For simplicity’s sake I want to say thanks to everyone who sent along those scripts I asked to see on Wednesday, and to list them all once again: Fair Game, Dave Eggers & Vendela Vida‘s Away We Go (for Sam Mendes), Noah Baumbach‘s Greenberg, Jason Reitman‘s Up In The Air, The Human Factor (the Clint Eastwood Mandela film), Imperial Life in the Green Zone, James Schamus‘s Taking Woodstock, Peter Straughan‘s The Men Who Stare At Goats, Brothers, untitled Nancy Meyers (the Meryl Streep movie), Amelia, a faded 2007 draft of Shutter Island, The Informant, The Lovely Bones, Hot Tub Time Machine, David O. Russell and Kristin Gore‘s Nailed, Jonah Hill, Matt Spicer & Max Winkler’s The Adventurer’s Handbook, and Joel and Ethan Coen‘s A Serious Man.
Variety‘s Michael Fleming posted a story last night about Jim Carrey and Jake Gyllenhaal being attached to star in a “contemporized” musical remake of Damn Yankees, which opened as a Broadway musical in 1955 before the screen version, directed by Stanley Donen and George Abbott, opened in 1958.
Carey would play Mr. Applegate, i.e., the Devil, and Gyllenhaal would play the dual role of Joe Boyd and Joe Hardy. The plot is about Applegate offering Boyd, a middle-aged baseball fan, a chance to become a suddenly younger man and a gifted ball player (with the last name of Hardy) who could join his favorite team, the Washington Senators, and help them out of a slump and possibly win the pennant.
New Line would fund and distribute, according to Fleming. Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel are set to write the script with the film to be produced by Craig Zadan and Neil Meron (Hairspray). The plan, said Fleming, is “to get the Ganz and Mandel script before meeting directors and actresses who’ll want to play Lola.”
The amusing part of Fleming’s story, presumably fed to him by one of the players, is that “the trick” in making this new Damn Yankees work will be “finding a balance that retains the show’s classic tunes while injecting a contemporary feel on a musical that is firmly rooted in the 1950s.”
Are Lowell and Babloo listening? There’s absolutely no way to contemporize Damn Yankees. It’s a very old-fashioned, 55 year-old musical that seethes with the mood and attitudes of Dwight D. Eisenhower‘s America — a way of living and thinking and dreaming that is long gone, up in smoke and dead, dead, deader-than-dead.
You either have to do it as a full-on period musical (which would actually be pretty cool, now that I think of it) or not at all. Because those songs (Whatever Lola Wants, Goodbye Old Girl, Six Months Out of Every Year, You Gotta Have Heart) are timepieces that have no connection to Obama America…none. The idea could be updated and “contemporized,” but the songs are impossible.
On top of which Damn Yankees has been done to death by community and high-school theatres in every corner of the country for the last 40 or 50 years so doing a movie version is almost like re-making Arsenic and Old Lace.
An hour or so ago Indiewire‘s Peter Knegt ran a piece about Tribeca Film Festival creative director Peter Scarlet resigning his post, effective immediately. Knegt ran a statement from Scarlet saying that the decision results from a “seven year itch” and an urge to “seek new challenges” and so on.
Right away I wrote Knegt and Tribeca Film Festival spokesperson Tammie Rosen the following note: “Scarlet’s resignation has nothing to do with Geoff Gilmore taking over as the festival’s new creative director? Simply passing along Scarlet’s ‘seven year itch’ comment seems dishonest. Shouldn’t the Indiewire story have addressed the Gilmore takeover factor? Why write the story in a boilerplate way that doesn’t convey an interest in what may have actually happened here?”
Rosen didn’t respond. Knegt basically reshuffled the official press release, but said “you can be sure that the suggested relation [of Scarlet’s resignation] to Geoff Gilmore’s recent taking over will be part of our continuing coverage.”
“Few are begrudging Kate Winslet‘s Oscar win,” writes Chicago Tribune columnist Mark Caro, “and yet few contend that her portrayal of former Nazi concentration camp guard Hanna Schmitz in The Reader is her strongest work ever.
