You know the film version has got to be just around the corner. It's considerably more cinematic than a lot of recent Broadway to screen transfers. With the right director, cinematographer, and actors it could be emotionally scalding. It's my favorite musical ever. I'm going with Baz Luhrmann. His gorgeous Moulin Rouge proves (among other qualifications) that he's not afraid of sad endings (God forbid should Hollywood tack on a happy one). I can truly see it being nominated for 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. We'd be back in musical movies territory BIG time! :) What others directors would be a good candidate?
George:
Rubbing alcohol for you, Martha?
Martha: Never mix, never worry!
I don't know if the material is strong enough. Although, this could be a nice new "star making" role for the young lady who lands Kim (ala Jennifer Hudson etc.).
I wonder if they would re-structure the story, and eliminate the flashbacks and tell the story from A to B. The only reason it was ever done that way to begin with was because they didn't want to use their big effect (the helicopter) in Act 1.
"Wonder if Hytner has ever seriously been considered". ________________________________________________________ He seriously SHOULD have considered it a long time ago.
George:
Rubbing alcohol for you, Martha?
Martha: Never mix, never worry!
"I wonder if they would re-structure the story, and eliminate the flashbacks and tell the story from A to B. The only reason it was ever done that way to begin with was because they didn't want to use their big effect (the helicopter) in Act 1. _____________________________________________________________ No no no. I don't believe that. The flashbacks are perfect - just the way they are. It gives the play/movie the dramatic effect it needs. The helicopter (itself) won't mean much in a movie version... it won't need special effects.
George:
Rubbing alcohol for you, Martha?
Martha: Never mix, never worry!
I personally like the flashback as well. Adds a little twist to the presentation. I vote for Rob Marshall for set design and choreography. Direction...Spielberg, if he's still interested.
"I love acting. It is so much more real than life." Oscar Wilde "After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." Aldous Huxley
"Again... is there a film version in the works? Or is this wishful thinking?" _____________________________________________________________ I think it's a bit more than wishful thinking. With Hairspray, Rent, Phantom, Mama, Sweeney - Saigon has got to be soon. BTW, BigFatBlonde (change that name immediately - you're lovely) I think the flashback is not about the HELICOPTER at all! It's about the way Chris & Kim were seperated. It's one of the (though often used) plot points in which unusual circumstances keep two lovers from meeting as planned.
George:
Rubbing alcohol for you, Martha?
Martha: Never mix, never worry!
"I think the flashback is not about the HELICOPTER at all! It's about the way Chris & Kim were seperated. It's one of the (though often used) plot points in which unusual circumstances keep two lovers from meeting as planned."
Onstage, that flashback was absolutely about the helicopter, whether that was the authors' intentions or not.
"Onstage, that flashback was absolutely about the helicopter, whether that was the authors' intentions or not." _____________________________________________________________ That just seems silly to me - so please EXPLAIN. The POINT of the flashback (helicopter or NOT) is to show how Chris & Kim were seperated - LOST - as in.... they could not LOCATE one another. That's the entire reason they weren't together. They LOVED each other. Maybe (in the movie) this "explanation" could be shown LATER in the story - but it's crucial to the story arc, and I don't think it would be NEAR as powerful if it were shown in chronological order. The whole POINT of the story is to show that things would have been completely different if Chris & Kim had BOTH borded that helicopter as planned.
George:
Rubbing alcohol for you, Martha?
Martha: Never mix, never worry!
As soon as I saw the title to this thread my mind jumped to thinking Speildberg off the bat. But, that is just me.
I think that if you look byond the whole helicopter scene in act two and look at it as a story line it is a very important story line.
I just finished listining to the CSR of Miss Siagon. There is more to the fall of Siagon flashback then there is on the cast recording. Kim is having a nightmare where she hears Thuy's voice saying that Chris will betray her and forget about her. Then it goes into the helicopter scene.
I think that the point in which it comes in act two makes it even more important.
Yes, act two in Miss Siagon is all about the helicopter. Just like Les Miserables is about the barricade and Phantom has the Chandelier. But, all those things are important to the story line and they aren't there for the hell of it.
I also think Speildberg should direct because he is GREAT with war movies.
"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear"
Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll
"That just seems silly to me - so please EXPLAIN. The POINT of the flashback (helicopter or NOT) is to show how Chris & Kim were seperated - LOST - as in.... they could not LOCATE one another. "
You're not seeing my point....I understand what they were trying to show, but it became all about the helicopter. People looked forward to act 2 because they were going to see a helicopter land and take off onstage. It was their big moment.
"The whole POINT of the story is to show that things would have been completely different if Chris & Kim had BOTH borded that helicopter as planned. "
I would think that goes without saying. You don't need a flashback to realize that. I Still Believe does a fine job of showing that.