We did this interview with director Susan Stroman three years ago, as The Producers was getting ready to be released theatrically. We've also interviewed Susan, along with Mel Brooks, about the stage version of "The Producers," and will be posting that interview shortly.
REIMAGINING BIALYSTOCK AND BLOOM FOR HOLLYWOOD:
REIMAGINING BIALYSTOCK AND BLOOM FOR HOLLYWOOD:
Susan Stroman talks The Producers
by Terry Keefe
It was a filmmaking challenge of challenges. Susan Stroman had already done the near impossible when she directed and choreographed the Broadway musical version of Mel Brook's 1968 comedy classic The Producers, turning it into an ongoing smash which won a record 12 Tony Awards in 2001, including Best Direction and Best Choreography. But Stroman was now charged with bringing The Producers back to film, this time as an adaptation of the Broadway musical. The term full circle was invented for scenarios such as this one. So was the term obstacle course. In bringing the story back to film, the imposing shadow of the 1968 version would loom even taller than it did on Broadway. It was one thing to reinvent a movie classic for the stage, which is viewed as a different medium, but a film of the same would be judged by even tougher standards. For one, the archetypes of Zero Mostel as Max Bialystock and Gene Wilder as Leo Bloom offer some pretty big shoes to fill. As does the legendary Brooks himself, despite the fact that he and Thomas Meehan wrote the screenplay for the film together, adapted from their Broadway book. At the same time, some of the elements which made the Broadway show such a success could easily have proven the undoing of a film attempt. The stage version of The Producers is a wonderful stew of musical comedy, satire, and spoof. In the same show that has the fairly traditional Broadway love song "That Face," there are also visual gags such as a future Bialystock-Bloom production entitled "She Schtups to Conquer." Without a very steady hand, the tone, something which a film audience will rarely forgive you for being uneven on, could be a very rocky road, rather than the straight line needed.
We'll beat around the bush no longer. Stroman has succeeded with flying colors in what amounts to a reimagining of the traditional musical comedy for the modern age. The Producers draws heavy inspiration from the Golden Age of Hollywood musicals in terms of its general staging, set design, and atmosphere: there are unabashedly big dance numbers such as that of Broderick and an actual chorus line of dancing girls for "I Want to be a Producer;" the New York and Broadway depicted here are the ones of old school musical fantasy: cleaner, brighter, and more joyful than the real-life versions ever were; and the office of Max Bialystock is a constant screwball comedy revolving door of characters running in and out at the least opportune moments for them and the most opportune for laughs. But simultaneously, the more ribald elements of Brooksian humor are seemlessly worked into the proceedings. That chorus line behind Nathan Lane's Max Bialystock is one composed of sex-crazed little old ladies on walkers, who want a piece of the money-starved producer in exchange for the "chequees" which fund his productions. Part of this definitely isn't your grandfather's movie musical, but part of it is. And therein lies the achievement. The script by Brooks and Meehan is particularly sharp and tight, with excellent transitions, both visual and verbal, which provide a strong spine for the film.
Reprising their Broadway roles are Lane as Bialystock, Matthew Broderick as Leo Bloom, Gary Beach as flamboyant gay director Roger de Bris, and Roger Bart as his assistant, Carmen Ghia. Uma Thurman as Swedish secretary/love interest Ulla and Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkind round out the principals. Lane, in particular, has the most difficult of roles and really makes it his own here. It might be sacrilege to some to say this, but his Bialystock is on par with that of Mostel's. He adds a level of sympathetic loveableness to Bialystock, along with a undercurrent of perpetual frustration which explodes in moments of Ralph Kramden-like comedic anger.
With making this new film of The Producers, you had the challenge of taking the successful Broadway musical adaptation that you had already done of the 1968 film and then bringing it back to film. Were you able to fine the right tone quickly?
