PRODUCERS Screening Review (11/18)

[MJohnson05]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 2:54am

I hate to say it, but I enjoyed THE PRODUCERS tonight.

It's hard not to make a comparison between both current movie musicals, but all I can say -- and I should say it upfront -- is that I hated The Producers on Broadway. I thought turning a tight 90 minute movie into a bloated 180 minute show with tuneless music and dated jokes was no fun. I mean, I enjoyed the performers to be sure, but I just found it loud, tinny, unfunny. And I loved Rent as a show. Which leads me to my point: how does such bountiful, beautiful material as Rent turn into a missed opportunity as a film and such empty, lowest-common-denominator material as The Producers turn into a very enjoyable time at the movies?

Anyway, I won't bore everyone with a long, spoiler-filled review. The Producers is not that kind of movie anyway. Suffice it to say, I thought Susan Stroman did a great job as a first-time filmmaker; her camerawork was never obtrusive, and her hand was deft and subtle, which is the opposite of how I felt her work was in the show with the exception of certain numbers. The film is bright and even when certain sequences fall flat, just like a Mel Brooks movie there is always the next one that doesn't. The most major problems are the first 20 minutes; even though I wasn't bored, I also wasn't very interested. The man next to me didn't even crack a smile till around the 30 minute mark. But once Broderick quits, the movie really gets going.

Her choice to make the film very unrealistic in a soundstagey way seems obvious at first, but it ends up being refreshing. It's a throwback to an unreal time, a New York in the 50s that never quite existed except in the movies. The design is all top-notch and award caliber, and although Uma doesn't have so much to do and I usually hate Will Ferrell's schtick I thought both of them came across very well (although Uma's double is very clear in some shots). Gary Beach should have a shot at a Supporting nomination *somewhere* if there's any justice as he improves upon his already spot-on work from the show, and Roger Bart and Matthew Broderick are clearly enjoying themselves. The strange thing for me was watching Nathan Lane. This is a man who has had a movie star career when you look at how many movies he's toplined (or co-starred in) and yet he's never going to be as famous as stars of his ilk were in earlier days; we don't make those stars in film anymore. And yet, when he was performing the solo number in the jail cell towards the end, I realized I couldn't count on my hand how many actors I would actually enjoy watching singing a long number all by themselves onscreen with barely any edits and a barebone set. He really carries the impact of ten people as a performer here, and although again I don't love the song, it really works.

My friend who came with me didn't love it -- he said he enjoyed it but would also be happy never seeing it again, and I can understand that. It's a trifle, and there are slow and joke-less pockets, but it's also impeccably well-crafted and at times uproarious that even he was rethinking his intial thoughts ten minutes later. Do I think it's one of the best movies of the year? Not by a long shot. But do I think other people (namely critics and awards groups) might? Absolutely. It feels like it could get that throwaway slot (like Awakenings did, or The Cider House Rules did, or Ghost did) in the Best Picture race, simply because it feels big, it looks big, and it's based on a show whose hit status isn't as far away as Rent's is.

By the way, The Producers runs 138 minutes, much like Rent. Trimming 30 or so minutes from the stage show makes the film fly by, and no cuts were noticed by me; trimming 30 minutes from Rent makes it feel a little deflated and incomplete. However, I agree with my friend -- I'd rather own Rent on DVD, for all its unmistakable flaws, than own The Producers. I enjoyed myself at The Producers and it lives up to its expectations, but even if Rent fails more than it succeeds (in my opinion), its successes are wonderful. The battle of the movie musicals in Oscar season has begun...

And please, again: this is just my opinion. If you're reading this, Mr. Lane -- hats off to you!

Michael
Updated On: 11/19/05 at 02:54 AM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 5:22am

I was there as well, Michael, and share many of your well-written thoughts.

I liked THE PRODUCERS on stage a great deal. Opening at a time when Broadway was dominated by turgid pop operas, it was a perfectly calibrated pinball machine of a musical, featuring a cast of inspired musical comedy clowns who sparked off each other with and almost pyrotechnical magic. A surprisingly lean show, gags and musical numbers followed each other in rapid-fire sucession with nary a wasted onstage moment. It didn't really matter if the songs were no more than enjoyably workmanlike. Unapologetically, cheerfully tasteless yet ultimately sweet-natured, THE PRODUCERS was like an ANKLES AWEIGH where everything worked. And thanks to the carbonated alchemy of Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick and Mel Brooks, no show that has opened since has quite captured the public's attention and adoration the way THE PRODUCERS did.

