 |
|
Photo courtesy of Miramax Films
|
Catherine Zeta Jones is a star in Golden Globe winner "Chicago." The film is currently in theaters.
|
|
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Thursday January 23, 2003
Utz: The story goes like this: It's the rip-roaring '20s in Chicago, the city of sex, jazz and murderous women. Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is the sexy jazz singer who "plugs" her husband and sister and gets thrown in the can. Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) aspires to be a star with an act like Velma's and when, after a spat with her mean lover, she lands herself in the same place, she finds that being famous may just be easier when you're a killer. And then there's the infamous attorney Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), who puts on the best show in town trying to get the girls out of jail. Life is a circus, he explains. It's all about show business, so razzle-dazzle the audience and you'll win.
Betancourt: Right. So is it good?
 |
|
Lindsay Utz
Go Wild columnist
|
|
Utz: Yes, especially if you have serious Attention Deficit Disorder. Leave your Adderall at home. There's not one dull moment in this sweaty, pumping, sexy show. "Chicago" onscreen is just as electrifying as it was on stage. And what we miss by not seeing it live in the theater is made up for in the aggressive camera work that brings us right into the center of the show, right up onstage with the cast, swept away by one killer musical number after the next.
 |
|
Mark Betancourt
Go Wild columnist
|
|
Betancourt: Well, bring the Adderall just in case. The music isn't actually that good to begin with, but the numbers are pretty killer. The problem is, they're better on stage. Now I understand it isn't fair to compare the film to the stage production ÷ but then again, why not? It is a stage production, after all. The whole idea is to put together this amazing show of talent in the most clever, entertaining way possible in real time right in front of a live audience. "Chicago," while it isn't the deepest musical of them all, has a lot of those elaborate, ingenious numbers that make live shows so unbelievably cool. So when the movie takes them and reproduces them on a stage rather than on location somewhere, you have to wonder: Why would you make a movie of it in the first place?
Utz: You're out of your mind. The music in "Chicago" is excellent, one jazzy musical sensation after the next. Every single song is stunning, whether it's a flashy, drunken number ö "All that Jazz" ö a feisty femme fatale routine ö "The Cellblock Tango" ö or even a sad bluesy song like "Mr. Cellophane." The music makes me want to throw on fishnet stockings, throw back some gin, murder my husband and then sing and dance about it.
Betancourt: That's not music, it's an excuse to do what you were going to do anyway. Besides, the music is what it is; we're reviewing the movie version here. And really, it seems like just an elaborate film document of a stage production most of the time. There are a few cool touches, though. In several parts, the film cuts between a "real" scene taking place in the story and a musical number that kind of represents what's going on. This is cool, but it's cheating ÷ if you do the same thing on stage without camera tricks it's way cooler. Having a conversation happening on one side of the stage while a crazy song and dance thing is going on under different lighting on the other side is much more impressive. Think of movie musicals like "West Side Story"; something about the film-ness of it made it what it was ö it wasn't just a bunch of stage numbers shot by a camera. That's not to say that "Chicago" is quite that dull, but it could be more innovative in the cinema department.
Utz: Cinema department? I think Rob Marshall did a great job of smoothly intertwining song and story. It's like you're saying the book is better. Yeah, we know the book is always better. And of course, the live thing is always better, but the movie is successful in many ways. For one, it captures that fast beat and mean thrill of the live show. Also, the casting is pretty good, my favorites being Zeta-Jones as the ruthless and cold-hearted Velma and John C. Reilly as Roxy's lovably naive husband. But the best thing about this film is that it's a film. And well, while many people don't go to theater, everybody goes to the movies; now more people who may or may not have heard of "Chicago" get to go see one of the coolest musicals around. This may also be a sad thing, though, in that many will only know "Chicago" as the movie and not the Broadway production. But you know, oh well, that's just the way it goes, I guess. I wonder what's up next in the revival of the movie musical that I'm sure this film will spur.
Betancourt: I'd rather be able to afford to see stuff like "Chicago" at Centennial Hall, but like floor seats at McKale, us students don't have a chance at those tickets. Luckily, the film industry will always provide a relatively cheap, chewable way to experience pretty much anything.
Utz: But it tastes so good.
