Messy and plodding theatre adaptation

Rating: 5/10 (20 July 2008)

Musical theatre and theater have a symbiotic relationship since the dawn of sound. Movies have been adapted for theatre and staged across the nation and across the world. On the flipside, Hollywood has been taking inspiration for just as long, as seemingly every Broadway success had received a permanent place on the screen.
"Mamma Mia!" is a member of the latter club, being a famous, successful play based upon the songs of disco-transcenders ABBA for years before getting the big-budget, big-setting, big-star permanence here in 2008. But what works on the stage, where there is live action, audience participation, interactive vibes (and most importantly, an intermission), doesn't necessary work on the silver screen. It's closest cinematic relative would be last year's luscious, hate-it-or-love-it Julie Taymor concoction, but ABBA isn't the Beatles, and "Mamma Mia!" sure as hell ain't "Across the Universe".
Where that film also had a flimsy excuse for a plot on which to hang a bunch of famous songs, it succeeded thanks to an absolutely breathtaking visual sensibility, as every scene was a feast for the eyes as well as the ears, and if you didn't necessarily come to care for the characters, it was probably for the best as you almost didn't have time, and another layer may have been sensory overlord. Well, you don't have to worry about that in "Mamma Mia!", as the film's visuals are blaaand. The closest director Phyllida Lloyd comes is some crane shots and a few scenes in slow-motion.
The film, as stated, a flimsy excuse to sing some songs, is as basic sitcom hijinks plot, a girl is getting married, and wants her long-lost father to come. She finds her mom's diary, and finds that she has three possible fathers, so she secretly invites them all. Hilarity ensues.
Unfortunately, it appears that that was as far as they got. Its' Greek setting is pretty, but it does very little, and resembles nothing more than a play...set outside. The sea may be everpresent in the background, but it never feels OPEN, you never smell the air, feel the surf, the sort of things a film is supposed to make you feel. The lighting is garish and looks like the sort of lights you would see in a high school auditorium, lame fills just randomly placed. But the most egregious and downright baffling problem, considering the fact that IT'S BASED ON A SUCCESSFUL PLAY, is the choreography, which is simplistic and unimaginative that it looked like something my podunk college choreographer might have devised...on short notice. A couple steps to the left and right, a couple waves of the arms, and you're done. My grandmother would probably be able to not only memorize but perform this choreography in a matter of hours, and she just had both knees replaced.
Speaking of that, another problem. The entire enterprise looks ragged and ugly, and while perhaps they thought that casting old ladies and not letting anyone wear makeup would be sort of endearing or charming or something, but instead, it just comes off like an absence of effort, like they all just called each other up on a Thursday and said "Hey, wanna do a movie?" and had the reel in the can by Sunday morning. The fact that the film seems to have no idea about its timeframe only strengthens this suspicion. The three men are referred to and shown as a hippie, a '70s rocker and a punk "headbanger", and are said that they all knew Streep biblically within a few weeks of each other, and of course, the daughter is twenty, which goes with none of them. It doesn't matter if they were trying to jokingly play with time, the way it comes off, It just seems sloppy.
The one thing that should have worked, regardless of whether or not anything else worked, was the music, and even THAT was tough here. The title track was easily the only song to get any energy behind it, while the most famous ABBA song, "Dancing Queen", that should have been an emotional centerpiece, is handled in such a stunningly awkward and embarrassing fashion that it's impossible to enjoy in any sense.
The cast does their best to enliven the material, and several of them are too talented to give a bad performance. Amanda Seyfried, who should be the headliner, but apparently someone is unwilling to give her the push, is absolutely adorable, and I was surprised a woman directed the film, because while every other actor in the film is made to look at haggard as possible, the camera seemingly oggles her body at every opportunity. Meryl Streep is equally adorable, loose and funny in spurts, and the three-headed dad monster of Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgaard have a good chemistry between them and are pretty much the entire joy of the film. As for the rest of the cast, though...ugh. Dominic Cooper is empty eye candy for the ladies, Julie Walters is shrill and annoying, and Christine Baranski is a cipher who had no rhythm and is so uncoordinated and wound so tightly that her attempts to dance are as cringeworthy as the fact that they keep putting her in dance scenes.
I am absolutely, positively gobsmacked that this film is as short as it is (1:48) The film was on its way to earning itself an extra half-point for a rousing wedding finale...before revealing that it's not actually the finale, and wasted upwards of TWENTY MINUTES unnecessarily tying up lose ends that don't need to be tied up. It just feels so overlong, messy, lacking inspiration and lacking enjoyment. Maybe the play is a bit of harmless fun, but as a film, "Mamma Mia!" feels loose when it needs to be resigned, restrained when it needs to be fluid, and just ends up feeling like a waste of time.
{Grade: 5/10 (C) / #32 (of 56) of 2008}