The Producers: The Movie Musical
The Producers: The Movie Musical
January 1, 2006; Regal Greece Ridge (Rochester, NY)
* * ¾ (out of 4)
Despite being a theater major and my high-school musical theater background, I have always been very clear about my disdain for the form. Theatrical musicals (and the subsequent films that usually follow) tend to sacrifice complexity in plot and character and originality in writing for a nice love song or snappy closing. As my brother has said, musicals are forty-minute plays dragged out to three hours because of melodic shouting. Gross generalization, sure, but a lot of the times it’s true. All that weighed heavy on my mind when I went to see the film version of the Broadway play of the Mel Brooks film.
Now, I’ve always enjoyed The Producers in all its various forms. It’s one of the few musicals I can say I really enjoyed, and that the songs didn’t annoy me. This saddens me even more to look at the movie, knowing that somehow it didn’t transfer well from stage back to screen. All of the elements of the play are there, but that’s just it: this feels like one step beyond setting up a video camera for a performance of the show on Broadway. It’s no longer a play, but it doesn’t yet have the visual scope of a film. Susan Stroman’s camera barely moves once a shot is established, something I would have thought a dance choreographer would have noticed. Not moving the camera isn’t necessarily a bad thing – simple can be good – but shots hold for a little too long at times, with dialogue and especially musical numbers looking more like talking heads than the crazy characters they are.
Of all the complaints I thought I would have about the newest incarnation of The Producers, I didn’t think “There’s not enough music” would be one of them. I can understand cutting some of the songs – Broadway shows are expected to be long and showy, and that doesn’t always work for film. What really bothered me was the blatant lack of a score. Besides the overture at the beginning, there is not a single piece of instrumental music – if someone isn’t singing, there’s no music. And for some shots and conversations where there is little or no background noise, it leaves a very eerie feel sitting in the air. There were a number of times when I kept waiting for something to start up, and it simply never did.
The best reason to see this movie is the cast. They are, to the letter, fantastic. Stroman got the vast majority of the original cast to play their original roles – the only notable replacements are Uma Thurman as Ulla and Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkin. Thurman is especially fun – since the last memorable time I saw her she had a samurai sword in her hand, this is quite the change, and a welcome one. Those two are slightly behind the rest of the cast as far as singing goes, but there’s no issue at all – Thurman’s voice has a very dark quality which makes it fun, and Ferrell’s voice matches his kooky personality.
The stars of the film are great – I’m not sure it’s possible for Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick to not be good in these parts – but every once in awhile I started to wonder if they might like to be doing something else instead; they’ve been Bialystock and Bloom for quite some time now. The changes to the cast certainly fuel some new motivation – Broderick’s romantic scene with Thurman is particularly amusing, since she has at least six inches on him. As much as I can’t see anyone else play those two parts, I’ll look forward to seeing Lane and Broderick in something different sometime soon.
This is about as on-target of a stage-to-screen port as you can find, and I am disappointed that it didn’t work better for me. The lack of incidental music and clearly inexperienced directing certainly doesn’t overrule the positives from the cast and the script, but it does make their jobs harder. On a happier note, Jay’s review of this ought to be going up relatively shortly. He seemed to enjoy it more than I did, which leads me to believe that maybe having seen the stage musical is NOT beneficial this time around. If you never dropped the money on tickets, this may be the best way to go for you.
Oh, and stay around till after the credits. If you know anything about film, you’ll be looking for certain things throughout the movie. The biggest payoff comes at the end.
January 1, 2006; Regal Greece Ridge (Rochester, NY)
* * ¾ (out of 4)
Despite being a theater major and my high-school musical theater background, I have always been very clear about my disdain for the form. Theatrical musicals (and the subsequent films that usually follow) tend to sacrifice complexity in plot and character and originality in writing for a nice love song or snappy closing. As my brother has said, musicals are forty-minute plays dragged out to three hours because of melodic shouting. Gross generalization, sure, but a lot of the times it’s true. All that weighed heavy on my mind when I went to see the film version of the Broadway play of the Mel Brooks film.