Winslet’s performances in Revolutionary Road and Little Children, he argues, “were more complex and searing, and she transfixed even in Heavenly Creatures, her 1994 debut.” Caro uses this as a launch into a piece about 10 accomplished artists — Al Pacino, Martin Scorsese, Paul Newman, Sydney Pollack, etc. — who won Academy Awards for the “wrong” movie.
I could come up with a few myself, but it’s easier to let HE readers do this and then bounce off their calls in the comments section. Almost all acting Oscars are for a body of work, of course — the performance cited is always deemed worthy, of course, but an acting Oscar is basically a career-capper tribute.
John Wayne won his Best Actor Oscar for True Grit, but it might not have happened if he hadn’t given several verging-on-great performances in They Were Expendable, Red River, The Searchers, Rio Bravo, North to Alaska and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
Yes — North to Alaska. It’s perhaps Wayne’s only flat-out comedic performance but he’s just about perfect in every scene, goofing on his tough-cowboy machismo, confident, playing it relatively straight but also having fun at times, always in good spirits, etc.
A Defamer report about Jeremy Piven‘s tearful pleading during yesterday’s Speed-the-Plow hearing, sourcing Patrick Healy‘s N.Y. Times report and filed at 2:10 this morning by Ryan Tate, is so tartly written and seething with such heartless cynicism that I’m just going to paste most of it here:
“Jeremy Piven [yesterday] convinced five other actors his mercury poisoning is real, deadlocking a union hearing and sparing Piven penalties for leaving Speed-the-Plow. How did he do it? Maybe with some crying.
During a 20-minute interview with Healy at the Times, conducted after the three-hour Actor’s Equity hearing that ended in a split-vote and a non-conviction, the Entourage star “twice broke down in tears,” Healy reported.
“He cried as he described the stress of fearing for his health while pushing himself to continue with the play. ‘I’ve never missed a day’s work or a rehearsal in my life,’ Piven said. ‘I think there’s a reason you’ve never heard of any problem like this before.’
“Healy also noted that Piven ‘looked exhausted and often meandered’ during his interview,” Tate wrote. “Which, along with the crying, is totally fake-able, especially by, say, an actor. And which could also be symptoms of suddenly-curtailed access to a stimulant.
“There’s no word yet on the results of tests performed by a doctor other than Piven’s sketchy personal M.D., results that had been expected at the hearing, so all we have to go on is the word of Piven and his doctor. The actor also said he was in bed ‘almost every night’ — you can find the known exceptions here.
“Certainly the producers [at the hearing] were not convinced. Their five reps all voted against Piven, while the five Actor’s Equity reps voted with him. (Actor’s Equity includes both actors and stagehands.) The producers have the option of escalating to more aggressive proceedings. It’s not clear if they’ll do that , but lead complainant Jeffrey Richards pulled an apparently snarky move on the Times:
“‘Reached by telephone at home after the hearing,” Healy writes, “Mr. Richards said he was sick and on medication and would have no comment.’
“This snide joke is actually a nice opening for Piven’s p.r. team. If it trumpets Richard’s purported sickness as evidence that illl health regularly prevents hardworking people from doing their jobs, Richards will be in a bind: He either concedes the point or, to dispute it, admits he was lying.
“As for Piven’s honesty, it’s almost irrelevant at this point,” Tate concludes. “If Piven told the truth Thursday, and has [indeed] been going through hell, he deserves more credit for his acting, specifically for his professional commitment to Speed-the-Plow. If he lied, duping fellow thespians and a Times reporter, he also deserves more credit for his acting, specifically for being such a convincing con man.”
Here’s another version of the story by the N.Y. Post‘s Michael Riedel, Jeremy Olshan and Kirsten Fleming.
A Summit snitch informs that a company-wide email was circulated yesterday announcing that Kathryn Bigelow‘s The Hurt Locker will get a slow-build release starting on June 26. New York and LA first, and then 200 screens around the country and so on. I’ve e-mailed the Summit spokesperson but she won’t be responding for another two or three hours (i.e., probably still sleeping) so let’s just run this for now and wait. But I’ve been told by a second source (i.e., a good one) that this story is accurate.
This is excellent news, if true, as it implies that Summit seems to finally understand that The Hurt Locker isn’t an Iraq War film but a kind of monster movie (the paradigm being James Cameron‘s Aliens), and that it needs to be sold as such. Or at least as a half-Aliens, half-reality hybrid.
