Recently Seen: The Producers (2005)
The Producers is not your typical movie musical. It is based on the identically monikered Broadway musical which was in turn based on the 1968 Mel Brooks movie, which was about a musical but was not itself a musical.
So, The Producers is a movie musical based on a stage musical based on a non-musical movie. What makes it all so very meta is that the stage musical is typically Broadway and the musical-within-the-musical is presented as a parody of typical Broadway musicals. The movie version essentially has the challenge of filming two musicals - the Broadway musical "The Producers" and the musical-within-the-musical "Springtime in Hitler". How to do this without making "The Producers" a parody of Broadway and making "Springtime in Hitler" a parody within a parody?? (Okay, I have thoroughly confused myself now).
In a way, director Susan Stroman began batting with two strikes against her. It is a Herculean feat to film such an ostensibly old-school Broadway musical and not have the whole thing come across as precious or ridiculous. In the more intimate medium of film, the extravagance of musical theatre can appear exaggerated. And this is a musical so over the top that it almost parodies itself as a stage production, never mind as a movie. The musical was such a big hit precisely because of its exuberantly unapologetic excesses .Toning it down for the filmed version would have been neutering the energy that makes it work on stage.
Does Stroman avoid the pitfalls of unwitting parody? I suppose it is a matter of taste or perhaps, exposure. I love the old Hollywood musicals with the big production numbers and the likes of Ethel Merman pitching it to the back rows. Once you have seen any of the Zigfield Follies, you become rather inured against gaudiness in movie musicals. The OTT elements of The Producers are nothing I haven't seen before. I think Stroman just about avoided parody, but she did not alleviate the movie beyond being a filmed stage production. Her inexperience as a movie director told; too many scenes seemed bound them to their stage origins rather than being enacted in the language of cinema. In a way, it is both a good and a bad thing. I personally liked the staged quality of the film as a reminder of its Broadway roots. But cinema magic is very different from theatre magic. In keeping to theatrical conventions in the cinematic medium, Stroman captures the magic of neither.
Still, The Producers as a movie should succeed at some level on the strength of its source material. It is after all based on a very fine musical with a strong book. Musically, The Producers is not in Sondheim territory nor does it pretend or aspire to such lofty heights. The tunes are simple and almost repetitive; Broadway-by-numbers, if you will. (Just take these two songs -"I wanna be a producer" and "When you've got it, flaunt it". They are practically the same number in terms of their melodic lines.) The genius is in the lyrics, which are often bitingly clever, scan brilliantly and achieve rhymes of such virtuoso dexterity that they rival Ira Gershwin's work. "You Never Say Good Luck on Opening Night" and "Keep it Gay" are particular highlights for their words, if not the music.
Most of the original Broadway cast reprise their roles in the movie, with headliners Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick playing the producers, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom. They inhabit the roles effortlessly, although I think the charm of the performances is less well served on film than it would have been in the theatre.
Broderick has the especially difficult task of playing straight ... well, straighter ... man to practically every other character in the show. Leo Bloom is not without his idiosyncrasies but he is the closest thing to an Everyman in the main cast. Much of the time, Broderick has to react to insanities around him and the script calls for much eyebrow popping, lip quivering and other exaggerated facial expressions. On film, his is the performance that seems most stagey, precisely because it is the least extoverted and the character the most normal. Everyone else gets to go to town with bombast and gleefully cross the line into caricature.
On Broadway, Nathan Lane must have been the show-stopper. This role is almost the perfect Nathan Lane role, giving him plenty of opportunity to do his Nathan Lane thing. It does not translate quite as successfully on film, but I can see how he would have prompted standing ovations on Broadway after his two bravura numbers, "Along came Bialy" and the one-man tour-de-force "Betrayed". In the movie, "Betrayed" seems out of place and too long (I think Roger Ebert commented on this), mainly because it is unimaginatively filmed. But in the theatre, this must have brought the house down every night and probably won Nathan Lane his Tony.
