Directors for musical movies

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/2/19 at 6:14pm

How do they pick a director for a musical movie?

I like that Rob Ashford is going to direct the Sunset Boulevard movie, because he has a theatre background, which gives me confidence that he understands the artform and the language of the material and the non-literal essence.

We all know what happens if the director has no clue about the language of sung thoughts on film (Les Mis, Phantom), and makes it too literal, which this artform per definition is not.

But do they pick a bunch of directors and do they then have to "pitch" their visions, views and ideas about the project? Or is someone just chosen by a producer without this trajectory?

And who ultimately decides which background of a director is most suitable for the project?

 

Updated On: 3/2/19 at 06:14 PM

[bk]

Posted: 3/2/19 at 6:20pm

Dave28282 said: "How do they pick a director for a musical movie?

I like that Rob Ashford is going to direct the Sunset Boulevard movie, because he has a theatre background, which gives me confidence he understands the artform and the language of the material and the non-literal essence.

We all know what happens if the director has no clue about the language of sung thoughts on film (Les Mis, Phantom), and makes it too literal, which this artform per definition is not.

But do they pick a bunch of directors and do they then have to "pitch" their visions, views and ideas about the project? Or is someone just chosen by a producer without this trajectory?

And who ultimately decides which background of a director is most suitable for the project?

"

First of all, a FILM director ought to have a rudimentary knowledge of FILM.  Susan Stroman has a theater background - it didn't mean squat in her awful film of The Producers.  Mr. Ashford is a poor director in the theater so I'm not sure why anyone would think that would improve in film.  Finally, he's not directing this film - this is all emanating from Andrew Lloyd Webber's press office and has no bearing in reality.  He's been putting out press crap about a film of Sunset Blvd. for over a decade, maybe longer - none of it was true, just as this isn't true.  

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/2/19 at 6:56pm

Tom Hooper is  a film director and showed he was completely clueless about this language on film. He did not understand anything about the given of sung thoughts and the essence of the non literal language.

So a bit of both worlds would be desired, but understanding the actual language and non literal approach is the most important thing. Otherwise the whole film is not necessary.

Rob Ashford does have this background, and I think it would be weird if a confirmed press release including the name of the director is completely made up by the writer of the show.

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 3/2/19 at 8:04pm

Every project has a different process, there's no one answer. This is a unique film because the producer is also the composer, Also, Glenn Close certainly has approval over the director. In this case, the director probably came before the screenplay adaptor (Tom MacRae), but it doesn't always work that way.

A high-level director (i.e. Sam Mendes or Damian Chazelle) will be invited to meet with the producer/studio somewhat exclusively, similar to a big actor being "offer only," and the producers will go through potential directors one at a time –– a long process if you get a lot of no's.

A lower-level person like Rob Ashford might have been pitched to ALW by his agent, and then ALW met with him. (Ashford and Close are both repped by CAA, and agencies like "packaging" people.) Or, ALW might have thought of Ashford himself (they worked together on the Evita revival) and invited him to meet to discuss his vision for the film. 

[bk]

Posted: 3/2/19 at 10:07pm

Dave28282 said: "Tom Hooper is a film director and showed he was completely clueless about this language on film. He did not understand anything about the given of sung thoughts and the essence of the non literal language.

So a bit of both worlds would be desired, but understanding the actual language and non literal approach is the most important thing. Otherwise the whole film is not necessary.

Rob Ashford does have this background, and I think it would be weird if a confirmed press release including the name of the director is completely made up by the writer of the show."

Clearly you don't want reality in this discussion.  The only "confirmed" was on THIS site - and the only other "confirmed" came from Andrew Lloyd Webber's publicity office.  When Paramount was asked if it was happening, their response was: "No comment."  What about all the other "confirmed" press releases that a film of Sunset Blvd. was happening do you not understand - over a decade's worth.  It's BS.  Want to know how much I am certain of this?  I'll make a little cash wager right now.

As to Tom Hooper, two things - everyone RAVED about the Les Miz film when it came out - they RAVED.  Only later did people do a turnaround.  Rob Ashford is a horrible theater director.  He knows nothing about film.  Tom Hooper had already directed tons of British television and two films, including The King's Speech, prior to making Les Miz.  Are you a friend of Rob's?  If you're not, then I don't know.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 6:26am

SomethingPeculiar said: "Every project has a different process, there's no one answer. This is a unique filmbecause the producer is also the composer, Also, Glenn Close certainly hasapproval over the director. In this case,the director probably came before the screenplay adaptor (Tom MacRae), but it doesn't always work that way.

A high-level director (i.e.Sam Mendes or Damian Chazelle) will be invited to meet with the producer/studiosomewhat exclusively,similar to a bigactor being "offer only," and the producers will go through potential directors one at a time –– a long process if you get a lot of no's.

