What constitutes a musical?

I'd say if there are actors singing and/or dancing to music in the movie for more than 1/3 of it's total running time, then it's probably a musical. I've never seen "8 Femmes" so I can't comment on that one, but I'd consider "Dancer in the Dark" to be a musical, although it does stretch the boundaries.

Let me add a revision--if a character, at any time breaks into song with no visible instruments or band on screen, and especially if they are singing in the rain, it's a musical in my opinion. It's that single moment of suspension of disbelief where someone is spontaneously singing & makes me confused why. That's a musical for me. Only my opinion though.

Then "Spinal Tap," on the other hand, isn't a musical because they're a band singing to an audience (???) I'm the wrong person to answer; i hate musicals.

JAY OTM 100%

Curiously then, what about Magnolia?

dean, it's been awhile since i've seen magnolia--guess i'm not seeing the connection.

it has one song that is sung musical style by the characters.

also, are "nashville" and "o brother where art thou" considered musicals? i personally do but i would like to see what other people think. i consider them a new breed of musical where there is a lot of music within the movie, but it does not seem out of place like in other, more traditional musicals.

i haven't seen "nashville," but i'd considered "oh brother where art thou" a musical.

oh yeah, i remember what you're talking about now dean. i don't know if that makes the movie a musical or just weird and creepy. either way, works for me!

But aren't all the songs in O Brother... diegetic? Concert scenes, radio recordings, etc.

Magnolia -- nice call. 4 minutes out of 3 hours -- hmmm....should this qualify?

I think Jay's proposed ratio is a good place to start.

i think jay made a clever distinction in that the direct audience of the song in a musical is very obviously the audience of the film where as in a non-musical there is that actor-audience screen between the transmitter and the receiver ... same as with the breaking of the fourth wall in dialogue, although it predates it (i believe)

8 Femmes is definitely a musical. What the hell was your friends argument to not consider it one??!

Nashville and O Brother are a bit tougher - although they contain musical elements I wouldn't strictly call either one a musical as their main genre. In both those films they're playing to an audience in a concert (or other musical) setting - like jay said, when people routinely break out into song outside of a musical setting is where one of the main distinctions lie.

If the songs are better than the ones in Gigi, it's a musical. Gigi, by the way, is not a musical. It's a raw and painful experience.

The diegetic/non-diegetic and the direct audience vs. actor-audience screen distinctions don't work as universal rules.

There are many musicals in which at least some of the songs are diegetic and ostensibly performed for an audience within the film. Musicals that focus on performers/musicians/actors are common (Cabaret, Holiday Inn, Singin' in the Rain, The Music Man, and Gypsy come to mind). Many of these also contain a few non-diegetic, straight to the audience numbers, but I don't know that they all do (and I could imagine a musical in which all of the numbers were woven, however loosely, into the reality of the plot with a visible band and audience).

With something like Magnolia, the singing comes from outside of a musical setting, but it doesn't occupy a large portion of the film, so it might be disqualified from musical status on those grounds alone.

I had never really thought about whether or not I considered O Brother a musical (I always thought of it as a Coen brothers film and stopped there), but when I think of recent movie musicals I tend to think of Moulin Rouge or Chicago. I'm not sure there's a distinct division between what is and what isn't a musical--for me, O Brother falls into a gray area--maybe because "musical" carries all sorts of hypertheatrical, trivial, cheesy, low-middlebrow connotations, and as ridiculous as O Brother's story is, it somehow seems more "real" or "serious" in an artistic sense than the average musical.

One thing that I think others have been hinting at is that the music operates differently within what we typically categorize as a musical and what we might call a movie with music. The songs in a musical tend to advance the plot and establish characters in obvious ways. Without the lyrics of the songs, the musical wouldn't make sense. (Even when the characters are performing for other characters, the song seems to have a message.) With most non-musicals, the lyrics are usually incidental or tangential to the plot. (In Almost Famous or Spinal Tap it's important that they're rock musicians and that they're singing/playing music, but the songs themselves aren't important to understanding the storyline. They add depth more in a soundtrack/ambience/tone sort of way.)

