Why do people think The Producers movie is so bad??- Page 3

[gittel]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 11:47pm

Whether it was a conscious choice or not to film the movie in an older-fashioned style, IMO, the film fell completely flat.

I loved the show on stage, but felt they completely missed the boat on the film. I think you can count on one hand the number of times that Stroman actually moved the camera during a shot--it all seemed very amateur to me. There are plenty examples of current day films that emulate an older style film-making effectively, so I don't think it's a matter of not appreciating a different style or an homage to an older method of film making. I just think all parties involved failed in this instance if that indeed was their intention.

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 1:32am

It was OK, the performances and source material were terrific, but I don't think Stroman translated it well to screen. the whole film felt very claustrophobic, always crammed into simple stagey shots as opposed to letting the camera take different angles and sweeps over the action, like in "Chicago".

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 2:10am

gittel, I couldn't agree more. The film was shockingly amateurish. The problem wasn't that they set out to make an old-fashioned movie musical. The problem was that they set out to make an old-fashioned musical and did it poorly.

Granted, sucessfully transferring a broad, borscht-belt humor piece like The Producers from the stage to the screen without losing the show's manic energy, is a tricky proposition. But it can be done. And there are a huge number of cinematic tools at a director's disposal for doing so. But Stroman didn't seem to use ANY of them.

Unlike the movies of great golden age comedy directors like Billy Wilder and Preston Sturgess, this movie was flat and without a consistent comedic tone or pace. And unlike the work of great movie musical directors like the Stanley Donnen and Bob Fosse, this movie uses no clever camera movement or striking compositions to define character. And for a dancer/choreographer, that is shocking.

And poor Broderick and Lane looked like they weren't given any direction at all. Both have proven themselves to be great comedic movie actors. But in this film - which should have been professional triumphs for both - they looked totally lost. Which is bwhy Matthew overplayed, Nathan underplayed and th whole thing fell apart.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 9:21am

it was way too stagy
people sang to the camera at times, the sets were cheesy, and yeah...
it was enjoyable, but just didn't play like a movie very well...it was almost like a recorded version of the stage show
in my humble opinion...

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 9:26am

I loved the movie myself but yeah, it is basically a movie of the stage production, which I loved. And Uma is terrible. Nicole Kidman should have cleared out her schedule a bit instead of making The Interpreter. And Mel Brooks should have directed. Then this would have been his first movie in years. Susan Stroman should have just been the choreographer. I personally think the staginess is a loving tribute to the 50s musicals, which were really stagy but I see how other people would be pissed about that.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 9:48am

Hmmmmmmmmm I thought producers and Rent films were very good and as for them just putting the stage show on film well if they had have changed a lot we would all be bitching about how much they changed.Matthew and Nathan did not walk through the roles(thats the most stupid thing ive heard).
They also DID need to be OTT ,thats what the roles require of them(look at the original film).
I dont think any musical will come out as a movie that everyone likes because broadway fan's always find something they diddn't like.
It's a shame because they will just stop making them.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 10:15am

I think The Producers is a good movie. It's also a very stylized movie, looking TOO much like the stage show for modern movie audiences. It looks fake, flat and "presentational." They're not into it... even though I was. I liked it quite a bit, and found it to be a refreshing change from the usual formulaic approach to film making these days.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 10:22am

Also it is always a stretch to convince anyone that Nathan Lane might be straight.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 10:55am

Uma is what ruinted it for me. Her acting was great, but her singing was so bad that I could barely tolerate any number she was in.

[Christoph]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 11:06am

I think the movie was actually pretty good, but it did have its drawbacks.

I agree that Susan Stroman did not sufficiently re-imagine the show enough to compensate for the change in mediums. The energy that Lane and Broderick (and Gary Beach and Roger Bart) generated on-stage did not translate as effectively to the screen. That, by no means, indicates that they were sleepwalking through their parts - only that the dynamics needed to be reconfigured in the new medium.

Also, I noted that while I still enjoyed the musical numbers, the dialogue scenes in between seemed jarringly uneven - the opening moments between Broderick and Lane, in particular, are somewhat painful. And many are correct, cutting Lane's opening number which perfectly introduced his character was a major mistake. The Little Old Lady Land number also did not have anywhere near the comedic impact it did in the stage show. I really enjoyed Will Ferrell in his part (and he is not an actor I find especially amusing). Uma Thurman looked great as Ulla and I thought her dancing was fine, but her voice did not have the range necessary for the part.