A lower-level person likeRob Ashford might have been pitched to ALWby his agent, and then ALW met with him. (Ashford and Close are both repped by CAA, and agencies like "packaging" people.)Or, ALW might have thought of Ashford himself(they worked together on the Evitarevival)and invited him to meet to discuss his vision for the film."

Thanks! So it seems this project will be in the same category as the Phantom film from 2004. Low-level director, produced in his own stall, which might actually be a good thing for this film. It gives the opportunity for actual quality, if he learned from the Phantom film of course. They need to be careful with the style they choose, the balance between fantasy and realism and above all, the singing quality.

In any case, this is better than a high profile Hollywood director frantically panicking about what to do with the material and total disrespect for the illusion of sung thoughts on film and toning it down in such a literal way that it actually dies. Combined with hilarious scenes that are not meant to be hiarious.

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 6:33am

bk said: "Dave28282 said: "The only "confirmed" was on THIS site - and the only other "confirmed" came from Andrew Lloyd Webber's publicity office. When Paramount was asked if it was happening, their response was: "No comment."

Clearly Andrew is up to something. If he is making the film himself, his confirmation is all we need. We don't know anything about his private arrangements with Paramount, but why would Andrew announce this if he has a no from Paramount?

bk said: "As to Tom Hooper, two things - everyone RAVED about the Les Miz film when it came out - they RAVED. Only later did people do a turnaround. Rob Ashford is a horrible theater director. He knows nothing about film. Tom Hooper had already directed tons of British television and two films, including The King's Speech, prior to making Les Miz. Are you a friend of Rob's? If you're not, then I don't know."

Nowaydays, everyone raves about the latest hype, for a few weeks, then it's over. That has nothing to do with quality. And people were impressed by some orchestral melodies which are written in a glorious way. Imagine what the film could have been....

And no, I don't know Rob Ashford. All I know is he worked with this artform before.

 

Updated On: 3/3/19 at 06:33 AM

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 10:41am

Stop worrying about the directing style and filmmaking techniques; it's not fully cast, then team isn't in place, and we haven't received an official official confirmation.

You seem to be living under a rock. Google is your friend. Joel Schumacher had directed at least 4 blockbusters prior to Phantom (including two Batman movies and A Time to Kill). He was a major director, if not a first-tier director. Rob Ashford is not a major director –– the Ashford comparison is a feature film debut like Sam Mendes with American Beauty, or Rob Marshall with Chicago, or Stephen Daldry with the Billy Elliot film.

I wouldn't want to see any musical that put singing above all. Give me an actor who can sing over a singer who can't emote any day.

[bk]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 3:57pm

Dave28282 said: "bk said: "Dave28282 said: "The only "confirmed" was on THIS site - and the only other "confirmed" came from Andrew Lloyd Webber's publicity office. When Paramount was asked if it was happening, their response was: "No comment."

Clearly Andrew is up to something. If he is making the film himself, his confirmation is all we need. We don't know anything about his private arrangements with Paramount, but why would Andrew announce this if he has a no from Paramount?

bk said: "As to Tom Hooper, two things - everyone RAVED about the Les Miz film when it came out - they RAVED. Only later did people do a turnaround. Rob Ashford is a horrible theater director. He knows nothing about film. Tom Hooper had already directed tons of British television and two films, including The King's Speech, prior to making Les Miz. Are you a friend of Rob's? If you're not, then I don't know."

Nowaydays, everyone raves about the latest hype, for a few weeks, then it's over. That has nothing to do with quality. And people were impressed by some orchestral melodies which are written in a glorious way. Imagine what the film could have been....

And no, I don't know Rob Ashford. All I know is he worked with this artform before.

"

"Clearly Andrew"  Really?  Is he a friend of yours?  Was he up to something the other twenty times he put press crap out about a Sunset Blvd. movie?  Yes or no?  To shoot in October, there would have to be an entire team in place NOW.  Did I miss that part?  And do point out to me all of Mr. Ashford's film experience - actual film experience.  Or by "art form" do you mean musical theater.  His contributions as a director therein have hardly been stellar.

Living under a rock indeed.  Or simply naive as to how these things work.  Oh, and Lloyd Webber (see, I don't really know him so I don't call him by his first name) did this same thing with Phantom for many years.  The movie was happening, directors were announced, only it never happened.  Finally it did, and I think we all know how that turned out, and that was with a seasoned director.

[jo]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 4:52pm

Delete - wrong thread. 

Updated On: 3/3/19 at 04:52 PM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 4:56pm

SomethingPeculiar said: "I wouldn't want to see any musical that put singing above all. Give me an actor who can sing over a singer who can't emote any day."

Only a real singer can emote through notes. The rest emotes in spite of notes, which makes the acting performance insincere.

Updated On: 3/3/19 at 04:56 PM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 5:07pm

bk said: "To shoot in October, there would have to be an entire team in place NOW. Did I miss that part? And do point out to me all of Mr. Ashford's film experience - actual film experience. Or by "art form" do you mean musical theater. His contributions as a director therein have hardly been stellar."