The limited 6.26 break will happen opposite My Sister’s Keeper and Surveillance; further competition will commence on 7.1 with Ice Age and Michael Mann‘s Public Enemies. It will then go up against Sasha Baron Cohen‘s Bruno with the July 10th expansion. On 7.17 comes Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (kids), 500 Days of Summer and a limited All The Boys Love Mandy Lane opening, leaving Hurt Locker‘s gritty action lure unchallenged.
What was that rumble about a late August break, which came from Hurt Locker star Jeremy Renner via Coming Soon‘s Ed Douglas? Douglas reported that during a Hurt Locker presentation at New York ComicCon, which happened on the weekend of 2.7, “someone from the audience yelled out to Renner when the movie was coming out, and he yelled back ‘late August!'”
Unless Douglas misheard or unless Renner is coping with some major self-delusion issue, Renner was probably told about a late August release by his agent or someone else in the loop and simply passed it along.
Perhaps Summit had decided as much then reconsidered after people (myself included) pointed out that it was fairly insane to open Hurt Locker against two other big-time, hot-ticket war films — Paramount and Stephen Sommers‘ G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (8.7.09) and Quentin Tarantino‘s Inglorious Basterds (8.21.09)? Which would have made The Hurt Locker third in line that month and facing an audience that would be almost certainly be feeling well-fed if not sated as far as bullets, tanks and helmets are concerned.
In any event, a limited June 26th break — if true — is an excellent way to go.
This is going to sound a little strange, and it’s definitely way late. But something hit me this evening as I was looking at the front cover of the Rachel Getting Married Blu-ray, which comes out March 10th. It’s odd that I never noticed it before since the jacket photo art is the exact same photo art used for the theatrical one-sheet. Anyway…
Rachel, as we all know, is played by Rosemarie DeWitt, and the guy she’s getting married to in the film is a bit of a dullard named Sidney, played by Tunde Adebimpe. And Anne Hathaway‘s character, of course, is Kym, Rachel’s older sister who suffering from guilt trips and drug-abuse problems.
Anne/Kym has the closeup on the right, of course, and Rosemarie/Rachel is the much smaller, out-of-focus woman in the background dressed in a flowing gown and carrying a floral bouquet. The guy standing next to her, one would presume, is her fiance. But it’s not, of course. It’s some white guy, presumably Bill Irwin, who played Rachel’s dad in the film.
I think the Sony ad guys put Irwin (or some other unfocused white guy) next to Rachel so as not to raise the interracial marriage issue on the poster. I think they did that as a kind of dodge. Think about it for four or five seconds. The movie’s title refers to a marriage and yet the guy Rachel is standing next to in her wedding gown is not the guy she’s marrying. This doesn’t seem a wee bit strange?
You can say it doesn’t matter because Rachel has a close relationship with her dad in the film (true enough) and dads do give their daughters away in marriage ceremonies so why can’t he stand next to her? I get that, okay, maybe. But consider a flipside view.
Rear-jacket shot used for Rachel Blu-ray.
Let’s imagine that Rachel Getting Married is a slightly different film in which Rachel is getting married to some white guy but her stepdad, with whom she has a very close and affectionate relationship, is African American. Let’s go one further and say that the stepdad is the most important relationship in Rachel’s life except for the one she’s about to embark upon with her new husband. Now, what are the odds that the Sony ad guys, wanting to reflect the emotional underpinnings of the film, would put a small, out-of-focus African American guy next to Rachel in the background?
You can say, “Okay, but look at the back of the Blu-ray jacket and there’s a photo of Rachel and Sidney together! Doesn’t that rebut your point?” Partly, I would answer, but not that much. For the photo they’ve chosen shows Adebimpe’s left profile with most of his face covered by Roisemarie DeWitt’s right hand. All you can see of his face is his forehead, which, okay, is dark. But it seems to me that they chose a photo with allows the casual viewer to not necessarily grasp what’s going on.
HitFix’s Greg Ellwood ran an exclusive earlier today about Eddie Murphy being attached to play Richard Pryor in a biopic called Richard Pryor: Is It Something I Said? for director-writer Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Kinsey, Gods and Monsters) and Fox Searchlight.
