Could "The Last 5 Years" Work Well On Screen?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:45pm

I saw a community theater production of this show tonight. While it wasn't great, the whole time I was sitting there, I started picturing this show as a movie in my head. The show is very intimate and very well written, I think it could work in the hands of a good director. If the whole movie is done in a split screen, so in the beginging we have the older Catherine and the younger Jamie. Then at "The Next Ten Minutes" when Jamie and Catherine meet, the screen goes to full widescreen, since they're together, then back to split screen. Just a thought, any other ideas?

[emo_geek]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:48pm

I dont think it would translate very well. Just me.

Updated On: 9/28/06 at 11:48 PM

[Julian2]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:48pm

I have always pictured this as a film, like you ever since I saw a community production. I didn't consider the split screen, but I can picture SO MUCH OF IT in my head as a motion picture.

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:51pm

It would be an interesting experiment, I suppose. I think, though, that it would be hard to find "a good director" for an idea like that (everyone says something to the effect of "with the right director" when they imagine a movie version of anything; I'm definitely guilty of it myself). The more I think about it, the more I like the idea you have and the more I can imagine it on screen, but I don't think there are many who can successfully pull that off for a whole film. So many films with less experimental premises than your L5Y idea fail because of the wrong director; I'd be amazed if anyone could really do your idea justice.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 12:14am

No.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 12:23am

No. It's very construction is too theatrical.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 12:27am

Good luck with that. Maybe Columbus could direct!

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 1:09am

We'd obviously have Richard Attenborough do it...

[Wicked_fan]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 1:37am

In my opinion... No...

this is definitely one of the shows that shouldn't be made into a movie... because one of my favorite parts of the whole show is that there are only 2 of them in the whole thing... and the only time they sing to each other is when they get married... otherwise they are singing to the sometimes imaginary jamie/cathy... and if you did that in film, people who aren't musical theatre fans and don't know the show would probably end up very confused...

Plus you definitely need to explain that Cathy starts at the end of the relationship and Jamie starts at the beginning... and you can't really hand out programs in a movie theater.

[OnMyWay]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 2:04am

I want to preserve it as is.

[logan0215]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 2:26am

I really don't feel it would.

It could possibly because of the success of movies like Sliding Doors.

My aprehension is just the logistics, would it traslate well having 2 people sit in a boat sharing the same scene once forward and backward? I feel like this piece was made for the theater... only

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 2:32am

No. First a director wouldn't stage two actors on either side of the stage for 90 mins. THat's the same effect of the split screen. 90 mins of film like that? Boring and uninteresting to me. Second the whole point is that it's 2 actors acting toward the audience with imaginary partners or the audience as a partner. Once again having an actor walk around filmed talk to "himself" or to the camera is awkward. However I think something cinematic would be interesting for the time period aspect. In a sense the film would be like 2 different lives and you don't realize they're about the this couple until the marriage. Yet I'm not even sure that would work.

anyway I agree that this show is in it's very structure, theatrical.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 3:04am

I think the show is hardly that interesting on stage as it is. A nice show but not especially dynamic. I do think the concept would work wonderfully in a movie. Not a movie musical (or maybe a different movie musical). A regular movie. A love story told from two perspectives, one chronologically moving backwards? It's got so much potential. In TL5Y the conceit feels more like a gimmick imposed to try to make the story of Cathy and Jamie more interesting.

But this movie was sort of already made (a love story told with its own unique sense of time and place). It was called Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and it was brilliant. I wonder what a more conventional version would play like. The story of Jamie and Cathy would make a good movie as all the material is there and the conceit is potentially insightful. Maybe not the musical The Last 5 Years.

JazzySuite, I like your idea of two different stories that play out and we don't realize they are the same story until halfway through. It would be hard to conduct a love story on film where the partners don't encounter each other for a long time though!

[Janelle188]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 3:51am

Roninjoey--

I think it's so awesome that you brought up Eternal Sunshine, because that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this topic. . . well actually, my first thought was "No." and then "Well, only if Michel Gondry were to direct it. . but then he kinda already did, with Eternal Sunshine."

