they make and use it to make some low-budget musicals, featuring good music, sung and danced to by real talents that no one would have heard of otherwise.  These movies may, or may not, make a profit upon initial release, but you'd have them in the catalog for later release.

At the same time, it would give talents like Corbin Bleu the freedom to perfect and advance their craft.  Ten years after High School Musical, he could be putting out his 8th or 9th musical.  By then, he'd be where Gene Kelly was by the time of Singing In the Rain. His movies wouldn't make the money that La La Land probably did, but ten years from now they would be cult classics; the growth of a major talent.  La La Land will be something that Emma Stone chuckles her way past in an interview.

And if Captain Cast-Iron Ass-Kicker IV flops, they'll have something to fall back on to help pay for #5.  That's my $0.02 for today.  And, a final tidbit to enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTQEC65hyg