The problem with The Producers movie musical?- Page 2

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 6:16am

When you cut King Of Broadway (the, a number which fully explains Max, you hurt the movie. Removing this I will never understand

I will buy the DVD only when they come out with a directors cut restoring KOB

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 6:22am

Brooks said that the reason they decided to cut "King of Broadway" was because in the following scene when Leo meets Max, that explains who Max Bialystock is and what he used to be. He said putting in a song explaining who he is and then basically repeating everything in the next scene was un-needed, so he cut it.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 7:08am

I thought the acting was pretty bad, for the most part. There's a reason Mr. Lane has never really made it big in films: he doesn't really register very well on screen. And Broderick's bizarre and (for me) virtually unwatchable performance is a serious problem: he's trying for innocent but comes off as, at best, stupid and at worst, like some unflattering caricature of mental retardation.

I just found myself wishing I was watching the original film, which has all the assets of the story and script without any of the drawbacks of that second-rate score.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 7:14am

Nathan Lane HAS made it big in films. Just because he's not Tom Cruise dosen't mean he's not a big movie actor. He's done several brilliant movie roles. Laughter on the 23rd Floor comes to mind. He was fantastic in that.

Nathan Lane has gone on the record saying that he didn't like the movie. But I know Gary Beach loved it.

[ahmelie]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 8:02am

I can't get through the first half hour of that movie, I've tried many times, but I hate it.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 8:29am

Just to add my thoughts... I feel that besides for the direction/set/concept of the film for the movie, all the actors were stale and just not funny. Besides for Roger Bart and Will Ferell the rest of the cast seemed like they were either walking through their roles or acting completely over the top. I will say that Matthew's performance did not bother me as much as Nathan Lane's because at least he tried to add some originality to the movie. This was really hard for me to watch because Nathan Lane's Max was one of the best performances I have ever seen in a Musical and I was really disappointed. If anybody thinks that Nathan Lane was good in this movie please rent the original Producers and Zero Mostel will show you why Mr. Lane was horrific.

P.S. My favorite cameo was Brent Barrett in the "Keep It Gay" scene. Glorious voice.

[James885]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 9:10am

There's a line between being faithful to the stage show and just outright COPYING the show, which is what The Producers movie musical did. My opinion is, if you're gonna make the movie just a carbon copy of the show, why not just film the show? They could have saved money.

While I have a ton of respect for Susan Stroman as a director in the theatre, her directing of the movie leaves a lot to be desired. Like others have said, she directed it like it was a play. A perfect example is "Along Came Bialy". While the old ladies tap dance works great on stage, on film it looks totally out of place.

The whole movie was filmed very stage-like, with the camera just sitting in one place and not moving. A great example is "That Face". Almost the entire song was filmed from one angle, with the camera only moving to follow Matthew and Uma. While I think that the material is very funny, I think that Mel Brooks should have directed and Stroman just choreograph.

Updated On: 4/18/07 at 09:10 AM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 9:15am

NathanLaneStalker- Though Nathan Lane has gotten a lot of work in films, he hasn't had nearly as much success on film as he has on stage. His best work was inThe Birdcage and that's because he could play an over-the-top character but had a director who wouldn't let him fall back on his usual "over-the-top" antics. Nichols had Lane play that role very real, making him both hysterical and touching-and makng that role his best work to date.

Updated On: 4/18/07 at 09:15 AM

[BroadwaySinger2]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 9:25am

Tony Awards the Producers won in 2001:

Winner: Actor (Musical) Nathan Lane
Winner: Featured Actor (Musical) Gary Beach
Winner: Actress (Featured Role) Cady Huffman
Winner: Book (Musical)
Winner: Choreographer
Winner: Costume Designer
Winner: Director (Musical)
Winner: Lighting Designer
Winner: Musical
Winner: Orchestrations
Winner: Original Musical Score
Winner: Scenic Designer


They didn't deserve to win ANY of these, but that's beside the point. I think that when they decided to make a movie out of the show, they thought keeping it exactly the same would make the people happy.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 9:37am

I love the show. I love everything about the show. I thought the show was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Natahn Lane and Matthew Broderick had some of the best chemistry ever to play on a Broadway stage.

That said, NONE of it transferred to the movie screen. The film was absolutely atrocious. The lack of on-screen chemistry between the two leads is what killed it. The opening scene in Bialystock's office happens to be one of the funniest scenes in film history....when it's played right. Broderick and Lane played it completely wrong - broadly, Mostel and Wilder played it correctly - understated.

Stroman took Brooks' motto, "don't tap the bell, ring the bell" too literally. It's quite a shame that Anne Bancroft was dying during the shooting. Brooks' natural preoccupation with his wife's condition (and I don't blame him at all) really hinded what could have been a good movie.

Lane was completely right. It actually was the "most expensive Lincoln Center recording ever produced."

PS: Regarding Lane's screen career: hHis 2 TV shows flopped. All of his films (save The Birdcage and Mouse Hunt) did, as well. Kinda says something.

[pianojohn]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 10:10am

The problem is simply this: Susan Stroman is a Broadway director, NOT a film director.

She directed the movie like it was a stage show and it just looks flat and boring. Unlike Rob Marshall who totally changed the whole feel when he directed "Chicago."

Wonder how "The Producers" would have turned out if it were directed by a real film person.

And for those who had not seen the original film rent it, buy it, watch it NOW! In my opinion, it is still the superior of all other versions, Broadway production included.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:10pm

The movie would have worked if the performances were toned down. Unfortunately, Susan Stroman directed the actors to perform as if they were still on stage. Hence, the over-the-top stage performances coupled with the ability to do close-ups on film made the actors look unnatural. Even with this cast (I think Uma was passable), the movie could have worked if a more competent film director took the reins.