Who knows. Until yesterday you didn't know the name of the announced director either. We don't know anything about it, there could be a team in place. And yes, I mean experience in theatre, the artform stays the same. It's not like Julie Andrews', Olivia Newton John's or Lea Salonga's singing on film made the scene less sincere. Russel Crowe on the other hand....

bk said: "Finally it did, and I think we all know how that turned out, and that was with a seasoned director."

Indeed. So what's your point? That a seasoned film director can still produce total crap when it comes to musical on film. We see that all the time indeed. So I am definitely open to a different approach. I love the Rob Marshall comparison, who just understands this artform on screen, without film experience. The tv Annie and the Chicago movie were very well done.

[jo]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 5:22pm

Dave28282 said: "SomethingPeculiar said: "I wouldn't want to see any musical that put singing above all. Give me an actor who can sing over a singer who can't emote any day."

Only a real singer can emote through notes. The rest emotes in spite of notes, which makes theacting performance insincere."

I "would rather see a film ( musical or not) where the acting elicits emotional responses rather than someone singing the notes perfectly but can be wooden in the performance. I saw the KISMET stage production in London with Michael Ball and Alfie Boe. I was looking forward to it because there were two songs in the score which I particularly like. But - no offense meant - Alfie  ( a former opera singer) stood wooden as a post while perfect notes came from him as he sang STRANGERS IN PARADISE and THIS IS MY BELOVED.  

Also -

"and the Chicago movie were very well done."

And not because Renee Z or Catherine ZJ were perfect singers. They emoted their parts very well instead.

Updated On: 3/3/19 at 05:22 PM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 5:26pm

Then Alfie Boe should never play a role like that in a musical film.

Both lack of amazing singing and lack of amazing acting ruin the performance.

Updated On: 3/3/19 at 05:26 PM

[Robbie2]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 5:52pm

bk said: "Dave28282 said: "Tom Hooper is a film director and showed he was completely clueless about this language on film. He did not understand anything about the given of sung thoughts and the essence of the non literal language.

So a bit of both worlds would be desired, but understanding the actual language and non literal approach is the most important thing. Otherwise the whole film is not necessary.

Rob Ashford does have this background, and I think it would be weird if a confirmed press release including the name of the director is completely made up by the writer of the show."

Clearly you don't want reality in this discussion. The only "confirmed" was on THIS site - and the only other "confirmed" came from Andrew Lloyd Webber's publicity office. When Paramount was asked if it was happening, their response was: "No comment." What about all the other "confirmed" press releases that a film of Sunset Blvd. was happening do you not understand - over a decade's worth. It's BS. Want to know how much I am certain of this? I'll make a little cash wager right now.

As to Tom Hooper, two things - everyone RAVED about the Les Miz film when it came out - they RAVED. Only later did people do a turnaround. Rob Ashford is a horrible theater director. He knows nothing about film. Tom Hooper had already directed tons of British television and two films, including The King's Speech, prior to making Les Miz. Are you a friend of Rob's? If you're not, then I don't know."

^This... A remake of this classic will never get done with a studio backing Rob Ashford as Director...Why would Glenn do it with him at the helm? Not happening!

Updated On: 3/3/19 at 05:52 PM

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 6:15pm

I have always felt Musical films would benefit from 2 directors

A director for musical sequences

And a director for the actual film.

Rob Marshall’s direction of actual musical sequences are so thrilling and well paced and exciting and memorable.

His directing of actual film is more lackluster I think.

There are several instances of films where had Rob Marshall exclusively directed the musical sequences the and had another director who had clear vision, the movie would be remarkably better.

Same goes the other way.

Tom Hooper can direct a great film
But he can’t direct a great musical sequence.

I really think it’s two different tasks and potentially two different brains.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 6:19pm

jo said: "
And not because Renee Z or Catherine ZJ were perfect singers. They emoted their parts very well instead."

Exactly. Their singing was the least part of the movie. The movie was well done because the director understood the essence of sung thoughts. Non-literal. The movie would have been even better if the singing was better too. Their singing is definitely not the reason that the movie is good. Same goes for Evita.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 6:25pm

rattleNwoolypenguin said: "
Tom Hooper can direct a great film
But he can’t direct a great musical sequence."

And Les Mis was one big musical sequence, as it's basically sung through.

Some films have spoken dialogue with a song now and then (Sound of Music, Grease), which is then a sung thought, a performance within a performance or a romantic duet, but when there's sung dialogue, it's important to create a non-literal world. Like they did in Chicago, Moulin Rouge and parts of Evita.

But I agree, it's a completely different ballpark/artform.

Updated On: 3/3/19 at 06:25 PM

[David10086]

Posted: 3/3/19 at 7:31pm

I'm glad this conversation was started - very interesting comments and points of views. 

I do hope this movie gets made one way or another. I know ALW has a history of saying a project is on it's way, and then it falls apart. But after 20 years of starts and stops with this one, maybe this will be the one which goes forward.