Lin to direct film adaptation of Tick Tick Boom — Page 9

I watched all of this from a somewhat different angle, as I have never seen Tick… Tick… Boom on stage and certainly never saw Jonathan Larson’s original version. I have read about them and seen some YouTube clips. And while I liked many of the songs in Rent, I am not a huge fan of the show even while I agree it’s very influential. So I went into the movie pretty cold.

I thought the film was terrific and managed to pull off the difficult trick of serving as a loose biography of Larson while incorporating the two stage versions and other songs. I was struck by how good many of those songs are. There were a few moments when I wished Andrew Garfield was a better singer, but he does a very good job with a more difficult vocal role than I had expected. And he acts the hell out of the role, capturing a wide range of emotions both in realistic and heightened fantasy scenes. He elevates the film and is compelling to watch.

Steven Levenson covers a lot of ground, leaving Lin-Manuel Miranda free to choose different styles depending on what he is trying to achieve. While the stage and fantasy sequences are the most effective, I thought Levenson and Miranda do a pretty concise job of putting Larson in his time and place (artists in New York City, 1990 in the shadow of AIDS).

I have seen all the new movie musicals this year, and this one was the most satisfying. Miranda’s reverence for Larson didn’t result in dull hagiography, though I’m not sure the voiceovers were needed both at the beginning and the end. It’s a lively film that takes risks, and an impressive directorial debut by Miranda. Side note: the plot of Superbia sounds unsettlingly ahead of its time.

As for Sunday, I loved every bit of it. I have seen footage of Larson’s original version, and this was such a great example of how movie musicals can take advantage of the medium. All the cameos were just a bonus. I will let the rest of you debate the significance of the actors chosen, though some of the costume choices definitely didn’t seem like a coincidence. In a passion project like Miranda’s, you get to indulge yourself a little, and it was a gift for theater and Sondheim and Sunday in the Park With George and Bernadette Peters lovers that fits with the story and the original show.

Updated On: 11/22/21 at 05:18 AM

Bored to death, left after 15 minutes. And thought I am a fan of Garfield, I am not of Larson, and watered down La Boheme.

adotburr said: "Alex Kulak2 said: "I think the cameos in the "Sunday" scene have less to do with emulating the specific characters they play than they have to do with what came after Larson.You have actors fromHadestown, Fun Home, Hamilton,all shows that you could argue wouldn't exist in their current form without the innovations ofRent."

Could you explain more about why these shows “wouldn’t exist in their current form without the innovations or Rent”?"

Rent broke the mold of the mega-musicals that dominated Broadway in the 80s and 90s, by eschewing pop opera and spectacle for contemporary rock music and a stripped-down, visceral presentation. It's original company was one of the most racially diverse casts on Broadway, and it was talking about the AIDS epidemic and gentrification in New York when most musicals at the time were advertising escapism to ignore it all.

It wouldn't be fair to say that Rent was the first musical to do any of these things, but it was among the first to be as successful as it was. A 12-year run, international productions translated into every major language, the first musical since Sunday in the Park With George to be a finalist for the Pulitzer, let alone win. It's a mix of critical and commercial success that paved the way for large-budget shows to be more experimental. I legitimately don't think we'd see a show about rapping Founding Fathers or a folk-opera retelling of Orpheus and Eurydice in a multi-year, Tony-winning, Broadway run if Rent hadn't come before it.

Bettyboy72 said: "Definitely loved this production. Tick Tick Boom was never one of my faves. I feel Lin and Levenson elevated the material in many ways. Every cast member was pitch perfect.


I will say that the average watcher who is not familiar with Larson, RENT and his history might be a little less invested. I don’t think the movie does the best job of establishing him as a character. I think they assume you know some things coming in. I know a few people with no familiarity with him who didn’t love it."

As someone who does really like Tick Tick Boom, knows all the songs, has seen productions of it... I liked basically every change they made to the material. Elevated indeed. (I didn't like the orchestra/tempo changes to Johnny Can't Decide, even if I understand WHY they did it, it's my favourite song, and I didn't like the staging of Come To Your Senses or how they made it easier to sing). other than those quibbles... how rare is it to like all the changes someone makes to a show you like?! I'm blown away.