Susan Stroman: When we started this, it really was to do the Broadway musical, and not so much to call back to the original film. Because the musical is a completely different genre and takes on a completely different form. So I was actually trying to be true to the Broadway musical. But actually, also, make it easy for the camera and accessible for a moviegoing audience. So it was trying to take this Broadway musical and really giving it four walls and a sky [laughs]. It was great that we were able to build the sets down at Steiner Studios. It was like the old MGM days. I had 5 sound stages. [The set for] 44th Street was built there so it was completely controllable. We were able to have playback of an orchestra of 72 pieces. So I was really feeling like a Gene Kelly running around these different sound stages. But ultimately, finding the style was easy because the film ultimately had to pay homage to films like Singin' in the Rain and Bandwagon. In that it had to be believable when someone launched into song and dance, and it had to be believable on film. And the thing is that The Producers is a musical comedy. We're not sexy and edgy like Chicago. There's no hiding it, we're definitely a musical comedy. And in fact we're a comedy musical, really. So we had to make sure that the comedy reigned supreme all the time. That it reigned supreme in the musical numbers, in the lyrics, in the staging of the scenes, and making sure that the camera was there for the comedy. But for me, it was fantastic, because it was revisiting and reinventing how to stage this musical. The camera almost became like a dancer to me. In the sense that it would partner with the actors. If a dance step took an actor 8 counts to the left, the camera had to make sure it was in the exact 8 counts and moved with them. And the whole crew ended up loving moving to the music. They had to shoot to the music and move the camera forward and backward, and left and right, according to the music. And they ultimately loved doing that. As a matter of fact, in the last days, when I was just shooting some signs, the fellows would ask me to put some music on [laughs]. Everyone got hooked and I loved that. You know, I really got into the theater because of movie musicals. From watching Fred and Ginger on television, and watching Royal Wedding or Easter Parade on television. So now, to having been able to choreograph and direct a gorilla of a musical, it's really beyond dreams realized because that's how I became who I am when I was a little girl. And I think that was probably quite true for everyone on the New York team that I worked with. Certainly all the creators, but even the crew. They thought perhaps that this was something they never had the opportunity to do. We all thought it was gone. And here we were doing this giant musical. So it was quite a joyous experience.
Something that struck me is that none of the recent crop of successful movie musicals have really gone for the traditional movie musical dance numbers that The Producers is filled with. This is the first of the new generation of movie musicals that really harkens back to some of the golden musicals you spoke about as inspiration.
Yes, and I think it has to do with the comedy too. Because I think that sometimes you have to put the camera squarely on something in order for it to be funny. Squarely on its character, or dance number, for it to be funny. I wouldn't shoot another movie like this, because you would want to be at different raking angles and underneath the dancers and such, but for this, the comedy really had to be straight-on. And that does call back to the old way of shooting.
There's nowhere to hide either in terms of disguising things with flashy cuts and angles. It's more of a challenge as a filmmaker.
That's a very good point. Because here I am doing a shot that had 20 dancing girls in it. And each girl had to be exactly the same. If one girl's hand went up late, I had to cut and reshoot again. In the theater, you can get away with someone not being totally precise, but you can't get away with it on film. And it was very important for me to be able to let the shots go on a little longer than maybe a more contemporary filmmaker would have.
I really enjoyed the lengths of some of your takes. Particularly in the "Betrayed" number that Nathan does. You cut to a few different angles, but you don't spruce it up with much other than the power of his performance. He is the special effects.
I'm very lucky that I have Nathan and Matthew, too, in that regard. Because not only do they know how to play to an audience of 1500, but they also know how to play a camera of one. They were able to use this technique. And, of course, their comic timing is fantastic. It was a wondeful love affair with the camera and those two comics. I found myself even in the editing, I have a wonderful editor named Steven Weisberg, that we would find ourselves editing to their eyebrows. When their eyebrows would go completely straight up in the air, we knew that it was time to go [laughs].
It's also unusual to see the stars doing some fairly elaborate dance routines. You saw a bit of it in Chicago, but not to the extent here. I was thinking of the sweet, old Hollywood-style dance number between Matthew and Uma during their courtship. Matthew had obviously been doing this on stage for awhile, but was Uma able to pick it up right away?
