From today’s Liz Smith column:
“I am told they are hoping and praying that John Travolta will agree to set aside his dignity and portray the portly Edna Turnblad, in the screen version of “Hairspray,” a role made famous on the Great White Way by Harvey Fierstein.”
First of all, why don’t they simply put Harvey Fierstein in the film?
But John Travolta? There has to be someone better to play the role than John Travolta - isn’t there?
Isn’t there already a screen version of “Hairspray?” It’s not even very old.
Yeah, I thought they made the musical from that previous movie. So now they’re making a movie from a musical from a movie.
Personally I don’t even understand why the role has to be played by a man. Yes, Divine was a guy, but that’s not essential for the character when there are plenty of plus-plus-plus sized actresses out there who could probably do the part better.
Now I think that Travolta would make a good Wilbur Turnblad, but I’d either go with Fierstein or a woman. (I am majorly jonesing to see Feirstein and Rosie O’Donnell in Fiddler on the Roof just for the curiosity factor, btw.)
Yep. And they are doing the same with The Producers - first was the film, then came the musical and now they are wrapping the musical film version to be released in December - but at least they were clever enough to use the original leads, Nathan Lane and Mathew Broderick (sp?).
For the same reason that Peter Pan is always played by a woman? It just is?
Except actually IIRC JM Barrie had something in the original contract requiring that the part be played by a female, but I can’t remember where exactly I read that and I could be for all I know completely wrong.
The only reason, if he’s willing to play it, not to give the role to HF would be that he isn’t big enough box office. Since AFAIK there aren’t any plus-size ingenues blowing up Hollywood right now, it seems likely that Tracy would be played by an unknown or largely unknown, which means that other roles would need to be filled with enough drawing power to get butts in seats. Travolta is a big enough star at this point to accomplish that but he would be completely, utterly, irrevocably wrong for the part.
There was some chatter a while back about the possibility of having Ricki Lake play Tracy in the movie. Apparently it didn’t occur to the chatterers that not only is she too old for the part, she’s half the woman she was when she played it in the original film.
I think it’d be a great role for DeNiro. Or Joe Pesci even.
I wonder if Phillip Seymour Hoffman can open a movie.
We saw it with Bruce Vilanch and he was very funny.
–Cliffy
Why though would anyone want to see a new movie based on a musical based on a movie? Especially with Travolta? Is it to make it all family-friendly and really really safe, for like, toddlers to watch? I don’t get it.
John Travolta as Edna Turnblad? No. John Goodman, maybe.
Smith did say something about setting aside dignity, and DeNiro did that years ago.
Why the hell would you cast John Travolta in this movie? He makes no sense. Enormous skull aside, he’s not big enough. He’s not funny. It takes away the whole joke of having Edna played by a man. Villanch and Fierstein are both. This is just weird. I almost wonder if the filmmakers are trying to make the whole thing seem less gay.
I was going to analyze it in terms of Travolta in this movie, but instead I’ll just say I hate Grease.
Because the stage musicals are a different product from the original movie. Neither Hairspray nor The Producers were “musicals”, per se. The only musical-type music in the original TP was “Springtime for Hitler”. Same with Hairspray, whose only notable music was the pop music on the dance show.
The stage musicals are classic stage musicals, with multiple songs and everything. They’re a whole different form. Hell, I’d pay my $12.00 to watch (please god let them get her back for the movie) Marissa Jaret Winokur do “Good Morning, Baltimore” or Matthew Broderick sing “I Wanna Be A Producer”.
Most people aren’t going to be lucky enough to be able to see the musical on stage. I count myself fortunate that I saw both Harvey and Marissa on Broadway. Neither the original film nor the musical are particularly “family-unfriendly,” so there’d be little need to “family down” the show for the movie. Filming the musical gives people who wouldn’t have the chance to see the stage show the opportunity at least to see some version of it.
Making movies of stage musicals is hardly a new phenomenon. It’s been going on pretty much since movies have been around. Even adapting movies into stage shows and then back into movies isn’t all that recent.
Was Mame the first to do this? (Novel to stage play to movie to stage musical to movie musical- it could really stand a rewrite and remake as the stage musical has its moments but the movie version blows.)
Then there’s Victor/Victoria, which began as a 1930s German film, then was remade as a 1982 Julie Andrews film, which in turn was made into a 1994 Broadway musical (a very bad one at that), the video of which was released on Japanese television (and is now available from Netflix, not that I would recommend it).
And Jesus Christ Superstar, which began as a project about King David, then had a come-to-Jesus meeting, then became a concept album, then became a musical, then became a movie musical, then was rereleased as a play on video (which imo is better than the big-budget musical, the only real greatness of which belonged to the Israeli sets).
Now that The Hennaed One is safely dead, anyway…
Does the example have to be the first to complete the cycle or the earliest starting source? Because Chicago was a play in 1926 which became a movie in 1927 (and again in 1942 as Roxie Hart), then a Broadway musical in 1975 and then the movie musical in 2002. Auntie Mame wasn’t published until 1955, became a straight (you should excuse the expression) play in I think 1956, a movie in 1958, a musical in 1966 and a movie musical in 1976. There are probably earlier examples, which someone better versed in the history of theatre can illuminate if they so desire.
There’s been talk for the last few years about Cher doing a TV version of Mame a la Bette Midler’s Gypsy. I think about such a project with a mixture of delight and utter dread, imagining the thousands of ways it could go off the rails from one moment to the next. But Cher’s been busy on her farewell tour since sometime around 1907 so I don’t know how much thought she’s put into it recently.
Henna? Try spray paint.
I’m more than willing to give it a chance. I personally prefer Midler’s Gypsy to any other version I’ve heard (including (HERESY!) the original Merman), so there’s definite potential there. If Cher didn’t have proven acting chops I’d be worried that she’d be playing Mame as a caricature of herself, but that’s moot.
The tour ended in April, if that matters.
Oh, they finally got around to playing Somerset, Vermont (pop. 5)?