In O Brother, I think you could watch the movie without the lyrics and still follow what's going on (??). From that standpoint I can see an argument against it being a musical. I haven't seen Dancer in the Dark or 8 Femmes but maybe this holds for them?

What about Hedwig?

Hedwig seems very obviously a musical. How could it not be?

(Using Alexandra's guidelines, LOTS of Hedwig's backstory is told through song -- it seems integral to understanding her character.)

Can an animation be a musical? Because until recently, most of mainstream American animated features fit the decriptions given by Jay and Alexandra. However, in animated features the musical scenes are there particularly because they're children's films, and I guess children don't see nothing false in characters bursting to song once in a while, especially if it happens in an animation. So the level of fantasy brought by the singing is different in animated features than in live-action, meant-for-adults musicals.

I think the amount of singing in the film has to count as well. Films where all the lines are sung (Jesus Christ Superstar, for example) are definitely musicals. Films which have one or two "musical" scenes (like Magnolia) use musical aesthetics for dramatic effect, but shouldn't be counted musicals as a whole. There's of course a grey area (Dancer in the Dark, Spinal Tap etc.), but isn't there with any definition?

One more question: as some of you might know, Peter Jackson omitted almost all of the songs from the Lord of the Rings books while making the films. The songs play quite an important part in the books, so if they would've been included, would the LOTR films been called musicals? The songs are mostly diegetic, but the lyrics are rather important for the background story, even though they rarely carry the main plot. Also, there is at least one scene, after Gandalf's "death", where the characters burst into spontaneous singing, and apparently invent the lyrics and the tune as they go along. That would've definitely been a musical scene in a film, no?

I would definitely say that animated films can be musicals. Of course the animation adds an additional level of fantasy, and yes, many animated films are aimed at children, but I don't see how being fantastic or intended for children would nullify their status as musicals. Not all animated films are musicals (I don't think most of the Pixar movies have characters singing??), but those that are often have seens that mimic and/or parallel live-action musical numbers. There are live-action musical movies for children (Annie, Newsies), but not all children's movies are musicals, so it doesn't seem redundant to identify those that are as musicals. I guess you could qualify them as being animated musicals or children's musicals, but I think if they meet the other guidelines they're musicals.

I agree that the amount of singing/dancing counts. The 1/3 or higher ratio is a reasonable measure. One song does not a musical make.

I tend to think of Jesus Christ Superstar as a rock opera because all, or virtually all, of the lines are sung. The Who's Tommy is another one in that category. Musicals still have spoken dialogue.

I don't know much about Lord of the Rings. I saw the movies, but never read the books or explored what Peter Jackson cut or changed. I honestly don't remember the singing in it and wouldn't venture to comment on how they do or would fit into the musical/non-musical scheme.

Cabaret is usually considered a musical, as are films with concert scenes. When I think musicals, I think about the awful 1973 remake of Lost Horizon, embodying everything dreadful about musicals: bad songs (by Burt Bacharach and Hal David), sung by actors, not singers. I think a movie is a musical if the instruments are being played offscreen, and performing characters suddenly (sometimes startlingly) break into song, while other characters onscreen just join in.

I guess by this standard, films like Hedwig, Cabaret, Spinal Tap, and A Mighty Wind aren't musicals, but I've never considered them to be, anyway.

The '73 Lost Horizon is a guilty pleasure for me -- probably because my dad worked on the film, and I got to meet the cast etc. (I had SUCH a pre-pubscent crush on Olivia Hussey. She had unbelievably huge [bleep].)

I have a copy of the soundtrack LP autographed by nearly all the cast. Come on -- Burt Bacharach did the music -- it's awesome!

Hear Peter Finch sing! John Gielguld as an Asian guy! A masterpiece!

I think it's a musical when plot-points and character exposition are relayed via original song, performed by said characters, on four or more occasions in the movie/play. Why four? Just 'cos. :)

To me, a musical is a film which people watch firstly for the music, and secondly for anything else. If the primary attraction of a film lies in any other aspect, then it isn't a musical.