Absolutely. I was very lucky in that both Uma and Will Ferrell had the chops to do this. Uma, because she had done the Kill Bill films, actually knew how to learn and rehearse. A lot of movie stars aren't used to rehearsing. They just come in and do their thing. But for this project, Will and Uma had to have seven weeks of rehearsal. She knew how to learn. She knew that this is what she had to do to get through this song and dance number. So she and Will both went into heavy vocal and dance rehearsals. And they both have what I think makes a great musical comedy performer, that fearless quality. When I would look in their eyes, they would have delight about the idea of sliding across a desk or flipping over a couch or being thrown across a chair. There was never panic. They loved the challenge of the movement and they loved the challenge of singing and dancing. And Will was so wonderful with those darn pigeons [laughs]. [Note: The introductory scene of Will Ferrell's Nazi character has him tending pigeons on his rooftop which have the ability to do a "Sieg Heil!" salute.] He even seemed excited about conquering the pigeons. They both had the right personality and right demeanor, and they were excited to go on this roller coaster ride.
As Matthew and Nathan and Gary and Roger had been doing this on stage for so long, what was their rehearsal period like?
They did have a rehearsal period, because the choreography did change, as the sets changed. For example, on Broadway Matthew danced with six girls with pearls, but in the movie he has 20 girls with pearls. So they all had new choreography. On Broadway, Nathan dances with 20 little old ladies, but here, in Central Park, he dances with 100. And my stage was Central Park, which is the most wonderful theater set of all. So they needed rehearsal so that, when the time came to shoot, they would be comfortable on these giant sets and with this expanded scale.
Was there a learning curve for them in terms of how to play the gags for the film, which they might play differently when they're on stage and trying to hit the back row?
They adjusted. They brought it down for the camera. And they did that naturally, I have to say. Because what Nathan and Matthew and Gary and Roger all have is a unique ability to feel an audience. They know when an audience is laughing hysterically and when to go and when to stay. Unbelievable comic timing. But here, they just have the camera, which is more of a silent audience, and they acted accordingly to that.
What was the most painful cut or change that you had to make from the original Broadway book? "King of Old Broadway" was a number that has been omitted from the film.
Yes, and that was absolutely the most painful. It's on the DVD [laughs], so that's good. But I'll tell you why that was cut. In the theater, the audience watches everything in a wide shot. But in a film, of course, I have the close-up and that brings you information immediately. So when I did "King of Old Broadway" and then did that first office scene, I was repeating a little bit. I was getting the same information from Max Bialystock twice. You don't see that in the theater, but you absolutely see it when the camera is close-up. So I just made a decision that it was better to get on with it and get into our story. It was indeed painful though.
Did development on the film commence quickly after the Broadway show was clearly a success or did it require some musical films such as Chicago to hit before the studio pulled the trigger?
We were actually recording the album of the Broadway show and I was in a lounge with Nathan, Matthew and Mel Brooks. And Mel just jumped to his feet and said, "We're making the Broadway musical into a movie, and [pointed to me] you're gonna direct it [and pointed to Matthew and Nathan] and you're gonna star in it!" He was like Max Bialystock at that moment, with his wonderful line, "Worlds are turned on such thoughts." [laughs]. That was the moment and it was shortly after that when things started to fall into place with meetings and things. I think that the heart and soul of Mel as a filmmaker was coming out then. Because he was seeing these incredible performances; he was seeing his music and lyrics being loved by an audience; and he wanted to preserve it. I think he just thought that he had to produce a movie, and he wanted to get it on film. And he was my impresario on this. He had his producer's hat on it.
What was his role on the set once the script was done and shooting commenced?
He would come in periodically. He wasn't there all the time. He would come in and say to me, "Susan, you can have whatever you want. Just don't spend a penny." [laughs]. So he was my real producer on this and he was wonderful. He's a dear buddy. Because although Universal and Sony distributed, the film is really produced by the Brooksfilm Company.
So you were kind of given leeway from the studios in terms of creative freedom then?
Yes, I had two sneak previews with my director's cut. Sony and Universal both came. And they heard the applause and the laughing. When the lights came up, they just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you want." [laughs] They were so pleased and, I have to say, always supportive. I know that I was doing something that was unique to what they're used to. Getting people to sing and dance is what I do for a living, so I think that they respected that. And they were wonderful all the way through.
What was Mel's reaction to the film after he saw it for the first time?
I think that was my greatest moment. Because he hadn't seen any part in the putting together of things, and he was seeing it for the first time. He turned to me and said, "You did it" and gave me a big hug. I think it was my best moment of all during this whole process. Because he is one of those men who will throw you into the deep end of the pool and tell you to swim [laughs].
