Cannibalising movies of the past seems to be the latest thing with the current crop of young directors. Having no ideas of their own, they resort to lifting composition, lighting, and framing in order to sell their movie. A modern audience, which does not know the original, will scarcely notice. Let's face it a modern audience would scarcely care. The current flavour of the month, Chicago, is a poor man's Cabaret (1972). Director Robert Marshall should stick to choreography and directing for TV and the stage because there isn't an original, fresh idea in this mess of a film. Firstly, he ditches the balance of the two stories of Velma Kelly and Roxie Hart making the Hart story the focus of the film - bad move Mr Marshall. Secondly, he thinks he understands the structure of Cabaret (with its musical numbers kept to the stage of the Kit Kat club) so he exploits it, cutting songs to insert dialogue which is supposed to be clever but he just cuts, cuts, cuts and cuts jarringly and quickly (think Baz Lurhmann school of editing - a meat cleaver approach to a subtle art). If you thought that Moulin Rouge was ripe offal then you are in for a treat here. Moulin Rouge had a weak story and suffered because of it. Chicago has a strong story but you would scarcely know it because it all is delivered at the same tempo and pace so that there are no highs and lows, just the same level of frenetic cutting and annoying close ups (there are so many of these that the whole sorry mess begins to get tedious very early in the piece).
To those unfamiliar with the story, stage struck wannabe, Roxie Hart, kills her lover and is sent to gaol where she meets famous hoofer, Velma Kelly, who is doing time for the killing of her husband and her sister. Mama Morton is their prison warden and into this world comes corrupt lawyer Billy Flynn who represents the two women who become celebrities through the `work' of Morton and Flynn. The story is based on a real case in 1924 and filmed as Roxie Hart in 1942 with Ginger Rogers and Adolphe Menjou. Kander and Ebb took the original play and turned it into a musical. In 1975, Bob Fosse created his legendary version with Chita Rivera (who is in the film in a small role) and it was revived in 1996 with the original Fosse choreography intact. Along comes the current film and much has been made of how fresh and original the whole thing is. Well the ghost of Fosse is present because some of the routines are bastardisations of his great work and some parts just give in and plagiarise unashamedly. There are some good numbers (He had it comin'; Mr Cellophane,) but the excellent song `Class' has been dropped just as the final lines of dialogue: `You know, a lot of people have lost faith in America and what it stands for, they say. But we are the living examples of what a wonderful country this is'. These lines sum up ironically and cynically what the whole musical is about but sadly, they are omitted and the whole film softens the impact. American films are getting soft. They are sugar coating the pill and this is another example. This softly softly approach almost buried a fine film like The Quiet American, made Sweet Home Alabama excruciatingly banal and is a dangerous trend in sanitising movies to appeal to the right wing zeitgeist. Mass audiences will love this film because it appears fresh and innovative, it appears to have a strong message, it appears to have high production values - that it never comes close to being great will be lost as the ticket queues stretch around the block and the awards come rolling in. This is mass entertainment, folks - gush gush here, gush gush there.
There is much to be annoyed about in this film. Musicals should be about dancing and singing to advance the plot. The songs in this version intrude and are cut with dialogue and exposition which, done once is good but tedium sets in here because there is no pace or tempo, just editing to give the illusion that something grand is happening. The cinematography is amateurish and derivative. Marshall and his cinematographer have lifted entire structural devices from Cabaret (1972) and Metropolis (1927) often using them incorrectly (as in the song, Mr Cellophane). Borrowing is different to being influenced by someone's style. Fosse used camera techniques to enhance and stylise not as a gimmick. The production design and costuming are anachronistic and incorrect. Are the 1920s so long ago that we can confuse them with the 1930s? There is incorrect hair, architecture and even underwear. The casting is puzzling (while Queen Latifah is a fine performer, the idea of a black prison warden in 1924 is unconvincing) and the performances uneven. Renee Zellweger has begun to win her truckload of awards but the acting honours go to Zeta Jones who looks good, acts Zellweger off the screen and can sing and dance. La Zellweger gets her podgy face up against the prison bars a lot, pouts, shimmies and walks away with the prizes - where's the justice? To top it off she cannot dance. Her routines are edited to give the illusion of fluidity. I didn't like her other films and I sure as hell didn't like her in this one. Chicago on the stage was erotic. This version was pure high school end of year drama production - lots of huffing and puffing but no heat. Just watch Zellweger do a sexy walk and wriggle her behind and you'll crack up laughing - I did. Richard Gere is good. I always though he could act. The supporting cast works well but hey have little to do. Here are some questions to ponder: Why did the filmmakers ditch the Mary Sunshine subplot, reducing Christine Baranski to a couple of close ups and one really bad production number? Why Lucy Liu (doing her Charlie's Angels schtick)? Why the inclusion of foreign thespians (Colm Feore, Catherine Zeta Jones, Dominic West) doing their American schtick? Why do the American accents tour the country (isn't this supposed to be Illinois)? Why cast Zellweger (now there's a face for radio). This little black duck went along with high expectations but came out angry, having been duped by some shoddy filmmaking - again. Smoke and Mirrors, folks - that's Chicago.
