It’s a question that’s plagued me for a while now: whatever happened to big Hollywood movie musicals?  Movie genres typically go through cycles of popularity and I think we’re due for another round of flashy, dance-filled musicals.

Busby Berkley's kaleidoscopic dance numbers, like this one in "Footlight Parade" (1933), helped make American musicals world famous

Musicals have been a long-enduring genre since the early days of film.  In fact, the very first sound film was a musical—1927’s The Jazz Singer.  When it became a runaway success, studios rushed to create more musicals, some of which became the beginnings of a series.  Warner Brothers’ triumph with The Gold Diggers of Broadway led to The Gold Diggers of 1933, which became one of the most celebrated musicals of all time thanks in large part to Busby Berkeley’s intricate choreography.  RKO Radio Pictures first paired dancers Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers—who danced together in nine films—in 1933 in Flying Down to Rio, creating arguably the most famous dancing couple in film history.  Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer released The Broadway Melody in 1929, which not only started a series but also won the Academy Award for Best Picture.  As time went on, production companies made more and more musicals until the genre reached its greatest popularity in the 1940’s and ‘50s.

Though many studios made musicals during that time, MGM arguably became the company most associated with producing expensive, opulent and immensely successful musicals.  They produced Easter Parade, Summer Stock, An American in Paris, Singin’ in the Rain, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and Guys and Dolls, as well as numerous others.  Those films were a mixture of song and dance and while they weren’t exactly realistic, they were always entertaining. MGM musicals have always been my favorites and when I think of the kind of musicals I’d love to see now, I imagine huge productions with the same glamour and spectacle as MGM’s greatest musicals.  I’m talking musicals with big, expensive set pieces and extended dance sequences with dancers wearing costumes of every conceivable color.  I’m talking great songs that not only convey exactly what the character feels, but are also catchy and make the audience want to sing along.

From 1960 onward musical production lessened, perhaps due in part to the end of the studio system, and the aesthetic began to change.  Intricate dance sequences and ballet became less prevalent and the singing increasingly came to the fore.  Big dance numbers certainly still existed in the ‘60s with film like West Side Story, but films like The Sound of Music, which contained far more songs than dances, increasingly became the norm.  Each decade has had its share of expensive, dance-heavy musicals.  The ‘70s had Grease.  The ‘80s had Fame.  The ‘90s had Disney’s cartoon musicals like Beauty and the Beast.  The 21^st century has so far had Chicago and Hairspray.  Certainly big musicals with singing and dancing still exist and I take great pleasure in the few released.  However, I wonder why there aren’t more.  It’s not as if the American public lacks interest.  The popularity of films like Moulin Rouge! or even the Step Up series—which isn’t so much about song as dance—certainly attest to the earning potential of a modern MGM-style musical.  So the question remains: what’s stopping studios from making a big movie musical à la Singin’ in the Rain?

"West Side Story" (1961) is only one of ten musicals to win the Academy Award for Best Picture, and "Chicago" (2002) was the first to win since 1968's "Oliver!"

One possible explanation is that singing and dancing are no longer as connected within the musical genre as they once were.  Rarely does a film combine song and dance in the same way that films starring Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire and Judy Garland did.  Rather, contemporary movie musicals typically focus on one or the other.  The 2004 biopic De-Lovely focused on the life and work of famous musical writer Cole Porter, but that film had almost no dancing despite the fact that many of Porter’s shows, like Kiss Me Kate for example, involved extended dance numbers.  Even bigger, flashier musicals like 2006’s Dreamgirls, which featured big dance numbers, often foregrounded the songs through staging.  Beyoncé Knowles and Jennifer Hudson’s characters would often appear stationary, doing little more than singing while the camera moved around them.  It seems the only place to find an extended dance number like the 16-minute lyric-less ballet sequence in Gene Kelly’s 1951 film An American in Paris is in the films of the Step-Up series.  However, though the final dance sequence in the rain that serves as the climax in 2008’s Step-Up 2 is interesting, there isn’t any singing in the rest of the film.

Perhaps dancing and singing have not become as linked within musicals because the aesthetics of dance have changed.  Ballroom and ballet are not as common in the movie musical landscape as they once were.  Hip-hop and contemporary dancing have become the more predominant styles and since both are very athletic, often incorporating tricks that involve leaping through the air or having tremendous strength, it would be difficult for even the most skilled dancers to sing at the same time.  Moreover, casting in contemporary musicals seems to go follow two basic directions.  The first is casting already established actors who just happen to have good singing voices, films like the aforementioned De-Lovely.  The second is casting skilled singers or dancers who also happen to have a knack for acting, the Step-Up series being an example.  Though casting in this manner has certainly produced entertaining films, it’s understandable that casting directors haven’t found many stars who can sing, dance and act.  However, I’m not necessarily asking for single actors who can do all that.  I certainly wouldn’t mind a musical where some characters only sang and others only danced.  MGM certainly wasn’t against the practice.  Cyd Charisse appears in Singin’ in the Rain purely in a dance capacity and Bing Crosby didn’t do much dancing in High Society or White Christmas.

Newer dance flicks like "Step Up 2" help keep the spirit of musicals alive, but have seemingly severed themselves from most genre traditions

Perhaps the reason studios haven’t assembled performers talented in a single area into a musical is that a lot of the genre’s potential talent, and perhaps the genre itself, is already tied up in television.  Popular shows like Glee, Dancing with the Stars, and So You Think You Can Dance employ a number of young singers and dancers whose talent and abilities are worthy of being featured in a big expensive musical.  In many respects, the shows are already reminiscent of opulent Hollywood musicals.  The choreography and performances on SYTYCD and DWTS are often reminiscent of the glamour and spectacle of classic movie musicals; they simply lack a narrative surrounding them.  Furthermore, Glee and the High School Musical franchise are rather reminiscent of classical Hollywood musicals.  They have charismatic stars who sing and dance and they have engaging plotlines to boot.  So why hasn’t some studio executive realized they could use all of this talent in a movie musical?  Perhaps studio executives are looking for stars who can sing, dance and act rather than performers who excel in one or two area. Or perhaps they suspect their audience isn’t looking for that type of musical.  However, I point to film scholar Richard Dyer for a response.  In Only Entertainment Dyer wrote that show business “does not simply give the people what they want (since it actually defines those wants).”  So hopefully, a studio head will come along who’s willing to assemble some talented performers and give the public the musical they never knew they wanted.