New York 1 (a local cable news station in NYC) did a story today on the many movie musical projects that are currently rumored to be in the works as a result of Chicago's success. Readers of this thread won't be surprised to hear that Guys and Dolls is one of the rumored projects, but you may be surprised (or would "appalled" be a better word?) to learn that there's talk of casting Vin Diesel or Eminem in the movie!
A more plausible (to me, anyway) casting rumor has Antonio Banderas playing the Phantom in a movie version of Phantom of the Opera. Although Banderas hasn't heretofore been known for his musical talents, he's currently appearing on Broadway in a revival of Nine, and his performance is apparently generating good buzz. (It's still in previews, so there haven't been any reviews yet.) By the way, the New York 1 story also mentioned that there's talk of Melanie Griffith taking over the role of Roxie Hart in Chicago on Broadway -- hey, if he were my husband, I'd want to make sure we were working in the same town, too!
And both Hairspray and Urinetown may follow Chicago's example and make the stage-to-screen transition while the stage version is still playing on Broadway. Of course, in Hairspray's case, it would be a screen-to-stage-to-screen transition, if you're not picky about the fact that the first movie version wasn't a musical.
Hi, bree, I haven't run into a post of yours in quite sometime.
Thanks for the info here.
Phantom of the Opera as a movie should be a money-maker if only because of its name and fame.
Bree,
...The first time Vin caught my attention was in the movie "Boiler Room". This was not an action flick. It was about crooked investors. He was a captivating presence in every scene he played. And remember, this was the first time I had ever seen him. The boy got chops.
...Didn't Antonio sing in "Evita"?
Booman, I had completely forgotten that Banderas played Che in the movie version of Evita until you mentioned it (but I have a good excuse, because I hated the Broadway production of Evita so much that I never saw the movie). And I really have nothing against Vin Diesel -- my use of "appalled" was directed more at the idea of casting Eminem in a movie version of Guys and Dolls.
Nice to see you again, too, williamhenry.
bree<
I think Eminem is too young to be believable in a movie version of Guys and Dolls.
Take the two male leads out of this pool and you can't go wrong.: Diesel, Ribisi,Del Toro, and Smith. for the female lead; Glyneth Paltrow, she can do anything.
Various sources are promoting a rumor that Nicole Kidman may play opposite Vin Diesel in G&D. Does anyone know if the guy can sing?
I don't know, but if he can, it's gotta' be one beautiful barritone.
As long as we're casting the movie version of Guys and Dolls, I'd like to suggest Queen Latifah for Miss Adelaide. Before you dismiss the idea, consider this: she's already been nominated for an Oscar for playing a movie musical role (a role that, incidentally, wasn't specifically written for an African-American actress), and nobody would have to ask, "Can she sing?"
Well, I finally saw Chicago - and I guess I am just not one for musicals! I could see that it was well done, and it held my attention - but I found the story-line so thin as to be completely unsatisfying - though it was wonderfully done by the actors. I KNOW storyline is not really what musicals are about - but...
Oddly, I loved Moulin Rouge - and I loved Cabaret.
bree<
Queen Latifah would do a show-stopper version of "A Person Develops a Cold" in Guys and Dolls. She would be superb as Miss Adelaide to Richard Gere's Sky Masterson.
dlowan<
It's okay if you didn't like Chicago. You are offering your informed opinion. Some folks who don't like it have never even seen it.
I DID like Queen Latifah! I notice she is in another film about to be released here.
It's a true thin story, dlowan and sorry you weren't bowled over like many of us. The stage play and films previously shot were farcical comedies while Ebb and Kander played up taking pot shots at a decadence of the prison and court system, not to mention the press. Chicago has always been a very corrupt city -- it is built on a swamp after all. Not as pungent a look at life as "Cabaret" but the Twenties was really an ideal period for a plotline and why not a true story that had been dramatized before? "Chicago" is more in the traditional musical comedy idiom, not quite approaching the level of musical theater that someone like Sondheim is so adept at serving up. Leonard Berstein is the only other composer I can cite as being equal to Sondheim -- "Candide" being a classic satire and brought to the musical stage as a theatrical experience with music, it's never been given its due.
chicago
Lightwizard, and West Side Story was no slouch either. By the way, Mexico City, another great center of corruption was also built on a swamp--nice metaphor.
The artistic value of operas and musicals are dependent on their musical and/or dance performances, not the literature that constitutes little more than their armatures
Usually for a great book, you have to start with a great story, and add the muscal. Ala, "Les Miserables"
Indeed, LW - the thing is, the bones of the story were so fascinating - as were the glimpses into the sociology of the whole thing, that I wanted it explored and fleshed out! I think a lesser story would have left me more content with the razzle dazzle of the production.
chicago
Dlowan. O.K. there are exceptions to my "rule." But an opera or musical might survive if it has great music and lowsy story, but it would never survive with a great story and lowsy music.
Oh - i agree - that is why I said that, in general, the musical is not, I think, a medium for me.
This thread has been silent for awhile, but I must post the following:
Last week, I had the opportunity to see Chicago for the second time. I found the picture to be just as much fun the second time as the first.
A second viewing gave me a chance to study the art direction a bit more.
It is a masterpiece.
On the second viewing, I also found the performance of Catherine Zeta-Jones to have more strength and depth than I did the first time around.
Here is a lady who certainly deserved her recent Oscar.
Chicago itself still has the impact of a "live" performance, and, that perhaps, gives it its genius.
Has anyone else taken a second look at Chicago? What is your opinion after having seen the film more than once?
