credit to anyone who sings this song, it's not easy. It's it's not quite spoken word but speaking in time to music, plus memorising all those words, pretty much carrying 75% of the song before the chorus comes in
So I learned it for a production in a couple of weeks and you're absolutely right. Im a musician with a very good musical ear and I can honestly say this was the hardest song I've ever learned. It's absolutely chaotic but worth the effort!
I agree, I find Matthew takes on the more "lovable" appearance. I find it easier to understand why "Marrian" fell in love with him. I think he does do a good job in this movie. But I do prefer Preston a little more than Matthew
Matthew always seems miscast in a role then I always enjoy the hell outta him. He never imitates the person who originated the part. Just slyly makes it his own. But I agree. I prefer Preston.
There is just a different flow to what they say. I do like how in the original it looks more like Robert is making up what he's saying is off the top of his head, but it's hard to compare them because of the differences in sets available to the 1962 version and this, the 2003 version. In this version, Matt makes it look like more of a prepared "this is what I do in every town" kind of thing.
They way they filmed 'Trouble' is much more exciting to watch than the '62 version. They could have made it so much more of a rouser by switching from one location to another one while Hill spreads the word through the town - why didn't they think of that in 1962, instead of just filming him standing in one spot?
I disagree completely- I find the 1962 version so much more exciting and compelling to watch. Robert Preston owned the role of Harold Hill, and his rendition of Ya Got Trouble is a true showstopper! There are so many lyrics, yet film viewers will hang on to every word he speaks and sings as much as the residents of River City! Matthew Broderick literally sounds like he is laying down when he sings this, and it's so easy to miss many of the brilliant lyrics as he doesn't make any of them stand out. Any humorous lines aren't even funny here. I truly have a hard time believing he could have stopped anyone in the street with this, let alone con them. The scenery changes were necessary here, only because it would have been too boring otherwise!!
will always love the music man... it's impossible to follow robert preston & shirley jones, well i should say!!! thank you meredith wilson!!!! thanks for posting!!
@hype4sistas: The only problem is, this is set in the US in 1912, and there is no way that black people would've had equal status with whites as is portrayed here.
I always found it amusing how racialy integrated River City is in this version. Not that I'm against it, but the average Iowa town in 1912 had no African-Americans.
Actually, Iowa saw a large boom of African-Americans from the 1890's to the 1920's. Specifically in Des Moines and other "large" cities. The Great War also brought a lot of black families to Iowa, where they decided to stay.
I guess my problem with this performance is that I always felt that the Robert Preston performance was so perfect that whether it tries to imitate or tries to do it differently I still end up comparing it to the 1962 version. It's sort of like trying to repaint the Mona Lisa. No matter what you do you will always be compared to the original and for those who thought the original was perfect the new version will never measure up. I will have to try to watch this movie without comparing it.
Hypnotic. You believe they they believe and that makes you believe. I could have been a salesman like that but I couldn't find a way to use my power for good and not for evil. I was never interested in convincing people that I had what they needed. Especially when I didn't!
I will agree that in terms of camera angles this version has some interesting aspects and has less of the 'on stage' feel of the '62. In fact some of the group choreography is pretty good. But as far as staging, acting and musical performance, the 62 version has it hands down. Everyone's delivery of lines here is very stilted. The other problem they had was that in trying to avoid giving us the 'same thing' again they were often trying harder to be 'different' than to be 'good'.
I'm in this at the city theater! I love the 2003 version better than the original movie. I love how accurate the movies are to the original play. (you can literally read the script while watching the movie and there almost perfectly in sync)
While the original will always be memorable and wonderful in its own right, this version shouldn't be dissed. The cast is memorable, and talented. My only wish is that they would have given Victor Garber a larger role.
I don't hate Broderick's performance. He's bringing a different flavor to it than Preston did. I think both are equally valid in their own way. Preston was the loud-mouthed fast-talking used car salesman kinda con man. Broderick is the soft-spoken, charming "boy next door" kinda con man. you'd never expect someone so innocent looking to deceive you. In some cases (like the opening number Rock Island) I actually like the newer version better. Because they actually sing the whole thing. Something the Preston movie didn't do.
THANK YOU! I've only seen pieces of the original, but I've seen enough to analyze Preston's performance. I think that every role is open to interpretation to the actor; that's what makes each individual performance of the show so unique. That's how it works in theater. It's how you, the actor, perceive it. The directors will guide you, but they allow you to experiment with it and play it how you think it should be played (at least, that's how it is in my theater group). I completely agree, Ashley. I think there's fantastic quality in both portrayals. Wonderful show altogether, and both versions are equally as fun.
Finally someone gets it saying that each one is good in their own way. I'm sick of hearing people say "The Original is better" or "The remake is better" each other is good in their own way and Robert and Matthew both did an excellent job as Harold.
I think I saw this version first, LOVED IT, then got my parents to rent it, but it wasn't this one and I thought I was just crazy for thinking it was a good movie. I am so glad to know I was right. I love Matthew Broderick
Picture is OK by me. Soft pic like VHS or 16mm, which was the standard some years ago. :) The sound is GOOD! I listened to it in bed. It's a good, professional production.
My School did the music man this year. Sure there maybe no one like Robert preston but matthew brodrick was pretty good too he was good in his own way.
I like Preston's performance much better, but interestingly, I can see how his charisma and larger-than-life persona might have worked against him in a small town. Broderick has an earnestness that could actually make him a much more successful con man.
i know what you mean... but i am a little old fashioned.. i love originals. don't get me wrong though.. this was a great remake. but i love originals..
Actually, Iowa was a pretty African-American friendly state after the Civil War. Iowa didn't start becoming largely unfriendly to black people until the mid 20s after the KKK gained strength.
+Marina Doshkevich They're two different games. Billiards is about making specific shots on a table with no pockets, and is far more complicated. Its like comparing apples to oranges that are really difficult to play and understand. Also Billiards I believe is older, so its kind of like with video games and Movies, they're both very similar, but one came first, so there is backlash to the later becoming popular. So there you go.
I'm not saying that Iowa wasn't unfriendly, I'm just saying and Iowan town as small as River City in 1912 wouldn't have a black population or a very small one that probably lived on the outskirts and didn't "bother" the white part of town.
The problem with that though, is that the whole point is that he's too big and too charismatic for the town. That's a whole obstacle that was lost in the new one.