The new PRODUCERS film may be the most faithful, word-for-word film adaptation ever of a Broadway musical and for most of the films running time, that is a very good thing. It is gratifying (and by Hollywood standards remarkable) that so much of the original cast has been re-assembled. Lane & Broderick were of course irreplacable, but it was a most unexpected and pleasant surprise that Gary Beach and Roger Bart could recreate their roles, while Universal's dictates for "real" stars saw Will Ferrell subbing for Brad Oscar and Uma Thurman (a last-minute replacement for Nichole Kidman) in for Cady Huffmann. And like the original, director Susan Stroman's goal was to re-create the brassy, patently unreal Broadway-Hollywood Musical comedy of the 1950s.

Novice film director Stroman directs the comedy well. Lanes kaleidescope of expressions have never been shown to better or funnier advantage, Bart and Beach are even finer and more human than they were on stage, and Ferrell is unexpectedly excellent. Uma is...kinda okay. She's the least winning of the major players but she doesn't greviously harm the film (the bony, cold Kidman might well have sunk it). The only case of blatant miscasting was the actress who played "Hold Me, Touch Me". She wasn't a name I recognized from the credits, but she doesn't remotely approach the hysterical-geriatric-demented horniness of wild-eyed Broadway original Madeline Doherty.

The heartbeat of any musical is of course, the musical numbers: on the credit side is "Opening Night", brisk and excitingly paced as the camera zooms in bearing down from a Manhattan skyline across a neon-lit Broadway, the rooftop "Guten Tag Hop Clop" (most attractively lit by an orange sunset, and notable for Broderick's priceless expression throughout of glaring disbelief) the bright and snappy "I Wanna Be A Producer" (the room of unhappy accountants directed with Berkeley-like lock-step precision, and William Ivey Longs new costumes for the showgirls seem right out of Érte) and "Betrayed" (already legendary as a blazing Lane tour-de-force that is even more furious and powerful on film - that alone should handily secure him a Best Actor nomination).

But there were times when I wished the film would have relaxed a bit to have gone an extra step further in the musical numbers - too often, they seemed rushed or truncated and lacking the punch of their Broadway originals. I really missed the defining "King of Broadway" (yes, it's really and truly gone). "We Can Do It" promisingly spills out into a beautifully recreated New York street, yet it never busts into the madcap bounding chase across the set (á la "Make Way For Tomorrow" in COVER GIRL) before ending in the Technicolored Central Park - the way one anticipates it would. Though "Along Came Bialy" starts off excitingly, with Lane, resplendent in a rooster-red scarlet suit, strutting and trucking before a clomping army of "Little Old Ladies", it appears to have been edited down quite a bit (dismayingly gone are the wonderful comedy bits with Lane, Debra Monk, & Andrea Martin in the park which can still be glimpsed in both versions of the trailer - both actresses are now reduced to 'blink and you'll miss them' flashes in the courtroom). Shot up close, "Keep It Gay" is too busy and cluttered and the dance staging of "That Face" seems oddly constricted by its set (SPOILER: The "Dancing on the Ceiling" bit from ROYAL WEDDING is not re-created here, despite several early reports that Stroman had intended to do so).

Then there's the films central number, "Springtime for Hitler". Shot on stage at the St. James, it is a virtual filmed replica of the Broadway show-stopper (with a peroxided John Barrowman in for Eric Gunhus) Perhaps my gleeful delight in its outrageous tastelessness has been tempered by my multiple exposures, but I found its celluloid incarnation to be curiously flat, poorly lit and unexciting, despite Gary Beach's marvelous performance. Even in golden age Hollywood musicals, numbers set 'on stage' never become thrilling film unless they have been mounted on a cavernous soundstage (THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, BABES ON BROADWAY, COVER GIRL and FUNNY GIRL come to mind) and staged with multiple camera angles. Hemmed in by budgetary concerns and by a devotion to direct versimilitude, "Springtime for Hitler" looks almost antique in its film staging, recalling ON WITH THE SHOW! more than SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. It suits the story perfectly, but for me, it didn't "wow" on film the way it should have.

I hope I'm not being too hard on THE PRODUCERS. For most of its running time, it accompishes all it sets out to do. It's a delightfully old-fashioned and surprisingly sweet-tempered old-school Hollywood comedy musical of a kind I thought would never return, being blissfully absent of the flashy video edits that seriously undercut (and I suspect will date) CHICAGO. I had a good time and I suspect you will too.