Two big names not in the original Broadway cast were brought in for the movie - Uma Thurman playing Swedish bombshell Ulla and Will Ferrell taking on the role of Nazi nut Franz Liebkind. Stunt casting? Maybe, but not necessarily bad casting. Franz Liebkind is exactly the kind of role that Ferrell can pull off almost as second nature. Thurman certainly has the necessary physical attributes to play Ulla, and she purrs her way through the role nicely. I wish she was a more graceful dancer, but perhaps the point is that Ulla is not supposed to be all that talented.
Gary Beach plays Broadway's worst director Roger de Bris and is an absolute hoot. When he assumes the role of Hitler in "Springtime for Hitler", he is marvelously, simperingly campy and fey. I just loved how he actually looks physically like Hitler once they get the moustache on him, much more so than any of the Hitler auditionees or Franz Liebkind. Then his entire body becomes limp-wristed, and we are suddenly watching drag!Hitler and the rest is history.
The castmember that stands out the most for me is Roger Bart as Carmen Ghia, "common-law assistant" of Roger de Bris. It is not a large role, but Bart is hilarious and steals every scene in which he appears. He is in turn and all at once bitchy, gossipy, loving, ascerbic, fawning and disdainful. I cannot believe this is the same man that played psycho-pharmacist George on Desperate Housewives.
Talking about cast members, special mention goes to John Barrowman who plays the lead tenor who plays a German soldier in "Springtime for Hitler". He gets to sing the titular opening number of the show-within-the-show. It is the most memorable song in The Producers, and is the only one which featured in the original 1968 Mel Brooks movie. I have only seen the original movie once, more than 15 years ago. In all that time, I have never forgotten the tune of "Springtime for Hitler". Barrowman (another versatile talent; he was Captain Jack in Dr Who) sings this wonderfully, in a very authentically musical theatre style and in full control of his very fine lyric tenor voice.
For what it is - the filmed version of a stage musical - this movie is thoroughly enjoyable. It moves along at a fair pace, is visually eye-catching and makes no intellectual demands on its audience. The tunes are hummable and grateful to the ear, if not always memorable. The dance numbers are well-choreographed and excellently performed. Mel Brook's screenplay is full of intentionally corny jokes at which one can laugh or groan and enjoy doing it. The songs have clever lyrics which are good for at least a chuckle or two. It is a fun little diversion for its two-hour running time.
Rating: 7 out of 10
So, The Producers is a movie musical based on a stage musical based on a non-musical movie. What makes it all so very meta is that the stage musical is typically Broadway and the musical-within-the-musical is presented as a parody of typical Broadway musicals. The movie version essentially has the challenge of filming two musicals - the Broadway musical "The Producers" and the musical-within-the-musical "Springtime in Hitler". How to do this without making "The Producers" a parody of Broadway and making "Springtime in Hitler" a parody within a parody?? (Okay, I have thoroughly confused myself now).
In a way, director Susan Stroman began batting with two strikes against her. It is a Herculean feat to film such an ostensibly old-school Broadway musical and not have the whole thing come across as precious or ridiculous. In the more intimate medium of film, the extravagance of musical theatre can appear exaggerated. And this is a musical so over the top that it almost parodies itself as a stage production, never mind as a movie. The musical was such a big hit precisely because of its exuberantly unapologetic excesses .Toning it down for the filmed version would have been neutering the energy that makes it work on stage.
Does Stroman avoid the pitfalls of unwitting parody? I suppose it is a matter of taste or perhaps, exposure. I love the old Hollywood musicals with the big production numbers and the likes of Ethel Merman pitching it to the back rows. Once you have seen any of the Zigfield Follies, you become rather inured against gaudiness in movie musicals. The OTT elements of The Producers are nothing I haven't seen before. I think Stroman just about avoided parody, but she did not alleviate the movie beyond being a filmed stage production. Her inexperience as a movie director told; too many scenes seemed bound them to their stage origins rather than being enacted in the language of cinema. In a way, it is both a good and a bad thing. I personally liked the staged quality of the film as a reminder of its Broadway roots. But cinema magic is very different from theatre magic. In keeping to theatrical conventions in the cinematic medium, Stroman captures the magic of neither.
