Posted: 8/23/15 at 12:08am
I don't understand what made Nine an attractive property for a film transfer - it's hardly garnered much attention outside of the Broadway community, unlike Chicago, Les Mis, Phantom (which was a hit in Europe and Japan) - or this decade's Sondheim adaptations, which benefit from intellectual cred and a proliferation of amateur productions. (Even a Catherine Zeta-Jones Gypsy, or a less extravagant Kiss of the Spider-Woman - which Marshall allegedly considered after Memoirs of a Geisha - would have been more enticing.) Let's be frank, had anyone ever hoped they'd make a Nine movie before this project was announced?
Indeed, it's barely an adaptation - using only eight of Maury Yeston's original songs, with Fellini's 8 1/2 providing a weak clothes-line plot. (As though Marshall, Anthony Minghella, Michael Tolkin and the Weinsteins made a film from a cast recording, rather than one of the finest musicals ever written.) Admittedly, one can see what went wrong. But if Kopit's book was unfilmable, I don't see the benefit of culling an adaptation around the ladies they had cast - with one song apiece, and two for Guido and Luisa. Perhaps after making his Chicago, Marshall wanted to make his Cabaret, which is quite unlike the stage show - but still relatable to the conceits and stylisation that was originally employed. The "show within the mind" concept just doesn't work. (It's laughable how the veddy English Judi Dench - literally - leads into "Folies-Bergere", when Daniel Day-Lewis's Guido rubbishes her costume creations.)
Surely, they could have done something else with that cast?
Updated On: 8/23/15 at 12:08 AM