Now, I’ve always enjoyed The Producers in all its various forms. It’s one of the few musicals I can say I really enjoyed, and that the songs didn’t annoy me. This saddens me even more to look at the movie, knowing that somehow it didn’t transfer well from stage back to screen. All of the elements of the play are there, but that’s just it: this feels like one step beyond setting up a video camera for a performance of the show on Broadway. It’s no longer a play, but it doesn’t yet have the visual scope of a film. Susan Stroman’s camera barely moves once a shot is established, something I would have thought a dance choreographer would have noticed. Not moving the camera isn’t necessarily a bad thing – simple can be good – but shots hold for a little too long at times, with dialogue and especially musical numbers looking more like talking heads than the crazy characters they are.
Of all the complaints I thought I would have about the newest incarnation of The Producers, I didn’t think “There’s not enough music” would be one of them. I can understand cutting some of the songs – Broadway shows are expected to be long and showy, and that doesn’t always work for film. What really bothered me was the blatant lack of a score. Besides the overture at the beginning, there is not a single piece of instrumental music – if someone isn’t singing, there’s no music. And for some shots and conversations where there is little or no background noise, it leaves a very eerie feel sitting in the air. There were a number of times when I kept waiting for something to start up, and it simply never did.
The best reason to see this movie is the cast. They are, to the letter, fantastic. Stroman got the vast majority of the original cast to play their original roles – the only notable replacements are Uma Thurman as Ulla and Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkin. Thurman is especially fun – since the last memorable time I saw her she had a samurai sword in her hand, this is quite the change, and a welcome one. Those two are slightly behind the rest of the cast as far as singing goes, but there’s no issue at all – Thurman’s voice has a very dark quality which makes it fun, and Ferrell’s voice matches his kooky personality.
The stars of the film are great – I’m not sure it’s possible for Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick to not be good in these parts – but every once in awhile I started to wonder if they might like to be doing something else instead; they’ve been Bialystock and Bloom for quite some time now. The changes to the cast certainly fuel some new motivation – Broderick’s romantic scene with Thurman is particularly amusing, since she has at least six inches on him. As much as I can’t see anyone else play those two parts, I’ll look forward to seeing Lane and Broderick in something different sometime soon.
This is about as on-target of a stage-to-screen port as you can find, and I am disappointed that it didn’t work better for me. The lack of incidental music and clearly inexperienced directing certainly doesn’t overrule the positives from the cast and the script, but it does make their jobs harder. On a happier note, Jay’s review of this ought to be going up relatively shortly. He seemed to enjoy it more than I did, which leads me to believe that maybe having seen the stage musical is NOT beneficial this time around. If you never dropped the money on tickets, this may be the best way to go for you.
Oh, and stay around till after the credits. If you know anything about film, you’ll be looking for certain things throughout the movie. The biggest payoff comes at the end.
posted by Matt S. at
2:07 PM
4 Comments:
I agree with your review. I was suprized with how much it didn't do that it could have, and I was annoyed at what it left out. It didn't move as well as the musical. Unlike a musical to movie like Chicago, which did way more than the show ever had, this one was disapointing. Though I really enjoyed Will Ferrell. Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane just didn't seem to be enjoying themselves, which makes sense due to the length of their run, but still. The best part about the show is the energy. --Sophie.
By
Anonymous, at 10:07 AM
I'm surprised I agree with the Will Ferrell thing. I normally can't stand him for that long, but this was the part he was made for.
By
Matt S., at 2:55 PM
"On a happier note, Jay’s review of this ought to be going up relatively shortly."
Heh. I counted earlier today; I had 44 reviews to do before I was caught up. And then I saw Blow-Up at the Brattle. I think The Producers is #38 on the list.
My vote on the fun people is Uma Thurman, Nathan Lane, and the animatronic pigeons.
By
Jason, at 1:10 AM
Oooookaaaay, so not so shortly. And yes, Adolf was fun.
By
Matt S., at 2:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home