I am really surprised by this announcement, since I think that the film version of Fiddler may be the best musical adaptation of a Broadway musical ever. It was well reviewed at the time, and I believe its stature has grown over time. If you are going to remake a Broadway musical, I can't help thinking that it would be better to remake something that was a flop in its first iteration, e.g., Rent, Mame, Man of La Mancha, ALNM, or has not aged well, e.g., Oklahoma or TKAI; or, you'd better have a great concept that veers away from the original film. Since the movie version of Fiddler is just about perfect (Norma Crane was 'meh' and Molly Picon was a little too Borscht Belt, if enjoyable), it makes no sense. I actually like the movie more than there staged version (and I saw it with a pre-ad-libbing Zero Mostel, among other times).
That said, if it turns out to be as good as the original, I will happily plunk down my money to see it.
Just plop Ben platt in as Motel it’ll probably sell.
In our millions, in our billions, we are most powerful when we stand together. TW4C unwaveringly joins the worldwide masses, for we know our liberation is inseparably bound.
Signed,
Theater Workers for a Ceasefire
https://theaterworkersforaceasefire.com/statement
MichelleCraig said: "Globefan wrote: I think he could do it right
I can't imagine improving upon Norman Jewison's movie adaptation. Curious as to what OP felt was done wrong in the 1971version?"
I did not take Globefan to be saying it was "wrong" but that Kail could do right by it. I never question why an uber-talented person wants to take a crack at one of the greatest properties in the art form, especially when he already has one of the others in his portfolio. Why? Because he can. A fresh take does not imply that the now-antique take needs improving.
Is Thomas Kail Jewish? Not that it matters (and I know Norman Jewison wasn't Jewish either), but I didn't peg him for the director that would want to do Fiddler.
Literally nobody was asking for this. I'm curious to see what they might to do justify its existence. Otherwise, I'm annoyed that his directing the "film version of Hamilton" is now considered a film credit, with bragging rights of the $75 million purchase.
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
I'm with Jarethan-- I always thought the FIDDLER film was one of the greatest stage to film musicals ever done. I first saw it in Israel in 1971 in its original 3+ hour length. I was shocked to discover that most theaters in the US only aired a shortened version on its first release. Thank God the film generally available today is the glorious full-length version.
I can't for the life of me imagine that there is a groundswell of demand from the gen z-ers for a remake of this classic.
I have not seen Fiddler on the Roof before but I’m intrigued by Kail directing this since In the Heights was a Latino Fiddler on the Roof. Makes sense to me
At least with West Side Story, I can SORTA understand some of the rationale... In most cases, the cast was dubbed by others (sometimes badly), ethnicities were "fixed" with sometimes terribly obvious make-up, some additions to make it more "hip" were kinda cringe-worthy even at the time, etc etc etc.
But this? No idea what the reasoning would be. (nor have they attempted to give any, aside from "it's still relevant today"
MichelleCraig said: "Globefan wrote: I think he could do it right
I can't imagine improving upon Norman Jewison's movie adaptation. Curious as to what Globefanfelt was done wrong in the 1971version..."
I love the film, but they took out a LOT of the humor in the earlier part of the story which took away some of the feeling of devastation in the second part. The beautiful emotional roller coaster effect, I call it, that is so artfully written into the stage version.