Are you working on any theatrical features next?
I hope so. I think I'm going to be a little like Max Bialystock and take a trip to Rio after this opens and take a little break [laughs]. But after that, I think I'd love to put another theater piece on film.
by Terry Keefe
It was a filmmaking challenge of challenges. Susan Stroman had already done the near impossible when she directed and choreographed the Broadway musical version of Mel Brook's 1968 comedy classic The Producers, turning it into an ongoing smash which won a record 12 Tony Awards in 2001, including Best Direction and Best Choreography. But Stroman was now charged with bringing The Producers back to film, this time as an adaptation of the Broadway musical. The term full circle was invented for scenarios such as this one. So was the term obstacle course. In bringing the story back to film, the imposing shadow of the 1968 version would loom even taller than it did on Broadway. It was one thing to reinvent a movie classic for the stage, which is viewed as a different medium, but a film of the same would be judged by even tougher standards. For one, the archetypes of Zero Mostel as Max Bialystock and Gene Wilder as Leo Bloom offer some pretty big shoes to fill. As does the legendary Brooks himself, despite the fact that he and Thomas Meehan wrote the screenplay for the film together, adapted from their Broadway book. At the same time, some of the elements which made the Broadway show such a success could easily have proven the undoing of a film attempt. The stage version of The Producers is a wonderful stew of musical comedy, satire, and spoof. In the same show that has the fairly traditional Broadway love song "That Face," there are also visual gags such as a future Bialystock-Bloom production entitled "She Schtups to Conquer." Without a very steady hand, the tone, something which a film audience will rarely forgive you for being uneven on, could be a very rocky road, rather than the straight line needed.
We'll beat around the bush no longer. Stroman has succeeded with flying colors in what amounts to a reimagining of the traditional musical comedy for the modern age. The Producers draws heavy inspiration from the Golden Age of Hollywood musicals in terms of its general staging, set design, and atmosphere: there are unabashedly big dance numbers such as that of Broderick and an actual chorus line of dancing girls for "I Want to be a Producer;" the New York and Broadway depicted here are the ones of old school musical fantasy: cleaner, brighter, and more joyful than the real-life versions ever were; and the office of Max Bialystock is a constant screwball comedy revolving door of characters running in and out at the least opportune moments for them and the most opportune for laughs. But simultaneously, the more ribald elements of Brooksian humor are seemlessly worked into the proceedings. That chorus line behind Nathan Lane's Max Bialystock is one composed of sex-crazed little old ladies on walkers, who want a piece of the money-starved producer in exchange for the "chequees" which fund his productions. Part of this definitely isn't your grandfather's movie musical, but part of it is. And therein lies the achievement. The script by Brooks and Meehan is particularly sharp and tight, with excellent transitions, both visual and verbal, which provide a strong spine for the film.
Reprising their Broadway roles are Lane as Bialystock, Matthew Broderick as Leo Bloom, Gary Beach as flamboyant gay director Roger de Bris, and Roger Bart as his assistant, Carmen Ghia. Uma Thurman as Swedish secretary/love interest Ulla and Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkind round out the principals. Lane, in particular, has the most difficult of roles and really makes it his own here. It might be sacrilege to some to say this, but his Bialystock is on par with that of Mostel's. He adds a level of sympathetic loveableness to Bialystock, along with a undercurrent of perpetual frustration which explodes in moments of Ralph Kramden-like comedic anger.
With making this new film of The Producers, you had the challenge of taking the successful Broadway musical adaptation that you had already done of the 1968 film and then bringing it back to film. Were you able to fine the right tone quickly?