Very cool, looking forward, etc. But my first reaction when I heard this was that it will be surprising if Murphy really plays Pryor — i.e., not just does his voice and comic manner and speech rhythms, but really gets into his life and under his skin. I just don’t believe that Murphy, renowned for rampant egoism and his “fuck you, I’m leaving” routine when he lost the Best Supporting Actor Oscar to Alan Arkin in early ’07, has the hunger and humility to seriously burrow into the soul of another artist, and especially another black comic. I think Murphy is way too invested in being #1 to allow for any kind of profound submission/transformation.
Doing a clever Pryor impression on-stage is one thing; trying to really become the guy (which involves a serious suppression of one’s own personality) is quite another deal.
Boiled down, Murphy’s whole career since ’86 or ’87 has been about “hold up, you come to me ’cause I’m King Shit and not you, suckah.” I could be dead wrong and may have to apologize for this down the road (which I’ll be happy to do because Murphy is a very talented guy), but my suspicion, knowing Murphy, is that he’ll kind of “do” Pryor — i.e., repeat his bits, do his body language — in a nominal way but his performance will end up as a kind of Murphy-Pryor hybrid with things slightly tilting in his favor.
Again, I’d love to be proved wrong.
Ellwood reports that the Pruor biopic was “originally developed with The Weinstein Company, [but that] Condon and producer Mark Gordon were able to free it up in turnaround and have shopped it to different studios. Paramount Pictures was close to securing the project, but Fox Searchlight recently stepped in after having no qualms with the film’s $25 million budget.
“Murphy, who featured impersonations of Pryor in his early stand up routines and cast him in his own directorial effort, Harlem Nights, is said to be enthusiastic about playing his longtime idol and has dropped his usual salary requirements for the role.
“The script also features prominent roles for Pryor’s four wives and Red Foxx. Those roles have not been cast as of yet. Additionally, the film’s title will likely change before release.”
A.O. Scott‘s 50th anniversary appreciation of’ William Wyler‘s Ben-Hur (which actually opened 49 years and nine months ago, in November 1959) is a bit too gracious. Being the kind of film they don’t make any more doesn’t make it particularly special. What makes it special is Miklos Rosza‘s music. Eliminate the chariot race and it’s mainly a film that accompanies the score rather than vice versa.
On top of which Scott doesn’t address the central Ben-Hur conceit, used to sell stage and screen adaptations of Lew Wallace‘s book since the mid 1800s, that it’s “a tale of the Christ.” It’s actually a good revenge story — ambitious Roman guy screws over princely Jewish guy whom he loved on some homoerotic level as a child (and vice versa), Jewish guy survives years of incarceration, returns and beats Roman guy in a chariot race. Ben-Hur doesn’t exactly fall apart after the chariot race, but it’s certainly marking time.
Almost 18 months after debuting at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival, Roger Spottiswoode‘s Shake Hands With The Devil has been acquired from Halifax Films by Regent Releasing. It will open next summer. Spottiswoode’s drama covers the same ghastly events depicted in Hotel Rwanda — i.e., the Rwandan genocide of 1993. The main character is Canadian Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire, played by Roy Dupuis here and by Nick Nolte in Hotel Rwanda.
Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, posted today.
- Really Nice Ride
To my great surprise and delight, Christy Hall‘s Daddio, which I was remiss in not seeing during last year’s Telluride...
More » - Live-Blogging “Bad Boys: Ride or Die”
7:45 pm: Okay, the initial light-hearted section (repartee, wedding, hospital, afterlife Joey Pants, healthy diet) was enjoyable, but Jesus, when...
More » - One of the Better Apes Franchise Flicks
It took me a full month to see Wes Ball and Josh Friedman‘s Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes...
More »
- The Pull of Exceptional History
The Kamala surge is, I believe, mainly about two things — (a) people feeling lit up or joyful about being...
More » - If I Was Costner, I’d Probably Throw In The Towel
Unless Part Two of Kevin Costner‘s Horizon (Warner Bros., 8.16) somehow improves upon the sluggish initial installment and delivers something...
More » - Delicious, Demonic Otto Gross
For me, A Dangerous Method (2011) is David Cronenberg‘s tastiest and wickedest film — intense, sexually upfront and occasionally arousing...
More »