October 26, 2007 issue
Compliments of the Lady from the E train..she gave this to me last Saturday while I was in NYC.
Thank you lady from the subway, whoever you are
J*
Updated On: 10/23/07 at 10:14 PM
I have a subscription to this magazine so I read this article a few days ago. All I really thought was its a shame such a mediocre production is getting so much publicity (though of course I understand why given the status of the movie in pop culture.)
Interesting that Mel felt it necessary to say that Nathan Lane is not a movie star and that's why the Producers musical movie didn't did well at the box office. Perhaps it had more to do with Mel letting his heart rule his head by allowing Stroman to direct. Lane and Broderick gave the same performances on screen that they did on stage and perhaps a more experienced film director would have modulated that for film. Mel, you really need to get over yourself!!
But Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick are NOT movie stars - he's right. Sadly, he's right.
Well then he should have cast movie stars.
I agree the film needed a "movie" director.
Yeah, but Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman are and Broderick is a known movie actor, so its not like people stayed away because there was no one they were familiar with. This movie had good screenings in the NY/NJ area, however, these people were already familiar with the show and its premise because of all the Broadway coverage.
The problem was that it didn't translate well to film and that responsibility lies with the producer and the director. To blame Nathan Lane's lack of movie star quality is not THE reason this film didn't do well. I'd once like to hear a producer or director take some of the responsibility when something doesn't go right. As we all know, the actors have very little control on a movie, so to give them too much blame or credit is not the way to go.
Videos