[TheHumanTorch]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:16pm

Stroman should never have directed this movie, her directing was absolutely terrible...
Updated On: 4/18/07 at 12:16 PM

[D2]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:20pm

What is the point of rehashing this all over again? The movie came and went, the show is closing, everybody involved is moving on to other projects. This movie is OLD news.

[nathanlaneismyhero]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:24pm

I completely agree that Stro shouldn't have directed the movie version. And as much as I love the movie, when I look back now, I almost wish that they hadn't re-made it. It almost seems like it was just another way to make money off of the people in the cast. These days, if you announce something with Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, people will spend hundreds of dollars to see it. That's where they went wrong with the stage production too. I think that if the producers had made a bigger deal out of the story instead of the cast, it wouldn't be closing on Sunday. I love Nathan, he's my hero, but as soon as they started making a big deal out of him and Matthew being in the show, it was like from then on in, you HAD to have a big name person playing the lead roles, otherwise people wouldn't see it. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't have casted Nathan or Matthew either, just that the story should have been more important. I adore Mel Brooks, but he needs to stick to the writing and stuff, not the business end of it all.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:37pm

The debate about Full Monty vs. the Producers will never die. I am not sure how it applies to this discussion of the movie musical. Oh well.

As for the Producers movie, it is neither as bad as most people paint it or as good as it might have been. Brooks wanted the movie to be directed as if it were a staged version and/or an old fashioned movie musical. As Lane has said, that didn't work too well, but it was the production team's decision.

Thurman was certainly a better choice than Nicole Kidman, though I would certainly have preferred to see Cady Huffman in the part. You also need to remember that many of Brooks' movies were not box office hits but became cult favorites and succeeded in VCR/DVD release and/or in repeat broadcasts on TV. The Producers movie was not well received and did poorly at the box office when it was first released in 1968.

I would also note that when it comes to judging Lane's body of work, one must consider a) he was directed to act this role in an over the top way because Brooks wanted the movie to be like a staged musical (in your face, as Brooks would say), b) to point to his other movies and TV shows as evidence of his inability to succeed is slightly unfair. First of all TV shows fail all the time and many Broadway actors have had a number of failed TV shows because in most instances TV does not know what to do with stage actors. In the case of Charlie Lawrence, Les Moonves pulled the show after 3 episodes (just as the network did for John Lithgow's show this year). It was pulled because Moonves was feeling shaky about the idea that the lead character was gay and that the production team had the intention of exploring this side of Lawrence's life. The way the network handled this was poor at best, but such is the life in Hollywood c) Lane has never actively pursued Hollywood and movies, preferring to stay faithful to the stage, so his roles are infrequent and smaller, and d) he is not considered a 'lead actor' in Hollywood and never would have been because Hollywood only likes young, skinny, cute actors and actresses so Lane's roles will be definition be limited to character roles. Nichols talks about thinking he would make Albert more over the top in the film The Birdcage, and it was Lane who brought the role down to a human level.

The bottom line is that while it is common for us to cite ONE reason for the success or failure of any project, in fact there are many variables in art, and no one thing can explain a career or a body of work. Board members have been talking about Deuce being as bad as it is, and in that case it is also true that there are a lot of reasons the Deuce production team is in this position. In reality life (AND ART) is always a lot more complicated than we like to think.

[musicalfandukie]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:55pm

I watched the movie before i watched the stage version. i was very disappointed in the movie. i didn't find it funny. the touring porduction of producers than came to my city. i almost didn't go cause of the movie. i am glad i did cause it was so much funnier on stage. i think just alot of the jokes don't work on the big screen like they do on stage. it also bothers me alot how the movie was filmed.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 2:58pm

Original film? Hysterical fun.

Stage musical? Trying too hard to be hysterical fun and moderately succeeding.

Movie musical? Incredibly dull in its attempt to be trying too hard to be hysterical fun.

Face it: when one of the best scenes in the film is Will Farrell's accidental audition, you know you're in trouble. "Little Old Ladyland" was just relentlessly dull. And even "Springtime for Hitler" ran out of gas well before the end. Watching it, I kept wondering what a director like one of the old screwball comedy masters of the 30s would have done with it. It probably would have been far more enjoyable. But as it stands, it makes an excellent case of how *not* to film a stage musical.

[AudreyTwoTwo]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 3:54pm

I will say that I enjoyed the movie but I enjoyed the show more. They cut out some good songs in the movie which I was thought was dumb, and I was pissed off since Uma Therman was in it, but I did enjoy Will Ferrell, Roger Bart, Gary Beach, and Nathan. I didn't like Matthew so much.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 9:44pm

Regarding the Tonys. I got to admit it didn't deserve ALL of those awards, but it did deserve: Actor (Musical) Nathan Lane, Featured Actor (Musical) Gary Beach, Book (Musical), Costume Designer, Director (Musical), Musical and I'm still not sure about the Musical Score. The Full Monty did deserve choreography though.

And it's true not all of his movies were hits. But he's had more than just The Birdcage.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 9:53pm

Notice successful movie musicals- Cabaret, Chicago, West Side Story etc.

They all had major changes in them that made them unique and more enjoyable than a filmed performance, such as the fils of Rent and The Producers.

[BDrischBDemented]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 10:18pm

What about "My Fair Lady"?

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 10:20pm

And 1776?

[jewels732]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 10:25pm

I really enjoyed the movie, but maybe that's because I've never seen it live.

[jackson992]

Posted: 4/19/07 at 1:14am

"They all had major changes in them that made them unique and more enjoyable than a filmed performance, such as the fils of Rent and The Producers."


But Rent was a phenomenal movie