"Would you believe it? It's the worst show in town!" sing the opening chorus of Mel Brooks' film. Over a forty year period, via the theatres of Broadway and the London West End, "The Producers" has completed its comeback. Sadly, just like the opening song says, what we have here is woeful.
When Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) meets Producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane), he comes up with a brilliant idea. Produce a flop at a discount price, and keep the profits. Now, led by shyster Bialystock and aided with a neo-Nazi play, Bloom is dragged on the scam of a lifetime.
Let's not cut corners here, the 1960s version starring Zero Nostel and Gene Wilder was a classic. Funny, witty, hilarious, it is up there amongst Mel Brooks' finest moments. Clearing up at the Tony awards, Brooks' fresh new take was also magnificent. So where have we gone wrong?
Well firstly, there is absolutely no magic here. While the first film survived on it's unique feel and starring partnership, the theatre production survived on the simple fact that it was a Broadway show. It sounds confusing, and for that I apologise, but let's look at an example. Towards the end of the play, we have Bialystock locked up in prison. Recapping the story so far, the actor is required to sing and dance at heart attack pace and with such vigour that one or two performers have actually referenced this scene as the reason for their retirement. Come the film therefore and the scene SHOULD be a crucial moment, but no, disappointment. Perhaps the number one reason for this is that you are no longer seeing someone perform it in person. It's like watching a magician on television. You might think about the effectiveness of the trick, and in person you will be stunned. However, on screen doubts appear about the authenticity of the event. Here we have the same problem. How do we know Lane actually does this in one go, and truthfully, why should he? There is time to repeat it, he can do it in bits. Now where is the magic in that?
Next we have the obvious directional flaws. Directed by Susan Stroman, a lady who put the magic into the theatre production, the film is amateur in structure. So much of the time, it honestly looks like you are watching the stage show on the big screen. I say much of the time, but for one simple moment, I'd be tempted to suggest a constant. That moment is when Broderick and Uma Thurman are dancing together. Unfortunately, whilst he is relatively average built, Thurman is your blonde giant. So when we see the two dancing, Broderick strains the neck upwards. This in itself is fine and I have no complaints with this. When the scene cuts however the two are looking at each other straight in the eyes, you have to start wondering what idiot shot this movie. It's the most obvious blooper I have ever seen, and it just shouldn't be there.
Onto the acting, and firstly the one major highlight of the film. Nathan Lane.
For as long as the poor man can probably remember, Nathan Lane has played Max Bialystock. Taking over in London when the replacement dropped out, Lane played Bialystock across the world. In fact, he has played the role so often that he has it down to a fine art. Lane IS Bialystock, and for so much of the film, he is beautiful in his performance. Vivid and funny, Lane has all the best lines, and he doesn't fluff one. He also avoids the theatre attitude of the other cast members and avoids shouting every single line. Lane knows the characters subtleties, and he never once feels like he has to scream at the back row. In a film of bad performances, bad direction, and weak songs, Lane is the rare joy.
Finally let's have a brief rant about the other cast members. Ignoring the disappointing Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman, let's focus our attention on the dreadful Matthew Broderick. Broderick has never been a particularly good actor, but here we see him at his worst. I confess that when I saw the stage version in the London West End, Broderick was long gone. We were given the much more flamboyant Lee Evans, and truthfully I'd imagine he would have been better here working alongside Lane ("Mousehunt" anybody?). So I don't know how Broderick performed on the stage. I'm sure since the play was such a big success, he probably nailed it perfectly, so that makes this performance even more depressing. In this film, Broderick looks awkward and often does a feeble attempt to copy Gene Wilder. I mean, we know Brooks likes things done his way, but whilst Lane is a terrifying replica of Nostel, the character of Bloom is not somebody you can recreate. Wilder did his finest performance in the original film, and when it comes to screaming, baby like acting, few can match him. Broderick tries of course, but whilst Wilder made us laugh with his yearning for his blanket, Broderick makes us want to feed the blanket down his throat. He irritates, he makes you want to scream, and truthfully after ten minutes of the guy, I almost walked out.
I honestly wish that this could have been good. I adored the play in the West End when I saw it and to this day I still love the original, so yes I genuinely hoped this would be a favourite too. Boy was I disappointed. Like watching a recorded version of a live music event, here I felt that the magic had gone. The whole aura of the production has faded away. When the end credits role and the song plays with the line "There's nothing like a show on Broadway" I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly.
When Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) meets Producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane), he comes up with a brilliant idea. Produce a flop at a discount price, and keep the profits. Now, led by shyster Bialystock and aided with a neo-Nazi play, Bloom is dragged on the scam of a lifetime.
Let's not cut corners here, the 1960s version starring Zero Nostel and Gene Wilder was a classic. Funny, witty, hilarious, it is up there amongst Mel Brooks' finest moments. Clearing up at the Tony awards, Brooks' fresh new take was also magnificent. So where have we gone wrong?
Well firstly, there is absolutely no magic here. While the first film survived on it's unique feel and starring partnership, the theatre production survived on the simple fact that it was a Broadway show. It sounds confusing, and for that I apologise, but let's look at an example. Towards the end of the play, we have Bialystock locked up in prison. Recapping the story so far, the actor is required to sing and dance at heart attack pace and with such vigour that one or two performers have actually referenced this scene as the reason for their retirement. Come the film therefore and the scene SHOULD be a crucial moment, but no, disappointment. Perhaps the number one reason for this is that you are no longer seeing someone perform it in person. It's like watching a magician on television. You might think about the effectiveness of the trick, and in person you will be stunned. However, on screen doubts appear about the authenticity of the event. Here we have the same problem. How do we know Lane actually does this in one go, and truthfully, why should he? There is time to repeat it, he can do it in bits. Now where is the magic in that?
Next we have the obvious directional flaws. Directed by Susan Stroman, a lady who put the magic into the theatre production, the film is amateur in structure. So much of the time, it honestly looks like you are watching the stage show on the big screen. I say much of the time, but for one simple moment, I'd be tempted to suggest a constant. That moment is when Broderick and Uma Thurman are dancing together. Unfortunately, whilst he is relatively average built, Thurman is your blonde giant. So when we see the two dancing, Broderick strains the neck upwards. This in itself is fine and I have no complaints with this. When the scene cuts however the two are looking at each other straight in the eyes, you have to start wondering what idiot shot this movie. It's the most obvious blooper I have ever seen, and it just shouldn't be there.
Onto the acting, and firstly the one major highlight of the film. Nathan Lane.
For as long as the poor man can probably remember, Nathan Lane has played Max Bialystock. Taking over in London when the replacement dropped out, Lane played Bialystock across the world. In fact, he has played the role so often that he has it down to a fine art. Lane IS Bialystock, and for so much of the film, he is beautiful in his performance. Vivid and funny, Lane has all the best lines, and he doesn't fluff one. He also avoids the theatre attitude of the other cast members and avoids shouting every single line. Lane knows the characters subtleties, and he never once feels like he has to scream at the back row. In a film of bad performances, bad direction, and weak songs, Lane is the rare joy.
Finally let's have a brief rant about the other cast members. Ignoring the disappointing Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman, let's focus our attention on the dreadful Matthew Broderick. Broderick has never been a particularly good actor, but here we see him at his worst. I confess that when I saw the stage version in the London West End, Broderick was long gone. We were given the much more flamboyant Lee Evans, and truthfully I'd imagine he would have been better here working alongside Lane ("Mousehunt" anybody?). So I don't know how Broderick performed on the stage. I'm sure since the play was such a big success, he probably nailed it perfectly, so that makes this performance even more depressing. In this film, Broderick looks awkward and often does a feeble attempt to copy Gene Wilder. I mean, we know Brooks likes things done his way, but whilst Lane is a terrifying replica of Nostel, the character of Bloom is not somebody you can recreate. Wilder did his finest performance in the original film, and when it comes to screaming, baby like acting, few can match him. Broderick tries of course, but whilst Wilder made us laugh with his yearning for his blanket, Broderick makes us want to feed the blanket down his throat. He irritates, he makes you want to scream, and truthfully after ten minutes of the guy, I almost walked out.
I honestly wish that this could have been good. I adored the play in the West End when I saw it and to this day I still love the original, so yes I genuinely hoped this would be a favourite too. Boy was I disappointed. Like watching a recorded version of a live music event, here I felt that the magic had gone. The whole aura of the production has faded away. When the end credits role and the song plays with the line "There's nothing like a show on Broadway" I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly.