A new 21st century version of "Singing in the rain?" – An almost impossible cinematic effort

Last night, I was watching, for the tenth time, the award-winning musical, “Singin’ in the Rain,” starring the late Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor, and octogenarian Debbie Reynolds. The 1952 film was nominated for 2 Oscars, won the 1953 Golden Globe, and 3 other major awards. In fact, I think it should have won multiple Oscars in 1953 for its immaculate, if not perfect, choreography for dance, comedy, and drama. I mean, compared to the talent and precision displayed over a decade later by Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer, in the 1965 musical “The Sound of Music,” which I think was considerably less than that displayed by Kelly, Reynolds, and O’Connor. , “Singing in the Rain” should have won at least 2 Oscars. The two film musicals were, of course, different in style, length, and the talents of the actors; but one cannot fail to notice the most significant difference between the two productions. It was the completely perfect combined effect of dancing, singing, and comedic and dramatic acting, which was achieved by the dancers, actors, and studio staff of “Singing in the Rain,” while there were quite a few “unmentioned” choreographic mistakes. in “The Sound of Music”. The film professionals who created “Singing in the Rain” worked together tirelessly to make a musical production like no other. Furthermore, one can count on one hand the number of American musicals produced since 1952 with the same natural and impeccable dancing, singing and acting of the lead actors. So the question lingers and demands an answer as to why “Singin’ in the Rain” hasn’t been remade in a modern setting, with different actors, like so many other remakes of classic movies.

You can use all the fancy 21st century computing devices and advanced sound equipment money can buy to try to synthetically reproduce the genuine dancing, singing, and acting of Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, and Donald O’Connor; but one indisputable fact remains ultimately true. It would be an expensive but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to make artificial movies. It is impossible to persuasively simulate natural human talent with computers. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that three versatile entertainers, such as Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, and Donald O’Connor, could be found among all the accomplished dancers and singers in today’s 21st century world, to duplicate what those three unique individuals did. And that’s a crying shame. Those three stars could act, sing and dance in a wonderful way, something that no current stage or film star can remotely do today. Take Robin Williams for example. He’s a wonderful actor and comedian, but he can’t dance or sing like Gene Kelly or Donald O’Connor. Matt Damon, Tim Robbins, Tom Hanks, Ben Affleck, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Meg Ryan, Russell Crowe, Richard Gere and Julia Roberts, and many other Oscar winners from the turn of the 20th century, are all really great actors and have made their millions. But none of them can come close to combining acting, singing, and dancing the way the cast of “Singin’ in the Rain” did so flawlessly. Some film producers think that these better-skilled actors and actresses could persuade stage and television audiences that they really do have that talent, which they don’t, through the use of computer enhancements. I do not think. The use of such technical falsehood would be very obvious.

There is also another reason why I believe a genuine remake of “Singin’ in the Rain” has not been produced. People today simply don’t like to work as hard as actors and actresses did in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s to produce natural artistic excellence. Now they are eager to settle for less to get their paychecks. For example, in September 1990, when he was residing in Carlsbad, California, one night he was discussing singing talent with Madonna’s sound manager, who was returning to Los Angeles from a concert at the San Diego Convention Center. She had stopped for a snack at Carlsbad 7-Eleven, where I was the late-night store manager. The guy seemed completely sober as he spoke very candidly about Madonna and her talent. “It’s all in the sound equipment,” he said. “Madonna doesn’t have a lot of singing talent, but she has a great sound manager and the best equipment.” He then he laughed and added. “With the right computer sound equipment, any normal person’s singing voice can sound professional. This is how Sissy Spacek sounded as Loretta Lynn in ‘Coal Miner’s Daughter.’ The reason I remember her words verbatim is because the I wrote right away. Also, the dramatic plot of “Singing in the Rain” is about what happens when an actress with no singing talent is made to look and sound like she has that ability, at the expense of a naturally talented singer. I think the moral of the movie was, simply, that actresses and actors without certain talents should not falsely appear to the public that they had such talents.Perhaps, however, the film industry in Tinsel Town was unfortunately moving in that sense, a less desirable direction when the 1953 Oscars were handed out. Perhaps that is why that year a perfect musical was not given its due.

I was born in 1951 and saw “Singing in the Rain” for the first time in 1969. That was partly because my parents weren’t movie buffs at all; and, also, partly because of my own work priorities during my adolescence. I read my first review of the musical shortly after seeing it, and I remember how the cast had continuously practiced, day and night, to achieve choreographic perfection, to the point of having blistered and bleeding feet. Eighteen years after the musical’s premiere, I assumed that the hard work associated with American achievements in dancing, singing, and acting required for award-winning musicals was an indelible standard. You know, in association with the old American adage, “what’s difficult we do right away; what’s impossible just takes a little longer.” Well, I don’t want to believe that there aren’t more multi-talented actors and actresses who can sing, dance, and act superbly like Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, and Donald O’Connor. What’s more, I don’t want to believe that great dancers, singers, and actors can only appear today as products of institutions like Julliard, or as certified prodigies. Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds and Donald O’Connor were not prodigies. They were normal human beings who became great by continually working to improve and hone their artistic talents. And they did it so perfectly on “Singing in the Rain.”