So. . . yeah! I second Roninjoey, since the thinking was exactly my own. :) I don't think it should be a film, since it's so unique and theatrical, but if it were to be, Michel Gondry would be the only one who could pull it off. Of course, even if he did all people would do is say he made Eternal Sunshine all over again.

Kinda like Zach Braff and Garden State . . I mean, The Last Kiss. . . I mean Garden State. . .you know what I mean. :)

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 8:50am

It could...but, you'd get the ovie critics who'd hate it because of the lack of dialogue.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 1:09pm

Well here's my thinking...and while I don't totally agree with turning everything into a "movie musical" - I think it could be very interesting. I think it was shot like an indie style film. Also, instead of having them "sing to something" - I think it would work if the angle of the camera showed the backs of the other people, without revealing their faces - if that makes sense. Like, when Jamie sings "If I Didn't Believe In You" - the camera angle would be over Cathy's shoulder, and while she is singing "Climbing Up Hill" - the other "split screen" could show a confrontation between Jamie/Cathy. I think it would work, it just takes some imagination. Obviously it's two different mediums, so you can't just copy what's on stage. It takes some thinking outside of the norm. You wouldn't have to add characters or anything like that. I saw "Hard Candy" recently that only had - basically - two characters the entire time and they were in the same location for the bulk of the movie and it worked brillantly.

As for showing time, I think you could show that easily with dress and style. Or if you wanted to go a more artistic route, Cathy could start off in black and white - since she's "sad" at the begining and Jamie could start off in color, and as time progresses, the colors become deluted and change until at the end Jamie is in black and white and Cathy is in color.

[Bal]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 1:23pm

I too, feel that it would be kind of dull for a movie (especially considering what people expect to see in movie theatres nowadays)...even though I like The Last Five Years fairly well. Heck, I don't even find it that exciting for a piece of theatre. So, while *I* and probably everybody on the board would go see it, I don't see it as being especially workable...

...Unless Dench and McKellen were attached, of course.

Updated On: 9/29/06 at 01:23 PM

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 1:25pm

It barely works on stage. it barely passes for semi-decent. So um no. No, it would be just as friggin terrible on film.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 1:31pm

I was just about to post EXACTLY what Carl said.

[SirLiir]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 3:16pm

It would be different to work because how would you ever show transition from scene to scene? It's easier to have a blackout on stage than on screen. It would be too confusing.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 4:13pm

What? How do you transition from scene to scene on film? You just CUT to another scene?

It could be a very interesting film due to the subject matter. It is a very intimate show and I think the characters are more complex than people give them credit for. It would be a small movie with no real "action" but a lot of movies are great that have little to no action. It wouldn't work as a big studio movie, but as a smaller arthouse film.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 5:28pm

Okay, think about it for five seconds Rentboy. It would be a movie of montages where the same two people sang an endless succession of similiar sounding six minute songs telling stories about their lives. It's like... the most boring, uncinematic idea I've ever heard. It's not that movies need to have a lot of action in them, they just have to have a visual story to tell. The characters are complex in the sense that we have a realistic picture of them from knowing so much about their lives and their inner thoughts, but that would kind of work against a movie, where showing instead of telling is so important (also important to a musical...)

Janelle, go see The Science of Sleep. It's even better than Eternal Sunshine.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 5:36pm

[ I heard Science of Sleep is brillant. I hope it opens here.]

I think most of you thinking very black and white. It doesn't need to be a montage of people singing. The great thing about cinema is you can cut to things. For instance, during "Climbing Up Hill" you can get two sides of the story. You can show Cathy's inner monologue, while still showing her calm and composed infront of the people she's auditiong for. I'm not saying it would be easy, or if that it WOULD work, but I think it would interesting for someone to try. I mean look at RENT, while it is very theatrical on stage - it has little to no set and it is almost all sung - it turned into a decent movie. (While I hated it, many others loved it). Now look at the Producers, they copyed the same thing from the stage and it was horrible. It takes something "out of the box" thinging to pull it off, but that's because its two different mediums.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 5:47pm

I think it would be too confusing for Middle America.
Then again I hate movie musicals altogether.

[JackiesBroJoe]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 6:24pm

Not at all.