Julie Taymor Considering Removing Herself As Director of ACROSS THE UNIVERSE

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 11:48am

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070320h.php

At last, we have the real reason why the release of this film was delayed an entire year. And it sucks. This is the film in which basically every working (and non-working) theatre actor in New York is in.

I say let Taymor have her own cut. It's HER f*cking movie, after all.

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 11:54am

God**** it! I was so looking forward to this movie! They better not **** this up!

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 11:58am

I guess there's nudity involved.

[viola13]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:06pm

According to T.V. Carpio, the movie is coming to theaters in late September. However, she told me this a couple of weeks ago, so I have no idea if this is going to affect the release date even more.

EDIT: Here's the NY Times article that Dark Horizons got its info from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/movies/20roth.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin
Updated On: 3/20/07 at 12:06 PM

[professor]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:08pm

>"I say let Taymor have her own cut. It's HER f*cking movie, after all."

I agree. Why would you hire a visionary artist like Julie Taymor, and then NOT let her have final cut????

But I guess Joe Roth (director of CHRISTMAS WITH THE CRANKS, for pity's sake) knows better....

Unbelievable!

[mallardo]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:09pm

The producers wouldn't step in unless there were serious problems with it. This kind of publicity just about ensures bad reviews if and when...

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 1:42pm

Why doesn't she have final cut?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 1:45pm

She signed that away.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 1:49pm

To be fair, if you read the article, Roth states that it is common practice and that his cut is just an experiment.

I thinks Taymor is overreacting, as nothing is even remotely set it stone.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 1:53pm

From the trailers I've seen, the movie looks like a hot mess anyway, no matter who has final cut.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 1:54pm

Agreed.

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 1:55pm

I don't know what the deal is, but they better not f*ck this up! Grrr....

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 2:46pm

I know it's a common Hollywood practice, but if she was dumb enough to sign her life away, she doesn't deserve final cut.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 4:34pm

Curtain/Yankee - What did she sign away? Creative control?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 4:36pm

She signed away her right to final cut. According to the Times article, after many film debacles, big shot Roth no longer offers his directors final cut.

However, he is not alone. It is common practice in Hollywood for the moguls to have final cuts of projects.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 4:41pm

I guess Roth would know best... I mean, Freedomland and Christmas with the Kranks were practically modern masterpieces.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 5:53pm

Yes, his track record as a director obviously proves that he knows better than Taymor. I mean, she only directed the Lion King on Broadway and Frida--which everyone knows are like Gigli and Glitter to Freedomland and Christmas w/the Kranks.

They showed the trailer for "Across the Universe" before premonition. It looks very interesting--it's cut funny, though. It starts off seeming like a pretty straight forward movie about young people in the sixties. Then, all of the sudden, there is a montage of abstract, Moulin Rouge!ish artsy shots...it's a little jarring, but interesting none the less
Updated On: 3/20/07 at 05:53 PM

[sondhead]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 5:54pm

Well the money's gotta come from somewhere..

Not saying I side with Roth I'm just saying.. it's unfortunatly the cold hard truth of almost any art form.

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 6:05pm

It seems incomprehensible, but Hollywood has a great history of hiring visionary directors for their unique vision, and then butchering their movies when the rough cuts look uncommercial.

Orson Welles had The Magnificent Ambersons, Lady from Shanghai, and Touch of Evil were all mangled by the studios after the films were shot. You get hired because Citizen Kane's the best movie ever made, and then you second guess the director after the fact.

Hollywood is a machine, and it buys one commodity (talent) then discards it when the results don't match what a studio needs at the moment.

[fossemoves]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 7:09pm

I couldn't aggree more.

Hollywoods machine is out of control. You hired JULIE TAYMOR!?! HELLO! Her name isn't synomounous with success. If we stop to think about her more moderate and small theatre success's...she is a visionary. She is influencing the theatre and film of tomarrow not reveling in the film of today!

Either way this will end in a DVD - DIRECTORS CUT - let's be seriolus. They'll make money off it one way or another.

It's like the RENT film. Had CC given us the alternate ending the critics could have said some nice things to say but in the end all we had was a mess.

Hollywood needs to understand that movie musicals are still a risk and if you're not willing to risk it then you should not get in the ring!

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 7:12pm

That seems like such a dick thing to do (Roth not Taymore) but he is the producer and she was the director and producers have more power.

If she takes her name off I think it shows a lot of guts.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 7:14pm

So wait the original cuty was 140 mins, then 128 and now 98? (I can't quite follow from the DarkHorizon article)


I have to agree with the majority here--this is hardly surprising for such an expensive looking high concept picture but it is disappointing--it hardly seems better that the film (which I feel looks like a worthwhile mess) will be ANY better with Roth's edits but of course Hollywood has never learned from that before (can anyone think of one example where a studio enforced cut of a film was superior to what the director wanted?--and I don't mean Director cuts done a few years later for DVD, etc which is a bit different)



Updated On: 3/20/07 at 07:14 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 7:52pm

It will be interesting to see how Julie deals with a love story! I have always found her work to be a set of interesting tableaux without much heart or through line. Even in Lion King, the visual scenes are great but she doesn't handle emmotions well.
Yes, she has some beautiful ideas and concepts, many lifted directly from Balinese Theatre, but I have always found her shows disjointed or in the case of The Lion King, schizophrenic.

[Fan2]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 6:41am

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/why-did-you-hire-her-in-the-1st-place-details-on-taymor-vs-roth-missing-from-nyt/

"Why Did He Hire Her In The 1st Place? Details On Taymor vs Roth Not In NYT"

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 6:49am

Just like Harold Prince, Taymor is great onstage but totally wrong in cinema. TITUS was a mess, as was FRIDA. Some great *ideas*, but nothing was followed through. They were just slapped out there in the hope that the audience would somehow "get it". I imagine that in Taymor's mind, UNIVERSE is a stunning achievement... and maybe it is. But based on her track record, I kinda doubt it. The woman simply doesnt know how to work with a camera.