Susan Stroman: When we started this, it really was to do the Broadway musical, and not so much to call back to the original film. Because the musical is a completely different genre and takes on a completely different form. So I was actually trying to be true to the Broadway musical. But actually, also, make it easy for the camera and accessible for a moviegoing audience. So it was trying to take this Broadway musical and really giving it four walls and a sky [laughs]. It was great that we were able to build the sets down at Steiner Studios. It was like the old MGM days. I had 5 sound stages. [The set for] 44th Street was built there so it was completely controllable. We were able to have playback of an orchestra of 72 pieces. So I was really feeling like a Gene Kelly running around these different sound stages. But ultimately, finding the style was easy because the film ultimately had to pay homage to films like Singin' in the Rain and Bandwagon. In that it had to be believable when someone launched into song and dance, and it had to be believable on film. And the thing is that The Producers is a musical comedy. We're not sexy and edgy like Chicago. There's no hiding it, we're definitely a musical comedy. And in fact we're a comedy musical, really. So we had to make sure that the comedy reigned supreme all the time. That it reigned supreme in the musical numbers, in the lyrics, in the staging of the scenes, and making sure that the camera was there for the comedy. But for me, it was fantastic, because it was revisiting and reinventing how to stage this musical. The camera almost became like a dancer to me. In the sense that it would partner with the actors. If a dance step took an actor 8 counts to the left, the camera had to make sure it was in the exact 8 counts and moved with them. And the whole crew ended up loving moving to the music. They had to shoot to the music and move the camera forward and backward, and left and right, according to the music. And they ultimately loved doing that. As a matter of fact, in the last days, when I was just shooting some signs, the fellows would ask me to put some music on [laughs]. Everyone got hooked and I loved that. You know, I really got into the theater because of movie musicals. From watching Fred and Ginger on television, and watching Royal Wedding or Easter Parade on television. So now, to having been able to choreograph and direct a gorilla of a musical, it's really beyond dreams realized because that's how I became who I am when I was a little girl. And I think that was probably quite true for everyone on the New York team that I worked with. Certainly all the creators, but even the crew. They thought perhaps that this was something they never had the opportunity to do. We all thought it was gone. And here we were doing this giant musical. So it was quite a joyous experience.
Something that struck me is that none of the recent crop of successful movie musicals have really gone for the traditional movie musical dance numbers that The Producers is filled with. This is the first of the new generation of movie musicals that really harkens back to some of the golden musicals you spoke about as inspiration.
Yes, and I think it has to do with the comedy too. Because I think that sometimes you have to put the camera squarely on something in order for it to be funny. Squarely on its character, or dance number, for it to be funny. I wouldn't shoot another movie like this, because you would want to be at different raking angles and underneath the dancers and such, but for this, the comedy really had to be straight-on. And that does call back to the old way of shooting.
There's nowhere to hide either in terms of disguising things with flashy cuts and angles. It's more of a challenge as a filmmaker.
That's a very good point. Because here I am doing a shot that had 20 dancing girls in it. And each girl had to be exactly the same. If one girl's hand went up late, I had to cut and reshoot again. In the theater, you can get away with someone not being totally precise, but you can't get away with it on film. And it was very important for me to be able to let the shots go on a little longer than maybe a more contemporary filmmaker would have.
I really enjoyed the lengths of some of your takes. Particularly in the "Betrayed" number that Nathan does. You cut to a few different angles, but you don't spruce it up with much other than the power of his performance. He is the special effects.
I'm very lucky that I have Nathan and Matthew, too, in that regard. Because not only do they know how to play to an audience of 1500, but they also know how to play a camera of one. They were able to use this technique. And, of course, their comic timing is fantastic. It was a wondeful love affair with the camera and those two comics. I found myself even in the editing, I have a wonderful editor named Steven Weisberg, that we would find ourselves editing to their eyebrows. When their eyebrows would go completely straight up in the air, we knew that it was time to go [laughs].
It's also unusual to see the stars doing some fairly elaborate dance routines. You saw a bit of it in Chicago, but not to the extent here. I was thinking of the sweet, old Hollywood-style dance number between Matthew and Uma during their courtship. Matthew had obviously been doing this on stage for awhile, but was Uma able to pick it up right away?
Absolutely. I was very lucky in that both Uma and Will Ferrell had the chops to do this. Uma, because she had done the Kill Bill films, actually knew how to learn and rehearse. A lot of movie stars aren't used to rehearsing. They just come in and do their thing. But for this project, Will and Uma had to have seven weeks of rehearsal. She knew how to learn. She knew that this is what she had to do to get through this song and dance number. So she and Will both went into heavy vocal and dance rehearsals. And they both have what I think makes a great musical comedy performer, that fearless quality. When I would look in their eyes, they would have delight about the idea of sliding across a desk or flipping over a couch or being thrown across a chair. There was never panic. They loved the challenge of the movement and they loved the challenge of singing and dancing. And Will was so wonderful with those darn pigeons [laughs]. [Note: The introductory scene of Will Ferrell's Nazi character has him tending pigeons on his rooftop which have the ability to do a "Sieg Heil!" salute.] He even seemed excited about conquering the pigeons. They both had the right personality and right demeanor, and they were excited to go on this roller coaster ride.