To those unfamiliar with the story, stage struck wannabe, Roxie Hart, kills her lover and is sent to gaol where she meets famous hoofer, Velma Kelly, who is doing time for the killing of her husband and her sister. Mama Morton is their prison warden and into this world comes corrupt lawyer Billy Flynn who represents the two women who become celebrities through the `work' of Morton and Flynn. The story is based on a real case in 1924 and filmed as Roxie Hart in 1942 with Ginger Rogers and Adolphe Menjou. Kander and Ebb took the original play and turned it into a musical. In 1975, Bob Fosse created his legendary version with Chita Rivera (who is in the film in a small role) and it was revived in 1996 with the original Fosse choreography intact. Along comes the current film and much has been made of how fresh and original the whole thing is. Well the ghost of Fosse is present because some of the routines are bastardisations of his great work and some parts just give in and plagiarise unashamedly. There are some good numbers (He had it comin'; Mr Cellophane,) but the excellent song `Class' has been dropped just as the final lines of dialogue: `You know, a lot of people have lost faith in America and what it stands for, they say. But we are the living examples of what a wonderful country this is'. These lines sum up ironically and cynically what the whole musical is about but sadly, they are omitted and the whole film softens the impact. American films are getting soft. They are sugar coating the pill and this is another example. This softly softly approach almost buried a fine film like The Quiet American, made Sweet Home Alabama excruciatingly banal and is a dangerous trend in sanitising movies to appeal to the right wing zeitgeist. Mass audiences will love this film because it appears fresh and innovative, it appears to have a strong message, it appears to have high production values - that it never comes close to being great will be lost as the ticket queues stretch around the block and the awards come rolling in. This is mass entertainment, folks - gush gush here, gush gush there.
There is much to be annoyed about in this film. Musicals should be about dancing and singing to advance the plot. The songs in this version intrude and are cut with dialogue and exposition which, done once is good but tedium sets in here because there is no pace or tempo, just editing to give the illusion that something grand is happening. The cinematography is amateurish and derivative. Marshall and his cinematographer have lifted entire structural devices from Cabaret (1972) and Metropolis (1927) often using them incorrectly (as in the song, Mr Cellophane). Borrowing is different to being influenced by someone's style. Fosse used camera techniques to enhance and stylise not as a gimmick. The production design and costuming are anachronistic and incorrect. Are the 1920s so long ago that we can confuse them with the 1930s? There is incorrect hair, architecture and even underwear. The casting is puzzling (while Queen Latifah is a fine performer, the idea of a black prison warden in 1924 is unconvincing) and the performances uneven. Renee Zellweger has begun to win her truckload of awards but the acting honours go to Zeta Jones who looks good, acts Zellweger off the screen and can sing and dance. La Zellweger gets her podgy face up against the prison bars a lot, pouts, shimmies and walks away with the prizes - where's the justice? To top it off she cannot dance. Her routines are edited to give the illusion of fluidity. I didn't like her other films and I sure as hell didn't like her in this one. Chicago on the stage was erotic. This version was pure high school end of year drama production - lots of huffing and puffing but no heat. Just watch Zellweger do a sexy walk and wriggle her behind and you'll crack up laughing - I did. Richard Gere is good. I always though he could act. The supporting cast works well but hey have little to do. Here are some questions to ponder: Why did the filmmakers ditch the Mary Sunshine subplot, reducing Christine Baranski to a couple of close ups and one really bad production number? Why Lucy Liu (doing her Charlie's Angels schtick)? Why the inclusion of foreign thespians (Colm Feore, Catherine Zeta Jones, Dominic West) doing their American schtick? Why do the American accents tour the country (isn't this supposed to be Illinois)? Why cast Zellweger (now there's a face for radio). This little black duck went along with high expectations but came out angry, having been duped by some shoddy filmmaking - again. Smoke and Mirrors, folks - that's Chicago.