For what it's worth, my partner agreed to watch it with me despite having no interest (god bless her) and ended up crying and saying she liked it much much more than she thought she would. But she's got a strong appreciation for theme and cinematography and such

For those who have trouble with Apple News links:

https://ew.com/movies/tick-tick-boom-sunday-diner-scene-broadway-stars/

SmoothLover said: "The Sondheim message on the answering machine was the exact one that was used in the NY City Center production."

Not according to Lin... He is quoted all over the place saying that Sondheim didn't like what he originally wrote for the voicemail so Sondheim rewrote and recorded it after filming wrapped. One of many articles that he talks about it: https://ew.com/movies/stephen-sondheims-voice-end-tick-tick-boom/

behindthescenes2 said: "Bored to death, left after 15 minutes. And thought I am a fan of Garfield, I am not of Larson, and watered down La Boheme."

So what you're saying is you somehow wandered into a showing of Rent by mistake?

bear88 said: "More on the "Sunday" performance - this time, in oral history form.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a38321766/tick-tick-boom-sunday-oral-history/"

So their costumes did mean something. When I first saw Chita, I immediately thought that's Joanne with the hat and the martini.

Platypus said: "SmoothLover said: "The Sondheim message on the answering machine was the exact one that was used in the NY City Center production."

Not according to Lin... He is quoted all over the place saying that Sondheim didn't like what he originally wrote for the voicemail so Sondheim rewrote and recorded it after filming wrapped. One of many articles that he talks about it:https://ew.com/movies/stephen-sondheims-voice-end-tick-tick-boom/"

I cannot dispute your findings. It sounded so similar. But City Center has used his voice for other projects so I could be wrong all together.

Updated On: 11/25/21 at 05:54 AM

I watched this a second time on Wednesday and have seen some critical reviews characterizing the film as an insular portrayal of Larson that holds little interest to those outside the world of musical theater.

I think I liked it more on rewatch. The film isn’t perfect. The portrayal of Susan doesn’t entirely work. She seems to be pressuring her boyfriend at the worst possible time, which casts her character in an unfavorable light and puts the audience squarely on Jon’s side. In the end, she only seems to want him to ask her not to go.

The relationship with Michael is far more effective. They’re more at stake in their relationship, given their long history as well as Michael’s more serious concerns and old friend’s ability to put Jon in his place. Plus, Robin de Jesus is great.

There are a few scenes that require some background knowledge. Even with the clip before it, the ‘Sunday’ scene works a lot better if you know about the musical it’s from and all (or most) of the cameos. I did, so it wasn’t an issue for me, but it wouldn’t have the same effect on others. Still, it was a charming and lovely scene.

Andrew Garfield is fantastic as Larson, and if the film ends up taking his side a little too much, that’s fine. Moreover, and I mentioned this the first time, the soundtrack is great. From ‘30/90’ and ‘Boho Days’ at the beginning to the beautiful ‘Why’ towards the end, the film is filled with one strong song after another. Garfield pulls it off, despite his limitations as a vocalist, conveying his character’s passion and conviction.

Individual scenes and songs work wonderfully, but the movie - despite a bit of excessive narration reminding the audience again of Larson’s posthumous and poignant success - is such a heartfelt piece of work by director Lin-Manuel Miranda that its minor flaws seem unimportant. And despite complaints from some critics, the film moves at a brisk pace. I can’t compare the film to its stage predecessors, which I haven’t seen, but it’s my favorite movie I have seen this year.

Updated On: 11/26/21 at 05:15 AM

How has a movie that seemed to be about Jonathan Larson 12 hours ago now seems to be about Stephen Sondheim? RIP STEVE.

Just want to chime in on the “you have to know musical theater to appreciate it” criticism. I think as part of a review, that’s bullsh*t. Do you have to know baseball to appreciate “Field of Dreams”, or football to appreciate “Rudy”?


This is a film ABOUT musical theater. If that’s not something you’re knowledgeable about then obviously there will be things that you’ll miss out on. But to criticize the film for having theater-related plots and people when that’s the point of the damn movie is ridiculous.

And just to clarify, what I wrote was commenting on the people saying that - not you.