The Music Man

Reaction to this production has been very emotional and on the musicals board I have had to endure the most incredible bashing because I actually liked it.

Some people have been critical of my opinion because I had the temerity to assume they were comparing it to the classic movie version, which I adore. They weren't thinking of that at all. Yeah, right.

This was a great production of this great musical. I have no reservations. I'm sorry if the Harold Hill was not the creepy crawly we are used to in Robert Preston or that Marion was not the sweet fickle thing we knew in Shirley Jones. It is of the nature of musicals and of stage plays that were not written as screenplays in general to be open to various interpretations in various producations. I've seen a dinner theatre version of West Side Story that was better than the movie.

I just don't get the criticism, most of which is based on our image of Broderick, who will turn 40 next month. He lacks neither the talent nor the presence nor the experience to pull this off, and boy did he pull it off!

At the risk of making a ludicrous juxtaposition, a musical as great as Music Man is like Shakespeare. It has to be defeated by wilfull misinterpretation rather than lifted into triumph by faithfulness to what it is all about, because just doing it right is all that is needed. The Disney production was not a misinterpretation, and it does it right.

I think some of the previous commenters have been perhaps a bit too harsh on this remake. I myself dearly loved the original "The Music Man" (1962) - it was a very important movie in my childhood. My folks bought the soundtrack LP, and I must have heard every song on that album about ten thousand times. (Same can be said for "Oklahoma", "My Fair Lady", "Mary Poppins", etc.) Later, in my youth, I took up the trumpet, and would later actually play several of the songs from "The Music Man" in various band settings.

So it was with keen reservations that I tuned into this 2003 version of the same movie. I really admire Matthew Broderick, yet I was somehow reluctant to allow "Ferris Bueller" the privilege of portraying Professor Harold Hill. Well, no sooner did he begin singing and dancing some of his required Music Man numbers than I was completely won over by his talent, not to mention the easy grace with which he tackled the role.

Suffice it to say that I stuck it out to the end of the film, wholeheartedly enjoying every minute of it (with one slight reservation: there were too damned many commercial interruptions.... oh, and one more thing, I would have loved to see this in a wide-screen format).

I also loved Kristin Chenowith as Marian Paroo. She looked absolutely fabulous and had a divine singing voice that really melted me to the core.

In summation, I'm glad that Disney produced this effort to put "The Music Man" back on the screen, because I think it is a story that today's viewers (especially young people) could certainly bear watching. That's mainly because I fear that the 1962 version (which may arguably be a better version) would unfortunately be overlooked by today's viewers. I mean, nowadays, who has ever heard of Robert Preston??

The 1962 motion picture version of THE MUSIC MAN was great. A perfect version of a fantastic musical. There was no reason to remake it, but remake it they did. The whole film was a total waste of time. Matthew Broderick was terrible. His reading of the part was so bland and boring. I didn't believe for a minute that Broderick's Harold Hill could con anyone. Only Kristin Chenoweth as Marion came off as the best performance in this production. I compare this stinker to the other horrible remake that Disney did with SOUTH PACIFIC. If Disney is going to remake films, remake the bad ones like MAME or THE WIZ. The only time Disney improved on a film was with ANNIE.

Well, I've read a lot of comments on this remake of Meredith Wilson's musical. My feeling is that no matter how good this movie may be, people would <i>still</i> find fault with it because it's not the "original," keeping in mind that the actual original would have been the 1957 stage version. Besides Preston, the only actor that I can find who made the transition from stage to screen was Pert Kelton as the Widow Paroo. Oh, how I wish I could have seen Robert Preston on Broadway. But I wasn't born yet.

