The Best of Pictures: Chicago (2002), by Josh Long

CHICAGO (2002)
Directed by: Rob Marshall
Written by: Bill Condon
Starring: Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Richard Gere, John C. Reilly

The American musical is an institution. Truth be told, the genre of musical theatre sort of started in the United States; many consider Showboat the first true “musical” from way back in 1927. Since then the genre has seen many major changes and shifts, and has seen film adaptations ever since the beginning 1. And Chicago certainly has a feeling of Americana, even harking back to that era when musicals first appeared on the scene.

The film and the 1975 musical on which it’s based, are saturated with the glitz and glamour of the roaring twenties. The main character, Roxie, begins an affair with a shyster nightclub man hoping he can get her a gig performing on stage. When she finds out that he’s only using her, she shoots and kills him. Most of the musical takes place with Roxie on death row, still obsessed with her idea of fame.

That’s probably the most interesting theme of the movie. Roxie wants to be a vaudeville star – fellow inmate Velma (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones) was a vaudeville performer before she killed her adulterous husband. But even in jail, the most important thing to them is their career as stars. Roxie becomes a press sensation, steals limelight from Velma, and they go back and forth trying to outdo each other in attention. Instead of relying on their talent, they rely on their notoriety, bolstered by backstabbing tactics. But the question about the nature of fame remains. If one just wants to be famous, why not just go out and kill someone? Which also places some blame on the press – why should murderers and thieves be treated the same as celebrities? Why should celebrities be treated differently in the first place?

While it brings up a lot of interesting questions, the film (and I can only assume the musical) doesn’t seem to commit much one way or the other. Roxie and Velma are clearly bad people, but is the audience meant to glorify them? I feel like the writers’ goal is for us to follow them as celebrities, and think of them that way, before we realize what we’re doing, and that we’ve fallen into the same trap as the movie’s public. I like that answer, but the ending still left me with a strange feeling that justice hadn’t been done. A movie like The Godfather puts you on the side with the criminals; you sympathize with them throughout, forgetting even that they are criminals. Chicago gives us characters who “razzle dazzle” us with their stories, but ultimately we feel like they need to get their just desserts. Something at the end of the film feels somehow wrong, or hollow 2. Maybe that’s a comment on society, or maybe that’s saying that whatever entertains us is worth being entertained by.

There’s another moral question implicit in the film. Though it may be a tongue-in-cheek way of ridiculing the way Americans give celebrity status to criminals, it does little to recognize the violence for what it really is 3. The song “Cell Block Tango” is a favorite with most fans of the musical, but the number absolutely glorifies and justifies murders without showing a negative side beyond the consequences. Even if the film is criticizing society for celebrit-izing criminals, it becomes its own culprit in its attitude towards violence.

Oscar seems to have a sort of on-off relationship with musicals. There are dry spells and there are frantic musical-saturated decades 4. Chicago itself was the first musical to win Best Picture after thirty-four years. Maybe it’s the cultural mentality, and filmmakers have to test the waters for a time when audiences are willing to accept a movie musical. The “musical” was designed for stage, and lots of the spectacle that can be gained from the theatre is lost in the movies. Especially nowadays, when it’s hard to wow viewers even with huge-scale special effects. Complicated dance numbers, bright lights and fantastic sets don’t have the same energy on screen as they do in person.

However, bringing this story to screen is one of the things that director Rob Marshall does right. He uses the medium of film to his advantage, transitioning each musical number from the reality of the film to an imaginary vaudeville stage. In essence, each number becomes a vaudeville performance in the character’s own mind. The number that still sticks out to me the most is “Mr. Cellophane.” 5 This gives the film that 20s vaudeville touch and gives the characters a more feasible motivation – it doesn’t look like they just burst into song on the sidewalk. This is a very effective technique – that being said, the film borrows a lot from Cabaret (1972). Bob Fosse used essentially the same techniques in his film, and one could argue that though newer and flashier, Chicago steals all of its devices.

Though it didn’t have the pathos of The Pianist, or the massive scale of Gangs of New York, I can understand the Academy’s pick for Best Picture of 2002. Oscar had snubbed musicals for a long time, a wound made more memorable with Moulin Rouge’s 2001 loss to A Beautiful Mind 6. And even though I’m not in general a fan of musicals, I was able to enjoy and get something out of Chicago.

1 The first sound film to win an Oscar was a musical – Broadway Melody, 1928.

2 Much like the end of Natural Born Killers. Both of these movies left me feeling like wrong had prevailed, but in a celebratory way, which made me enjoy them less.

3 This is something that, for all its flaws, Natural Born Killers does right. Even though praise and glory are heaped on Mickey and Mallory Knox, their murders are shown as grisly, gruesome, and horrible. You could probably study a very interesting comparison and contrast between these two films.

4 In the sixties, the Academy gave Best Picture to four musicals, West Side Story (1961), My Fair Lady (1964), The Sound of Music (1965), and Oliver! (1968).

5 But maybe that’s just because it was John C. Reilly – he had a great year in 2002, with a role in three films nominated for Best Picture, Chicago, Gangs of New York, and The Hours.

6 I’m fine with that, because I’m of the opinion that Moulin Rouge is not a good movie, but that’s another blog.