Julie Taymor Considering Removing Herself As Director of ACROSS THE UNIVERSE- Page 2

Posted: 3/21/07 at 8:16am

I'm not sure I'd go that far--Financially her films have done at least slightly better than Hal's and certainly the way Hal directs for the screen he doesn't seem to even be *offering* up any ideas let alone whether they land or not--But I agree her techniques seem better suited to the stage--as much as I enjoy much of what she did with Titus (partly cuz the play is such a mess anyway). Universe though seems like it oculd potentially fit better in with her theatrical strengths--

[Craww]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 8:35am

Taymor is great onstage but totally wrong in cinema.

I've never seen any of her stage work, but loved both her films. I guess I understand an argument about a general lack of cohesion, but I certainly wouldn't completely write off her film directing style because of that.

As for the topic, Across the Universe looks like a perfect example of 'lack of cohesion'. I don't see the point of a 98 minute cut of this movie. It's not commercial enough to warrant that kind of trimming, anyone who sees it will be expecting a bit of that overlong style over substance.

[Fan2]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 9:33am

Here's more:

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/03/across_the_univ_1.php
Updated On: 3/21/07 at 09:33 AM

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 11:32am

Interesting to read Roth's take. I can see Taymor being a diva. But I would think she is justified but has difficulty articulting through her product.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 12:22pm

Roth's cuts sound radical, but if Taymor was completely unwilling to compromise and would only cut 12 minutes off the movie's length, I suppose I can see why he felt the need to step in. As others have said, though, there's not much point in cutting the film to commercialize it -- it probably is, as one of the articles says, the world's most expensive art-house film. The studio probably should've foreseen that. The kinds of people who'll go to see Across the Universe are the types who normally seek out independent films....not, as Roth imagines, average teenaged girls. Updated On: 3/21/07 at 12:22 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 1:46pm

Having worked on numberous projects with Julie, I can say she can very much be the Diva. She is not used to having opposistion or having people say 'No'.She also really doesn't like to collaborate
I don't see her work in film having a wide audience appeal unless someone steps in and helps out. She is a theatrical visual artist and not a great story teller.


edited for typo

Updated On: 3/21/07 at 01:46 PM

[fossemoves]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 4:17pm

Recognizably a Diva, she is also a genius. This film more then any other of her films has the potential for mainstream appeal and it's such a shame that it's being bogged down in bad press - if there is such a thing.

It's JULIE TAYMOR! We know she's difficult. She's a visionary. They go hand and hand and you knew what you were getting when you hired her. Roth's fault. She already recut the film 1. It's hard doing that. It's like performing surgery on a child and she already cut 12 minutes off it. 2 hours and 8 minutes is hardly a long movie. Let's be serious.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 6:06pm

>> Let's be serious.

Fine, let's.

It's business. The studio is investing a great deal of money in this, and it hopes to make it back. If the studio feels that Taymor brought in a less-than-successful product for the marketplace, then it certainly *should* do what it wants to protect its investment. If the visionary feels otherwise, let her find her own sources of capital and do it herself instead of relying on someone else's largesse.

That's the bottom line.

I love her work on stage, even when -- as in MAGIC FLUTE -- it runs out of gas in the middle of Act Two. But she's simply not a cinematic director, and all the "vision" in the world cannot save that. Everyone has great ideas. Not everyone can transfer those ideas successfully.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 6:12pm

A source on the production staff just told me Taymor's cut was unwatchable - "painful to sit through." She says the cuts made by Roth were necessary with the exception of possibly one scene.

[fossemoves]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 6:20pm

Now I'm not defending Julie though I adore her work, but I find her a very cinematic director. She understands scope, size, and composition. These are cinematic techniques. If we look at her stage work, it is uniquely cinematic.

But beyond that, yes, it's a buisness. I'm the first to get in line and admit that entertainment is a buisness. But what makes it trully spectacular is when you cross art with buisness, as we saw in Lion King.

The long and short of it is that it will be an incredible disservice to the film if her name gets taken off it.

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 3/22/07 at 5:09am

An update on the fiasco from the IMDB news section:

After director Julie Taymor's cut of Across the Universe, featuring music of the Beatles, was greeted with derision by preview audiences, it was recut by Revolution Studios chief Joe Roth and shown last week to a receptive audience in Phoenix, AZ that gave it a score of 86 percent, L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke reported Tuesday, citing unnamed sources. But when Taymor learned of the screening, insiders told Finke, she had an angry "meltdown." One studio insider told Finke: "We were dealing with a woman who has absolutely no sense of commercial potential. At one point, [Sony Pictures Co-chairman] Amy Pascal took her to dinner and diplomatically told her 'how good it could be' if only she'd cut the movie. But Julie still refused. Indeed, that's the refrain of everyone: there's a great movie in there, somewhere. But, as [Taymor's cut] stands now, it's so complicated it's just a bad movie."


"It's so complicated it's just a bad movie."

Updated On: 3/22/07 at 05:09 AM

[fossemoves]

Posted: 3/29/07 at 4:59pm

Have there been any other updates?