The 1962 film version has had forty years to amass an audience of die-hard fans. Most of us probably don't make it to New York to see original Broadway productions, or even local dinner theater shows, so the movie version is most likely the only thing that a lot of people will see, whether it's at the local Cineplex, or on video/DVD. I've been fortunate enough to see a local dinner theater production of <i>The Music Man</i>. Like everyone else here, I made comparisons between the actor portraying Harold Hill and Robert Preston, and of course the local actor came up short. How could he <i>not</i>? I mean, after all, I've seen Preston's interpretation <i>countless</i> times thanks to my VCR. But after a while, I stopped making comparing and just had <i>fun</i> watching another interpretation of a great musical. Sure, Robert Preston remains the quintessential Harold Hill for me, but I can keep an open mind and watch someone else in the role. Besides, I can always watch the '62 version if I'm hankering for Preston, if ya don't mind my saying so...

Some people have bashed Broderick for his interpretation of Prof. Hill, citing his youth, subtle performance, singing ability, etc. Here are some things to keep in mind: At the time the movie was made, Robert Preston was only <u>four years older</u> than Matthew Broderick is now. Preston's vocal range was limited, so the songs were written with that in mind. He spoke a <i>lot</i> throughout his songs.

Although Preston originated the role of Professor Harold Hill on Broadway, Hollywood did not want him for the part in the film version, citing that he was too <i>old</i> to play opposite Shirley Jones. It was only after numerous other actors turned down the part, that Preston was allowed to reprise his performance.

Typically, actors on stage pump up their performances, in order to reach everyone in the theater, including people in the back row. Conversely, actors in film and television have to dial it down, because their audiences can easily see and hear what the actors are doing, and subtle is the key to a more believable performance as opposed to an "over the top" style.

Whereas Preston chose to reprise his fast-talking, mischief-making style from the stage, Broderick's con-man is more smooth, easy, and under the radar. Interestingly enough, Preston's version of Prof. Hill always came off as a conniving crook from the first time I laid eyes on him. There is no doubt that he has charisma and appeal but I wonder why anyone would buy <i>anything</i> from him. Broderick's Harold Hill, on the other hand, looks completely innocent and unassuming, which would make him perfect for selling someone swampland as viable real estate. And come on, would any of you <i>really</i> have accepted Broderick more readily if he chose the bombast and snappy patter? Or would you have just said "Preston wannabe?"

There was a lot I liked about the remake. I liked seeing more of the stage version make it to the screen. I liked the nontraditional casting for the citizens of River City (I know, it's highly unlikely that people of color would be interacting with caucasians in Iowa in 1912, but The Music Man was always an <b>idealized</b> version of life in a midwestern town) and for me, Kristin Chenoweth was 50 percent of the reason I wanted to watch this movie. In my opinion, she made a wonderful Marian Paroo.

I've always liked Debra Monk so it was fun to see her here as the Widow Paroo. My only criticism of Cameron Monaghan is that he didn't spit as much as Ronny Howard when he lisped through his lines (and maybe that's not a bad thing because I can't get Daffy Duck out of my mind as I write this) and he is so much the spitting image (pun intended) of Johnnie Whitaker, that I was expecting his surname to <i>be</i> Whitaker until I saw otherwise.

So who did I miss from the original? Well, I did miss Buddy Hackett as Marcellus Washburn, and although the school board members turned barbershop quartet were okay, I did miss the Buffalo Bills. But the guy I really missed was Harry Hickox. Who's Harry Hickox, you might ask? Why, none other than that traveling anvil salesman Charlie Cowell! Now <i>that</i> was a role that called for someone loud, bombastic, and over the top. Unfortunately, Patrick McKenna playing the vengeful fellow salesman just didn't do it for me (I wish he would have dropped his anvil case just once).

All in all, I'd say that this was a fine remake. I hope that it will attract the notice of younger audiences, so they can see that musicals aren't "lame." And maybe it'll get them interested in the film that was made over 40 years ago, starring Robert Preston and Shirley Jones.

But they'll probably prefer the Matthew Broderick version.

This re-make is absolutely great!!! The musical numbers are fabulously choreographed and the songs are catchy. The actors all turn in wonderful performances and the script is almost identical to the original version. Although this version is not QUITE as good as the original (let's face it - nobody does it like Robert Preston), it is still a well-done re-make. I would give it 8 stars out of 10. It rocks!!!