The Producers
Directed by: Susan Stroman
Starring: Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, Will Farrell
Rated:PG-13 for sexual humor and references
Parental Notes: There’s plenty of vulgar humor here, which makes it somewhat inappropriate for youngsters. However, it’s still Mel Brooks: it’s sweet, funny, and lighthearted. Like “Spaceballs” and his other films, kids 12 and up will probably enjoy it, but unlike his other works, they’ll like it more if they’ve seen a few old musicals.
Mel Brooks made his directorial debut in 1968 with “The Producers,” starring Zero Mostel as the slimy Broadway producer Max Bialystock and Gene Wilder as Leo Bloom, his mousy accountant. In 2001, a musical version of the film opened on Broadway with Nathan Lane as Bialystock and Matthew Broderick as Bloom and won a record-setting 12 Tony awards. Now, that musical has been turned into a film starring Lane and Broderick in the same roles.
The story, of course, is unaltered: sleazy Broadway producer Max Bialystock cooks up a scheme from an offhand comment of his timid accountant, Leo Bloom: a producer could, in theory, make more money from a Broadway flop than from a success. Bialystock talks Bloom into helping him, and together they find the worst play every written (a Nazi musical called “Springtime for Hitler”), the worst director living (Christopher Hewitt’s Roger De Bris, who is a walking cliche), and hire the worst actors they can find (including casting the author of the script, Will Farrell’s Franz Liebkind, as Hitler). When a sexpot Swede, Ulla (Uma Thurman), turns up on their doorstep, they hire her to be their secretary/receptionist and cast her in the musical as well. So far, everything is on track for their production to flop. Of course, this wouldn’t be much of a comedy if things didn’t go wrong, and they do indeed go wrong.
The dialog has stayed virtually the same through the three versions. Those who, like this reviewer, have seen both the original film and the Broadway musical may find themselves mouthing the dialog along with the actors. All the most quotable bits are present nearly unaltered, and the musical numbers flow effortlessly into and out of the spoken exchanges. This is a re-envisioning the way it should be: it has all the good stuff from the original and has added something new. This isn’t just a musical version of a comedy, it’s a satire of 1950s musicals in its own right.
There’s the romantic falling-in-love song (complete with a dress conveniently changing so that it will look flowing and pretty for the dance number), the Busby Berkeley-inspired choreography during Bialystock and Bloom’s musical (with a mirror angled over the stage so the audience can see the designs from the top), even the design of the sets and costumes evokes “Guys and Dolls” and “Singing in the Rain.”
Lane, Broderick, Thurman, and Farrell leap into their parts with unabashed gusto, and the results are wonderful. Those who are fans of the original film may well observe that the new cast is no Mostel and Wilder, but of course they aren’t. That cast was so perfect that they will haunt the present film if you let them. Fortunately, the new cast don’t try to relive the original performances. They put their own stamp on the parts and are a blast to watch. Even Farrell, an actor I freely admit to finding about as appealing as a rabid opossum in his other films, is hilarious. Broderick and Lane have excellent timing and chemistry together, as well as being solid singers. Thurman, whose casting caused more than a few raised eyebrows, is transformed as Ulla and proves herself a surprisingly good dancer.
If you’ve seen the original film time and time again, you may find yourself playing it in your head and comparing the new film to it. I know I did. But that’s unfair to the new version; this isn’t a remake, it’s two generations away from the 1968 film, and the new cast bring a wonderful freshness to this 37-year-old story. This is just as delightfully over the top and gleefully vulgar as the original film, but in a new way, and that alone makes it worth seeing. Provided, of course, that a gleeful satire of ’50s musicals and showbiz in general is what you’re in the mood for.
–30–