"Chicago" stars ready to perform at Oscars
LOS ANGELES(AP) -- Queen Latifah and the very pregnant Catherine Zeta-Jones have agreed to perform a duet from their musical "Chicago" at this Sunday's Academy Awards ceremony.
The John Kander and Fred Ebb tune, "I Move On," is nominated for best original song. Zeta-Jones, whose second child with husband Michael Douglas is due in April, performed the number in the film with co-star Renee Zellweger.
Zellweger declined to reprise her performance for the Oscars, the academy announced Wednesday.
Latifah and Zeta-Jones are both nominated in the supporting actress category for their roles in "Chicago," while Zellweger is up for the lead-actress prize. The film has 13 nominations, including a nomination for best picture.
Fred Astaire always insisted his dancing sequences stick to being photographed head-to-toe as if one was "on stage" with him. The departure of showing Gere's feet when he's "tap dancing his way through court" I though was ideal. It's true that scenes like the "Jailhouse Tango" use devices that were tried and true but there is little that can be totally original in film -- every film since 1970 can be traced back to being derivitive here and there even though much of that can be interpreted as an homage to another director. Busby Berkely has been honored many times in film with ensemble dance sequences mand so has Fosse and other stage choreographers. I believe Murrow realized how much is lost in trying to film the dance sequences with as little staginess as possible and to the talent of the dancers. One of the criticisms of the original Fosse stage version was that he took over and left Kander and Ebb in the wings. The songs really were punctuated by the way he directed the film and although it might not be perfect, I hope we can expect some more from him and other directors to bring back the musical motion picture. Well, not by the likes of Richard Attenborough who created dinosaurs more than once.
Has anyone else heard the rumors about Guys and Dolls being the next film Rob Marshall will direct? I know they're just rumors, but that could be a good choice. A recent Broadway hit. Some numbers are set at a club - it's called the Hot Box if I recall correctly. What do you think?
Last night I watched for the umteenth time, the last great, pure musical before Moulin Rouge. "The Blues Brothers" Sometimes I forget there have actually been several musicals since the heyday, just done with modern music. ....BTW, this isn't entirely a digression, "Blues..." was shot in Chicago.
Guys and Dolls? Why remake a perfect film?
I'm finally going to cave in and see Chicago. It's a company event. I had a choice of Chicago or Bringing Down the House.
Either way, you get Queen Latifah.
That's good, I guess. I dunno. Haven't been to anything other than animated films in about a decade now.
They'd better get a clue that going to remakes of films that are shown again and again on cable is a death knell in my opinion for the musical film. "Guys and Dolls" is one of those and although it suffered from poor prints and pan-and-scan for many years, the last showings I've seen were virtually pristine and letter-boxed (as well as the DVD remastering which is even better). Innovation and inspired direction has got to be a channel for great material -- there's enough great Broadway musical material after the 50's to supply someone like Rob Marshall. Of Sondheim, "Company" is an obvious choice for the New York settings (the Boris Aaronsen sets of the original were breathtaking -- all steel and glass with backprojections of the city). It follows along with so much of the feeling of "Sex and the City" and would be very popular in my opinion. Why do people who get the Oscar decide to torpedo the stature they've attainted by suddenly becoming lame-brained in choosing new material? Extraordinary? Maybe not -- the collaborative elements don't come together that often to make a great film. Sometimes it hasn't been recognized as a great film in its day and sometimes it its a film that is highly overrated and becomes dated before the second round of TV showings. THe musical film was abadoned because of the perception that they were all sweetness and light or were so goofily produced and directed as screen vehicle that would make artificial insemination seem exciting. I'm sorry I keep mentioning what should be the obvious -- the titles I would like to see on film are not chosen just because they're my favorites. It think they also have the best potential for a new film that could be even better than "Chicago." It will be a tough act to follow by any director and production studio and I believe they're are more directors out there who can handle it.
I wanted to mention that the only achievements in musical films has been animation in the last thirty years. "The Lion King," "Beauty and the Beast" and "An American Tale" are aimed a younger audiences but I've enjoyed them as musicals.
I dutifully decided I would take my young niece to see "Aladdin", and force myself to sit through it. About halfway through, I was quite peeved when I had to stop and take her to the restroom.
macsm<
I am bored almost to tears at the very suggestion of another film version of Guys and Dolls. From high school thespians to collegiates trying something "fun," Guys and Dolls is one of the most over-produced musicals of our time.
This statement is not to discount its most recent Broadway revival. The staging, lighting, orchestrating, and casting gave this has-been-show new life.
That even Rob Morrow could film some new cinematic life into this musical is highly speculative. Sure, if he does it, I'll see it simply to see what he's done to warrant the production of such dusty material.
Meanwhile, I'll leave Guys and Dolls to the touring companies and the amateurs.
Allow me a few comments about musicals and why they don't always transfer to film. Musicals were developed for the stage -- live performers in front of a live audience.(Musicals are America's contribution to world theatre) The style of acting in a musical is "presentational." I present this character to you, the audience. I'm not representing a character because it is not plausible that he would stop talking and begin dancing and singing. The aesthetic nature of a musical puts the "action" in the minds of the audience.
Film is very realistic and creates verasimilitude The screen "represents" another place and time. Relatively few successful stage musicals transfer to film. There are exceptions My Fair Lady, Sound of Music, Cabaret, etc. And there are flops like Guys and Dolls. Guys and Dolls is very presentational even on stage. So, what I'm ruminating about is the difference between presentational and representationl modes on stage and in film.
The genre of theatre and the genre of film are not easily interchangeable.
There are other live theatre conventions that don't tend to work in film such as asides, where the actor directly addresses the audience and needs a response. Albert Finney in Tom Jones worked. However, George C. Scott as Patton, faced the movie audience, but was talking to a diffferent audience.
i think "Hero" is the best one
BillyFalcon<
I read today in my local newspaper that talks are underway to star John Travolta in new film versions of both Guys and Dolls and Pajama Game. The source of this article is the Knight-Ridder News Service.
I think Mr. Travolta would be a better male lead in Guys and Dolls than was Marlon Brando in the existing film.
Saw the stage show, "CHICAGO" in London on March 18. It was very good! c.i.
dancing
C.I. No, really, can the English dance?
c.i.<
Hope you'll also see Chicago, the movie.
C.I., is it me, or has your name been a bit scarce on these pages lately?