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 05:22 AM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 7:09am

Does it have the faux show titles at the end....Maim, Katz, et al?

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 7:15am

Yes, but the Broadway musical does it with more pizazz and effect.

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 07:15 AM

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 7:37am

well, i cant wait to see the movie!
what day does it come out in decembre?

[MJohnson05]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 1:59pm

That was a wonderful review, Master. I can't say I am as familiar with the show (I didn't even notice the cut number until I returned home and read about it), but I would say I agree for the most part. However, Springtime for Hitler worked for me; sure, it wasn't as jaw-droppingly tasteless as it seemed on stage, but I thought she minimized it well for the screen. And yes, I too was depressed that Andrea Martin and Debra Monk get more screen time in the credits at the end than they do in the actual film. In fact, I kept saying "Is that Debra Monk?" to my friend and I wasn't positive until the credits. But, I still think the film works as a whole regardless. Although I share your concerns with the flatness of "That Face" among other numbers. I'm glad you agree with me about Nathan Lane -- I truly hope he gains a nomination alongside the front-runners of Phoenix, Hoffman, Strathairn and Ledger, although I worry he probably won't considering this has been a very good year for actors (there's also Jeff Daniels, Russell Crowe, Terence Howard, George Clooney, etc).

M

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 2:06pm

yeah, same thought
i hope someone from rent gets nominated, like tracie or idina for supporting! only in my dreams, probably...

[MJohnson05]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 3:14pm

Sadly, I don't think either Tracie or Idina has a shot; I don't know if you've seen the movie, but I think the cast (all of whom are being pushed for supporting save Rosario) are uniformly good (and in my opinion, uniformly reduced in impact so as not to separately make a mark) and I think the only one who really has a shot is Rosario. Not only is the Best Actress field not as strong as Best Actor, but also she has the most to do in the movie, and the Oscars so love rewarding an actress who has done a lot but never quite hit (Mira Sorvino, Marisa Tomei, Catherine Zeta-Jones).

M

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 3:14pm

I was there yesterday (2pm), I didn't go in with high expectations, but I really, really liked it. It reminded me of the old MGM musicals of the 40's and 50's.
Also, Gary Beach and Andrea Martin were sitting in the row in front of me. I thought that was kind of fabulously fun. lol They were laughing and clapping along with the rest of the audience...at themselves. haha

I didn't even realize Debra Monk was in the movie until the end credits. She and Andrea did not get enough screen time.

Will Ferrell was hysterical.
Nathan Lane was good.
Matthew Broderick was dull.
Uma Thurman was a nice surprise. I wasn't sure if she would be able to pull off the singing.
Gary Beach stole every scene he was in, and Roger Bart was a great paring. They work well together.

Overall, the movie was great; however, I don't know that I would pay $10 to see it in the theaters. I got to see it for free. I really liked it. I will certainly buy it when it's on DVD. It was VERY funny, but with ticket prices being so high, well it just doesn't seem like it will do well at the box office. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 3:17pm

bwayondabrain--I believe it's released in limited theatres on the 16th...in opens everywhere on January 13th, which is my birthday!

[MJohnson05]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 3:49pm

No Brad Oscar.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 3:52pm

Theaterbaby, you liked the film a lot and will buy it on dvd, but you wouldn't pay to see it in a movie theatre? Where is the logic in that, babe? lol

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 3:53pm

Thank you, Michael! I'm really hoping Nathan doesn't get shut out...if the film is a big hit his chances I'd say are still pretty good.

Yes, bustin, Brad is there. He's the cab driver in the middle of the "We Can Do It" number and he says "Where to?" to Leo. You can see his face through the taxi window for a nanosecond.
He's VERY easy to miss, Michael..but I was looking for him! :)

I heard a rumor that Brad was penciled in to be one of the "Gotta Sing Sing" prisoners, but that must have been filmed while he was still perfrming as Max in London.

I wish we saw more of him, but I'm glad he's at least THERE. I'm sorry to say that I didn't see Cady at all...and y'know, she shoulda been in there SOMEWHERE.

Updated On: 11/19/05 at 03:53 PM

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 4:31pm

Yeah, LOL I know. Reading that it makes no sense. What I mean is that it's a really good movie, but it's not something I need to pay $10+ to sit in a theater with a bunch of other people who are talking/eating/cell phones ringing. It's one of those movies I would pick out of my DVDs on a rainy day and watch for pure enjoyment.
I really only go to movies that are either a huge deal (like Harry Potter), OR if I have NO intention of getting them on DVD, OR if someone else is paying.