best12bars "offended" by PRODUCERS movie... — Page 3

Stroman may have intended the film to be an homage to Kelly & Donen, but her more conservative staging of the musical numbers recalls Seymour Felix and LeRoy Prinz instead. She may not have created another SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, but it's wonderful that THE PRODUCERS is the ON THE AVENUE and COLLEGE SWING of 2005.

---

Updated On: 12/21/05 at 10:25 AM

I think the Pasternack and Jack Cummings units at MGM have been MUCH underrated, 2bars. They may not have the "art" of the Freed films, but they are always unpretentious and delightful, with snappy stories, great casts and fun scores. And if "Uncle Joe" had been in charge of more of Judy's films, she might have never left MGM.

---

Updated On: 12/21/05 at 10:44 AM

I know you weren't slamming them, sweetie! I was just agreeing with you!

---

"...I enjoyed it quite a bit. I agree with you, SamIAm, about the "throw-back" to old musical films. Susan's idols are Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen (as she's said many times), and this is basically her valentine to their efforts as MGM musical directors/choreographers extraordinaire. She locks the camera off on long shots, for lengthy takes and lets the talent "shine." I wonder if most people know this is what she's doing. I've heard some critics (who at least should understand her point of reference) say, "she planted the camera dead center in row F and just shot the stage show." Hardly, but none of them seemed to get her style and approach. It's fine if they don't like it. That's their prerogative as critics, but to "miss" the Kelly/Donen film technique leads me to believe these critics have never taken a film class. Lovely. I personally thought it was kinda neat to see someone as talented as Stroman try to make her own version of "Singin' in the Rain" in 2005. To see what that would look like on a big, modern screen. It felt both thrilling and out-of-place to me. I imagine most audiences will wonder why it seems so "different" to them"

12bars: I agree that most of the critics really didn't get it. But then the days of the film and theater critics being EDUCATED in their craft are long gone and I doubt that most of these people ever saw an old fashioned musical on screen in a movie theater.

Having said that, I also think that Stroman, as a Hollywood outsider, was bound to come under some criticism. But, my overall opinion of 'what went wrong here' with the critics being out of sync...is they just didn't GET what the creative team was trying to do...nor did they remind themselves that this is MEL BROOKS we are talking about. His stuff is always larger than life and in your face.

Go figure. Whatever happens, I hope the audiences win out. All the people I've spoken to who have seen the film have enjoyed it. It is not perfect, but it is far from a debacle!

---

DBillyP --- That WAS worded strangely, and didn't reflect my feelings. I meant to say that MOST audience members (of any background) wouldn't get the Show Boat spoof reference. My apologies to you and all.

But I do think that this bit would be offiensive to African-American audiences in particular. Most audiences of ANY background wouldn't get the Show Boat connection, though.

---

I thought the black Irish was in the movie?

Yes, it is true. Both the black irish joke and the accountant debiting and crediting were cut. But the black joke they ADDED was, as Masterlcz said, perhaps more offensive (if more subtle).

During the prisoners of love sequence, Max jumps up on stage to continue rehearsal and encounters a black prisoner attempting, unsuccesfully, to sing in time with the music. He calls the prisoner back to rehearsal and asks 'what are you in for?'...for those who did not see the movie yet...I won't spoil to punch line.

Suffice it to say, the new joke is probably more offensive than the ones they cut. So, again I say that it is hard to tell WHY the black jokes got cut.

---

It was a joke, misto625. Contrary to what you may have heard, I can assure you that on Broadway, when Robert Fowler is out, those two lines are cut for that performance. Kimberly Hester does not understudy him.

Or are you pulling my leg?

Those two "cuts" total what? 30 seconds of time?

That's the problem, leefowler, we don't know if you're telling the truth or not, though why would you lie? But then people do alot of things here I don't understand, so there you go. Just put your two cents in and let people believe what they want to believe...

Wow, I thought this thread was dead and gone.

leefowler---I actually DID address your post... before you even posted it. I wrote earlier that even if someone directly connected with the film were to come forward, they would say that the cuts in question were made for time and time alone. You didn't disappoint me or surprise me, and I had nothing further to add to my original thoughts on the subject after reading your post.

I'm not chiming in again today to call you a "liar," in fact I do believe that YOU believe in your reasons behind the editorial cuts. However, you use as your explanation of the choices made that they were looking to remove anything not having to do with the plot or character advancement due to running time issues, and that's why these two stereotypical black jokes went "bye-bye." ...when so many other stereotypical jokes remained.

I could probably hand you a list of close to a hundred jokes that ARE in the final edit that have absolutely nothing to do with plot or character advancement. I also agree that the total running time for these two jokes combined was less than 30 seconds (including the singing section).

The only “facts” here are that the jokes were filmed and then removed. The rest of this, including your own posted assessment, is based on subjective information and personal perception as to the reasons why.

---

Wow.

Hostile much, Mr Kelly?