As Matthew and Nathan and Gary and Roger had been doing this on stage for so long, what was their rehearsal period like?
They did have a rehearsal period, because the choreography did change, as the sets changed. For example, on Broadway Matthew danced with six girls with pearls, but in the movie he has 20 girls with pearls. So they all had new choreography. On Broadway, Nathan dances with 20 little old ladies, but here, in Central Park, he dances with 100. And my stage was Central Park, which is the most wonderful theater set of all. So they needed rehearsal so that, when the time came to shoot, they would be comfortable on these giant sets and with this expanded scale.
Was there a learning curve for them in terms of how to play the gags for the film, which they might play differently when they're on stage and trying to hit the back row?
They adjusted. They brought it down for the camera. And they did that naturally, I have to say. Because what Nathan and Matthew and Gary and Roger all have is a unique ability to feel an audience. They know when an audience is laughing hysterically and when to go and when to stay. Unbelievable comic timing. But here, they just have the camera, which is more of a silent audience, and they acted accordingly to that.
What was the most painful cut or change that you had to make from the original Broadway book? "King of Old Broadway" was a number that has been omitted from the film.
Yes, and that was absolutely the most painful. It's on the DVD [laughs], so that's good. But I'll tell you why that was cut. In the theater, the audience watches everything in a wide shot. But in a film, of course, I have the close-up and that brings you information immediately. So when I did "King of Old Broadway" and then did that first office scene, I was repeating a little bit. I was getting the same information from Max Bialystock twice. You don't see that in the theater, but you absolutely see it when the camera is close-up. So I just made a decision that it was better to get on with it and get into our story. It was indeed painful though.
Did development on the film commence quickly after the Broadway show was clearly a success or did it require some musical films such as Chicago to hit before the studio pulled the trigger?
We were actually recording the album of the Broadway show and I was in a lounge with Nathan, Matthew and Mel Brooks. And Mel just jumped to his feet and said, "We're making the Broadway musical into a movie, and [pointed to me] you're gonna direct it [and pointed to Matthew and Nathan] and you're gonna star in it!" He was like Max Bialystock at that moment, with his wonderful line, "Worlds are turned on such thoughts." [laughs]. That was the moment and it was shortly after that when things started to fall into place with meetings and things. I think that the heart and soul of Mel as a filmmaker was coming out then. Because he was seeing these incredible performances; he was seeing his music and lyrics being loved by an audience; and he wanted to preserve it. I think he just thought that he had to produce a movie, and he wanted to get it on film. And he was my impresario on this. He had his producer's hat on it.
What was his role on the set once the script was done and shooting commenced?
He would come in periodically. He wasn't there all the time. He would come in and say to me, "Susan, you can have whatever you want. Just don't spend a penny." [laughs]. So he was my real producer on this and he was wonderful. He's a dear buddy. Because although Universal and Sony distributed, the film is really produced by the Brooksfilm Company.
So you were kind of given leeway from the studios in terms of creative freedom then?
Yes, I had two sneak previews with my director's cut. Sony and Universal both came. And they heard the applause and the laughing. When the lights came up, they just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you want." [laughs] They were so pleased and, I have to say, always supportive. I know that I was doing something that was unique to what they're used to. Getting people to sing and dance is what I do for a living, so I think that they respected that. And they were wonderful all the way through.
What was Mel's reaction to the film after he saw it for the first time?
I think that was my greatest moment. Because he hadn't seen any part in the putting together of things, and he was seeing it for the first time. He turned to me and said, "You did it" and gave me a big hug. I think it was my best moment of all during this whole process. Because he is one of those men who will throw you into the deep end of the pool and tell you to swim [laughs].
Are you working on any theatrical features next?
I hope so. I think I'm going to be a little like Max Bialystock and take a trip to Rio after this opens and take a little break [laughs]. But after that, I think I'd love to put another theater piece on film.
0 comments:
Post a Comment