"Chicago" is the first film in eleven or ten years thoroughly determined to be a full-blooded musical (the previous one was "Beauty and the Beast", or just possibly "Aladdin"), and, if there have been others, is almost certainly the best. Forget "Moulin Rouge". That film was terrified by the very idea of being a musical. It couldn't introduce a song without being seen to quote it rather than sing it, and would cut the song short, relieved to have it over and done with, at the soonest possible moment. But "Chicago" REALLY launches into its production numbers. Its songs are full-throated and lusty. (As far as the music goes, and the wit and sparkle of the lyrics, Kander and Ebb wrote far better songs for "Chicago" than for "Cabaret".) They've been staged with dazzling style.
Yes, a pity about the editing. But whereas the rapid-fire editing of "Moulin Rouge" as good as put a bullet through that film's heart, the rapid-fire - and it's not really "rapid-fire", it's just that there's too much of it - editing of "Chicago" does only minimal harm. Don't get me wrong: it's unquestionably a bad thing. The sudden shifts, bang on the downbeat, from the subtler colour schemes of the everyday Chicago to the block reds and misty blues of the stage Chicago, don't have nearly the impact they'd have if they weren't occurring every other minute; and Marshall's stark and striking shots are never held long enough to get the most out of them. A good thing the next image is never a disgrace on the previous one. A good thing that every other aspect of the production is so rock-solid to begin with.
It's absurd that Martin Walsh won an Oscar for such overdone to-ing an fro-ing. Some critics (Roger Ebert is one) suggest that the award was justfied on the grounds that Walsh's editing skillfully hides the defects of inferior performers, but I don't buy this. I'm convinced, for instance, that Catherine Zeta-Jones is NOT an inferior performer, that she doesn't NEED patchwork-quilt editing in order to look good; if she does, then Walsh has indeed performed a miracle, but not one he should be congratulated for in polite society. As for Richard Gere, I again don't see the need for him to appear to be better than he is. There's nothing wrong with his voice and he doesn't have to dance much HIMSELF. He's the kind who gets other people to dance for him. In the song "Razzle Dazzle 'Em" he actually sings as much: "As long as you keep 'em way off balance, How can they spot you got no talents?" Billy Flynn OUGHT to be a mediocre song-and-dance artist, who relies on glitter, lights and inspired staging - but certainly NOT on deceptive editing. In that song we need to see what's going on. We also need the suggestion that Flynn fools people who on some level willingly allow themselves to be fooled. In fact, we do see all this anyway, which is why the overly frenetic editing fails to do any real damage.
The story of "Chicago" is at once deeply moral and deliciously amoral. The two go together. Amorality depends for its zest on our sense of the pull of true morality: our sense that our heroes and heroines really do do the wrong thing now and then, and that no false excuses are being made on their behalf.
Yes, a pity about the editing. But whereas the rapid-fire editing of "Moulin Rouge" as good as put a bullet through that film's heart, the rapid-fire - and it's not really "rapid-fire", it's just that there's too much of it - editing of "Chicago" does only minimal harm. Don't get me wrong: it's unquestionably a bad thing. The sudden shifts, bang on the downbeat, from the subtler colour schemes of the everyday Chicago to the block reds and misty blues of the stage Chicago, don't have nearly the impact they'd have if they weren't occurring every other minute; and Marshall's stark and striking shots are never held long enough to get the most out of them. A good thing the next image is never a disgrace on the previous one. A good thing that every other aspect of the production is so rock-solid to begin with.
It's absurd that Martin Walsh won an Oscar for such overdone to-ing an fro-ing. Some critics (Roger Ebert is one) suggest that the award was justfied on the grounds that Walsh's editing skillfully hides the defects of inferior performers, but I don't buy this. I'm convinced, for instance, that Catherine Zeta-Jones is NOT an inferior performer, that she doesn't NEED patchwork-quilt editing in order to look good; if she does, then Walsh has indeed performed a miracle, but not one he should be congratulated for in polite society. As for Richard Gere, I again don't see the need for him to appear to be better than he is. There's nothing wrong with his voice and he doesn't have to dance much HIMSELF. He's the kind who gets other people to dance for him. In the song "Razzle Dazzle 'Em" he actually sings as much: "As long as you keep 'em way off balance, How can they spot you got no talents?" Billy Flynn OUGHT to be a mediocre song-and-dance artist, who relies on glitter, lights and inspired staging - but certainly NOT on deceptive editing. In that song we need to see what's going on. We also need the suggestion that Flynn fools people who on some level willingly allow themselves to be fooled. In fact, we do see all this anyway, which is why the overly frenetic editing fails to do any real damage.
The story of "Chicago" is at once deeply moral and deliciously amoral. The two go together. Amorality depends for its zest on our sense of the pull of true morality: our sense that our heroes and heroines really do do the wrong thing now and then, and that no false excuses are being made on their behalf.