A FOLLIES flim being developed by Sam Mendes and Aaron Sorkin?- Page 3

[Smaxie]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:33pm

As far as a film version of Follies... the Gloria Swanson photo in the wreckage of the Roxy that inspired the show in the first place is so wonderfully atmospheric... it sure makes me think you could make Follies about old world Hollywood and not lose anything. Lord knows, there are all of those abandoned movie palaces in downtown L.A. that would be perfect for filming...

[americanboy99]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:38pm

Both pieces would require a truly visionary director. And for COMPANY, one hell of a "Bobby". Without a near-perfect "Bobby", the movie will not work.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:39pm

It would need a visionary director for sure. Its definitely not a Joel Schumacher kind of thing...

If Schumacher did it, Bobby would probably be characterized by his uncomfortable sexual fetishes...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:41pm

Yeah. My biggest concern would be finding the right Bobby. Because obviously it'd have to be a big star, but it is a hard, hard role to get right.

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 04:41 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:51pm

I think Ewan McGregor has a lot of the right qualities. I don't see Hugh Jackman doing it (I also think he's too old). I think Bobby would have to be a lot more inherantly likeable than say what Raul Esparza did on Broadway. A movie audience wouldn't go along with that kind of interpretation.

[americanboy99]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:54pm

I mean, Javier Bardem? James Franco?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:56pm

They are too brooding. Bobby's not brooding. He's charming. Bobby is George Clooney at 35

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:56pm

Yeah, no to Hugh Jackman. He's almost too... showy. In that classic charming kind of way that I think is almost TOO much for Bobby. I agree that movie audiences wouldn't buy Raul's interpretation at all, but you kind of need a happy medium. He's a little brooding. I know he's played bad guys and superheroes and whatnot, but there's just something too... upbeat, almost, about Jackman's on-screen persona for Bobby.

I've only seen McGregor in Moulin Rouge... he doesn't really do anything for me. But I can't judge on one movie.

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 04:56 PM

[americanboy99]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:00pm

James Franco would definitely be my choice. Dub him. I wouldn't mind.

He's the new Marlon Brando in my book.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:03pm

Well I DID want to talk about a FOLLIES movie....

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:04pm

Marlon Brando wouldn't ever have been right for Bobby, though...

Actually in a few years, I could see Jake Gyllenhaal doing it. Thats the sort of screen presence I think would work for the character on film.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:05pm

Yes. Jake Gyllenhaal ten years from now = perfect. I was thinking that earlier.

[stella985]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:06pm

No idea about Company, but I actually think a Follies movie could work ('could' being the key word). I actually think that Aaron Sorkin could do an interesting adaptation, but Sam Mendes doesn't seem to be the right choice to me. Also (and I know this is exactly what everyone wants to hear) wasn't Barbra Streisand interested in doing a Follies film at one point? Then again, Barbra has kinda been interested in EVERY film at some point...

[OtherDaryl]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:07pm

I love Sorkin . . .

Back when Disney was first announcing the New Amsterdam fix-up I wrote Michael Eisner a long, loong, loooong letter about it being the perfect opportunity to use the site as a location for making a film of Follies. I went on and on and was quite full of myself. Still thinking it was a prime opportunity missed.

I'm probably on an FBI watch list somewhere . . .

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:24pm

I disagree that Chapin's book is a better way to go for a Follies movie. I can't fathom why anyone would think that a movie about a show they think no one wants to see would be any more interesting.

I don't see why the ghost characters would be harder to differentiate on film. Shoot them as black and white, maybe with a little transparency. In the early shots, perhaps have them reflected in a mirror. I always pictured Sally's "Ta-da" and the first time she sings the intro to "Don't Look at Me" she's looking in a mirror, Phyllis comes up behind her and says "Sally?" and then the camera pans up in the mirror to reflect the Young Phyllis and Young Sally Flashback.

I also don't think that it's about a theatre should be a problem. On stage all the action seems to take place on the theatre's stage. Why not have scenes take place all over the theatre, saving the big stuff for the actual stage, such as "Beautiful Girls" and "Who's That Woman?" Perhaps as the movie progresses, the secondary characters are found more and more outside the theatre, so that by "Could I Leave You?" it's just Phyllis and Ben in the theatre, and then they are joined by Sally and Buddy and their younger counterparts, all on the stage as the show descends into "Loveland."

Making it about a film studio confounds me. Would it be about the people who were in the Ziegield Follies movies? They should use Goldman's original book as a template, not the any of the revised versions. The original is far less rancorous and hopeless than the current script.

Eh, I've always thought Follies would work perfectly on film. I'll echo Mateo and say that I'll be happy to work on the screenplay if needed. :)

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 05:24 PM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:26pm

Three pages about a Follies movie, and most of it is about turning Company into a movie!

I think Follies would work wonderfuly as a film and casting Michelle Pfeiffer would be perfect.

[kyle.]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:28pm

I think a lot of musicals could be made into great movies. The problem is trying to market them to a mass audience.

I wish some independent film directors who love musicals would take on the challenge. When you go the independent way you can do whatever you want for the most part in terms of vision. Look at Hedwig - one of the best movie musicals to come out, and why? Because they went the independent road and did whatever they wanted.

I know movie musicals are very expensive which can be very problematic. But I think there are many musicals that would make great small independent movies. Company being one of them.

And we all know there are more than enough New York actors/singers who would be more than happy be in these films if they were given a chance.

Instead we get to see Depp sing a Sondheim score for 2 1/2 hours. Lucky us.

[sszabo]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:29pm

well if they really do want to pursue a movie version of Follies, there is a fantastic, huge abandoned theater in Boston, which has changed some laws so movies get lots of benefits and when they film in Massachusetts now
here's info on the space
http://cinematreasures.org/theater/4870/
and pics of it
http://cinerama.topcities.com/boston.htm
the only thing is they put a cement floor in the balcony that chopped the theater in half when it was turned into a movie theater.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:34pm

"And we all know there are more than enough New York actors/singers who would be more than happy be in these films if they were given a chance. "

- And how would you expect these movies to make money if they cast all unknown New York actors/singers. Depp sells, plain and simple.
Updated On: 12/15/07 at 05:34 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:38pm

I'd prefer movie musicals made with stars to no movie musicals at all.

[LadyRosecoe]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:39pm

Until PRS gets a job at Paramount or WB, I don't know if I could support cheapening a fantastic story for the sake of monetary profit.

[kyle.]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:41pm

That would be the point of it being an independent film. It is not about making millions of dollars, it is about creating an amazing movie.

I know that musicals are expensive and that making money is the driving factor for everything.

But there are plenty of independent films made each year that are amazing and don't make that much money. The producers and investors go in knowing they won't make back what they put in.

[jv92]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:42pm

Note to Mendes and Sondheim-
I've found your Sally: Catherine O'Hara.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:48pm

I could see O'Hara is Sally. If it gets made, I hope they resist the urge to skew the big four too old. As written, Phyllis and Sally are 49 and Ben is 53. Buddy's age is never given, but I'd put him in the same range as the others. I really don't want to see them in their sixties, unless they're planning on moving the action to 1981 instead of 1971.

Carlotta, who originally was about the same age as Phyllis and Sally, seems to get older and older in most productions. Enocres did go age appropriate with Baranski. Shame about the voice.

Posted: 12/15/07 at 6:19pm

the actors would have to be willing to let their faces show their true age.