[G. Stolyarov II]

I enjoy films replete with both action and philosophical content, as they best synthesize empirical observation with rational thought. Some of my favorites are the "Star Wars" series, "Gladiator", the "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings" series, directed by men whose creativity deserves to be applauded, Lucas and Spielberg. Of older films I prefer the even more contemplative sort. Take, for example, the 1949 production of "The Fountainhead". It was an excellent companion to the book itself. Mostly, I do not mind action-replete films so long as the action is PURPOSEFUL. I think one of the most vivid illustrations of purposeful action is the Indiana Jones series, which places the main character in conflicts against history's great evils, Nazism, sacrificial polytheism (in "Temple of Doom"), but also in the deciding position for ethical dillemas (such as, whether to assist a village, whether to pursue the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant). "Indiana Jones" is a profoundly realistic film in the metaphysical sense, for the choices of the character ultimately determine the outcome of the plot.

[valkyrieanne]

Mostly, I do not mind action-replete films so long as the action is PURPOSEFUL.

I am with you here. Not many directors are able to blend action with a coherent story line.

Regarding musicals on stage versus screen, one reason I think Chicago left a lot of people cold was the fundamental difference between stage and screen. As a couple of other writers pointed out, musicals really aren't plot-driven, and often the stories have only a tangential relation to the songs. They "work" better on stage because of the peculiar chemistry that develops between a live audience and the singers/dancers. Paradoxically, there's more physical distance (unless you're in the first few rows!) and yet more physical and sensory "rapport" in the live theater.

In movies, the actors have to do very different things to connect with the audience. They have to *emote,* and film closeups let the audience see far more than they ever would on stage. Since the film actor never sees, hears, or communicates in any sensory way with the audience, in essence the audience is watching the film actor perform in a "private" sense.

This doesn't come across well either in Chicago or Moulin Rouge. We expect a kind of intimate revelation, or some insight, but we don't get any, because Chicago & Moulin Rouge both are essentially filmed stage plays. The physical chemistry between actor and audience is absent, and the intimate "camera's eye view" we expect in film is gone too (because musical theater is so stylized.) Thus we see the worst of both worlds.