Additionally, I think there are other reasons why the movie did not go over beyond its quality. There was hardly any advertising for it in my area and it opened in a pathetically limited number of theaters, so some people who I knew wanted to see it did not even know it had come and gone yet. Also, after the success of Chicago, it seems like film critics/fans seem to want to actively dislike and discourage any Broadway to movie transitions as a form of reverse snobbery. I have seen a number of them injecting phrases into their reviews, even for non-musical adaptations like Proof, like "Is this what is passing for entertainment on Broadway?" I saw that used a few times in reviews for Rent as well, which even criticized the source, etc. Rent may not have been a perfect film, but for heaven's sake, the Broadway show did win a Pulitzer (didn't it?) so I am uncertain what the point of denigrating the source material was. Anyway, if that theory is correct, it does not bode well for Hairspray, Dreamgirls or Sweeney Todd.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 11:58am

While I love The Producers on stage, the one word that comes to mind when I think of the movie is "flat." It was obvious that the cast was working very hard, but the energy and craziness of the live show just didn't work on film. Without the live audience, the movie lost its sense of spontaneity, and just plain wasn't funny. I was also really disappointed with both Will Farrell and Uma Thurman. They're talented people, but they're also primarily film actors. To put them on the screen with arguably some of the best stage performers alive right now was just jarring...and did nothing for either of them.

I know I seem to be in the minority here, but Rent was 10 times the movie The Producers was.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 12:10pm

From what I have heard, it is not a stinker just would have been better had someone other than Stroman did it. Believe she was over her head here. If she did choreography & someone else would have directed it would have been different

Updated On: 7/18/06 at 12:10 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 12:21pm

If they were going to make a 1950s-style musical, they should have looked closer at what Donen, Kelly and others did as directors back then. There were story-telling techniques (solely available to the film genre) that Stroman could have borrowed from and embellished in this movie... but she didn't. I'm thinking specifically of the old-fashioned musical montage (like the talking pictures "medley" from Singin' in the Rain, complete with body-less legs crossing, megaphoned singers, and glittery monochromatic backgrounds). She could have incorporated similar FILM ideas into The Producers and stayed faithful to its intent, but at the same time made it a bit more interesting to watch from a cinematic point of view. That could have easily been applied to the "little old lady" section of the show. It could have used a surreal montage at that point. The content on the screen was great. Loved the sets, costumes and lighting, etc. Just not the film technique so much. It felt flat, presentational and one step shy of a REALLY nice bootleg of the stage show.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 12:50pm

Exactly, best12bars!! I couldn't agree with your bootleg comment enough. Not that I've ever seen one. *cough*

Yes, I understand The Producers film was intended to be old-fashioned and stylized. But my feeling was that it didn't go far enough with the stylization. If you're going to make a 50's style movie musical, then REALLY do it. That's exactly what it needed -- a REASON to be put on film.

[KQuill]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 2:43pm

I just look at it as a chance to be able to see Gary Beach in that role any time I feel like it - that's good enough for me.

[WeddedBliss22]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 4:26pm

I am enjoying the DVD, the extra's make for me, and they should of kept in The King Of Broadway, it would of helped! Nathan Lane is so cute! Matthew is kinda pudgy now...*weeps*

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 4:54pm

There will always be something in every Broadway show/movie that could have been done better.

THE PRODUCERS is the only Broadway musical to movie that preserves the stage show in such magnificent fashion with four of the six Tony nominated OBC members.

The RENT movie preserved six of the eight OBC Tony nominated members performances as well. And the two "replacements" were far superior to the ladies they replaced in the roles IMO.

PHANTOM would have soared if it had not been for Butler *shivers*

Everytime Broadway goes Hollywood, it is a given that it will be changed, songs cut/added, stunt casting... None of them are "bad"- just different than their stage shows.

[broadwaybound882]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 5:00pm

I overall loved the movie, but I thought Matthew Broderick was really really bad. It was like he really wasn't the part. Maybe just because the only Broadway Bloom I've seen was Roger Bart and he was hilarious!

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 5:21pm

"but I think Stroman purposely set out to direct it over the top, just like a movie musical from the golden days of film."

There's a reason they don't make them like that anymore. I think on the commentary she says that Mel Brooks wanted to film the stage show and she convinced him to turn it into a film. That was her biggest mistake.

[Flahooley]

Posted: 7/18/06 at 5:25pm

I liked it. My only true problem with the movie is that I miss Zero Mostel. Otherwise, I found it to be fun. My guess is that it will look better as the years roll on, much like the original.