The holiday movie season started for me with a sneak of “The Kite Runner,” continued with the flawed-but-fascinating “No Country
for Old Men,” took me through the nail-biting “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead,” sidetripped into the domestic drama “The
Savages,” and culminated with a Christmas Day double feature of ”Sweeney Todd” (my second visit), and “Charlie Wilson’s War.”
Even on the kidflick front “Bee Movie” was a bit better than I had hoped and “Enchanted” was sufficiently charming.
And I have yet to see the likely Oscar-nominees “Atonement,” “There Will Be Blood,” “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” and “Juno.”
Either I’m getting more selective or something interesting is happening in movie theaters right now. Specifically: Very good movies are getting made.
A few observations:
1. Apart from a few moments of “Sweeney Todd,” none of these films feature real call-attention-to-itself filmmaking. Are we returning to good storytelling vs. showboat directing?
2. Philip Seymour Hoffman is in three of the aforementioned films and gives complex, interesting and very different performances in each. If he isn’t the actor of the year, please tell me who is.
3. “Charlie Wilson’s War” is unlikely to be a major hit, but it’s a savvy move for Tom Hanks, who has been in an interesting transitional decade. His back-to-back-to-back-to-back etc. hits of the 1990s gave way to a period of uncertainty (see “The Ladykillers,” “Polar Express” and the hedging-his-bets “The DaVinci Code”). What’s happening to America’s (once) favorite actor?
4. Similarly, it will be interesting to see where Julia Roberts’ movie choices go. In “Charlie Wilson’s War,” she is essentially playing the Glenn Close role. As with Hanks, her post-2000 choices have seemed transitional. Does she still have hits in her?
5. Although its gore and unrelentingly negative world view will certainly keep it from chalking up lots of repeat viewings, I’m trying to think of a better stage-musical-to-screen-musical adaptation than “Sweeney Todd.” Certainly it’s in the top 10—which would, for me, include “Fiddler on the Roof,” “West Side Story,” “Hedwig and the Angry Inch,” “The Music Man,” “Oliver!,” “My Fair Lady,” “The Sound of Music,” “Chicago” and … OK, so that’s nine. What should fill in the last slot?
Your thoughts?
And I have yet to see the likely Oscar-nominees “Atonement,” “There Will Be Blood,” “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” and “Juno.”
Either I’m getting more selective or something interesting is happening in movie theaters right now. Specifically: Very good movies are getting made.
A few observations:
1. Apart from a few moments of “Sweeney Todd,” none of these films feature real call-attention-to-itself filmmaking. Are we returning to good storytelling vs. showboat directing?
2. Philip Seymour Hoffman is in three of the aforementioned films and gives complex, interesting and very different performances in each. If he isn’t the actor of the year, please tell me who is.
3. “Charlie Wilson’s War” is unlikely to be a major hit, but it’s a savvy move for Tom Hanks, who has been in an interesting transitional decade. His back-to-back-to-back-to-back etc. hits of the 1990s gave way to a period of uncertainty (see “The Ladykillers,” “Polar Express” and the hedging-his-bets “The DaVinci Code”). What’s happening to America’s (once) favorite actor?
4. Similarly, it will be interesting to see where Julia Roberts’ movie choices go. In “Charlie Wilson’s War,” she is essentially playing the Glenn Close role. As with Hanks, her post-2000 choices have seemed transitional. Does she still have hits in her?
5. Although its gore and unrelentingly negative world view will certainly keep it from chalking up lots of repeat viewings, I’m trying to think of a better stage-musical-to-screen-musical adaptation than “Sweeney Todd.” Certainly it’s in the top 10—which would, for me, include “Fiddler on the Roof,” “West Side Story,” “Hedwig and the Angry Inch,” “The Music Man,” “Oliver!,” “My Fair Lady,” “The Sound of Music,” “Chicago” and … OK, so that’s nine. What should fill in the last slot?
Your thoughts?
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
10 Comments
Add Comment
OK, OK. I'll go see Sweeney. Yes -- I am the one Sondheim fan who does not particularly like Sweeney Todd -- I think mostly due to the inherent gore in the piece. So I'm sure I'll be mortified by the blood in the film, and will probably watch through my fingers. But I'll see it, just because it's Sondheim on film.
Is it true that there's talk of making Follies into a movie? This might actually work. I think the technical difficulities of this amazing musical are what makes it nearly impossible to remount onstage. A film might be just what it needs!
Saw Charlie Wilson's War last night, and loved it. Really fine performances by all of the stars -- and you're absolutely right about Phillip Seymour Hoffman. He's really just about the most interesting actor out there right now. I love all of his choices. And the great, witty banter of the screenplay made me wistful for The West Wing and Sports Night, my two favorite Aaron Sorkin TV shows. We need more of this sort of clever writing in the movies.
Seein Juno tonight. I can't wait!
I enjoyed Hairspray as well, but I thought tipping it so much toward Travolta's character threw the balance off a bit. At its best, though, it was wonderful.
For now, Marni, I'll keep Oliver! in the mix. To me, few movies hold up so well to repeated viewings. I'm not sure how important that should be as a factor but, heck, it's my list, right?
While we're on the subject, I'd put Oliver!, Chicago, and The Sound of Music into the category of movie musicals that actually improve on the source material. Any others?
Oh, and another tip: Sondheim's Company will be aired in 2008 on PBS's Great Performances. It really is remarkable that, while so many shows go unpreserved (at least for the massive), there are good from-the-stage videos of Sweeney Todd, Into the Woods, Passion and (let's hope) Company.
But I do feel like an underachiever after reading her bio (other than her so-called hobby...) and I see she has a myspace account so I plan to ask her to be my friend. So at least I can pretend that I knew about her before her big screenplay-writing success.
As for OLIVER, I'll never understand how it beat Zefirelli's ROMEO AND JULIET, THE LION IN WINTER, and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (which wasn't even nominated!) for Best Picture. Possibly the most ridiculous Oscar choice ever.
Believe it or not, I also think the film of CHICAGO is rather overrated. I greatly prefer the stage version, as its storytelling is spare and sharp. I don't think much of the stuff added to film the was really useful. It did have a great cast, though, with the exception of Rene Squinty Zellweger. But THE SOUND OF MUSIC, of course, *is* clearly superior to its stage counterpart. I don't know why anybody does the show on stage anymore - why compete with helicopter shots of the Alps and Julie Andrews?
second, tsk tsk shame on you anti-Oliver people! I just came across my original album of the movie (yes, purchased the year the movie came out) and found it holds up jolly well.
as for #10 - it's a struggle - perhaps South Pacific or King and I???
I agree that Superstar works--thanks in large part to effectively reimagining it for the screen. And if you are a fan of Superstar film, you really need to see the Mr. Show parody of it. Jeepers Creepers.
I think Oliver! holds up better than any of the film's you mentioned for that year. Terrific performances. A great mix of music. And a look of it's own. Plus, you know, I had a crush on Nancy.
And even if you don't like Oliver!, I object to the most ridiculous Oscar choice ever lable. Have you not see The Greatest Show on Earth? Titanic? Gladiator?
http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/080109-NL-movie.html