Still, The Producers as a movie should succeed at some level on the strength of its source material. It is after all based on a very fine musical with a strong book. Musically, The Producers is not in Sondheim territory nor does it pretend or aspire to such lofty heights. The tunes are simple and almost repetitive; Broadway-by-numbers, if you will. (Just take these two songs -"I wanna be a producer" and "When you've got it, flaunt it". They are practically the same number in terms of their melodic lines.) The genius is in the lyrics, which are often bitingly clever, scan brilliantly and achieve rhymes of such virtuoso dexterity that they rival Ira Gershwin's work. "You Never Say Good Luck on Opening Night" and "Keep it Gay" are particular highlights for their words, if not the music.
Most of the original Broadway cast reprise their roles in the movie, with headliners Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick playing the producers, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom. They inhabit the roles effortlessly, although I think the charm of the performances is less well served on film than it would have been in the theatre.
Broderick has the especially difficult task of playing straight ... well, straighter ... man to practically every other character in the show. Leo Bloom is not without his idiosyncrasies but he is the closest thing to an Everyman in the main cast. Much of the time, Broderick has to react to insanities around him and the script calls for much eyebrow popping, lip quivering and other exaggerated facial expressions. On film, his is the performance that seems most stagey, precisely because it is the least extoverted and the character the most normal. Everyone else gets to go to town with bombast and gleefully cross the line into caricature.
On Broadway, Nathan Lane must have been the show-stopper. This role is almost the perfect Nathan Lane role, giving him plenty of opportunity to do his Nathan Lane thing. It does not translate quite as successfully on film, but I can see how he would have prompted standing ovations on Broadway after his two bravura numbers, "Along came Bialy" and the one-man tour-de-force "Betrayed". In the movie, "Betrayed" seems out of place and too long (I think Roger Ebert commented on this), mainly because it is unimaginatively filmed. But in the theatre, this must have brought the house down every night and probably won Nathan Lane his Tony.
Two big names not in the original Broadway cast were brought in for the movie - Uma Thurman playing Swedish bombshell Ulla and Will Ferrell taking on the role of Nazi nut Franz Liebkind. Stunt casting? Maybe, but not necessarily bad casting. Franz Liebkind is exactly the kind of role that Ferrell can pull off almost as second nature. Thurman certainly has the necessary physical attributes to play Ulla, and she purrs her way through the role nicely. I wish she was a more graceful dancer, but perhaps the point is that Ulla is not supposed to be all that talented.
Gary Beach plays Broadway's worst director Roger de Bris and is an absolute hoot. When he assumes the role of Hitler in "Springtime for Hitler", he is marvelously, simperingly campy and fey. I just loved how he actually looks physically like Hitler once they get the moustache on him, much more so than any of the Hitler auditionees or Franz Liebkind. Then his entire body becomes limp-wristed, and we are suddenly watching drag!Hitler and the rest is history.
The castmember that stands out the most for me is Roger Bart as Carmen Ghia, "common-law assistant" of Roger de Bris. It is not a large role, but Bart is hilarious and steals every scene in which he appears. He is in turn and all at once bitchy, gossipy, loving, ascerbic, fawning and disdainful. I cannot believe this is the same man that played psycho-pharmacist George on Desperate Housewives.
Talking about cast members, special mention goes to John Barrowman who plays the lead tenor who plays a German soldier in "Springtime for Hitler". He gets to sing the titular opening number of the show-within-the-show. It is the most memorable song in The Producers, and is the only one which featured in the original 1968 Mel Brooks movie. I have only seen the original movie once, more than 15 years ago. In all that time, I have never forgotten the tune of "Springtime for Hitler". Barrowman (another versatile talent; he was Captain Jack in Dr Who) sings this wonderfully, in a very authentically musical theatre style and in full control of his very fine lyric tenor voice.
For what it is - the filmed version of a stage musical - this movie is thoroughly enjoyable. It moves along at a fair pace, is visually eye-catching and makes no intellectual demands on its audience. The tunes are hummable and grateful to the ear, if not always memorable. The dance numbers are well-choreographed and excellently performed. Mel Brook's screenplay is full of intentionally corny jokes at which one can laugh or groan and enjoy doing it. The songs have clever lyrics which are good for at least a chuckle or two. It is a fun little diversion for its two-hour running time.
Rating: 7 out of 10
Labels: Movie Reviews
posted by gentleice the deptfordian at 7:04 PM
<< Home