Matthew Broderick: The Hollywood Interview

Matthew Broderick in Wonderful World.

THE EDUCATION OF MATTHEW BRODERICK
How the most (arguably) iconic juvenile lead of the 1980s has not only matured into one of our finest character actors, but just keeps getting better

By Alex Simon

If we are all a combination of nature and nurture, actor Matthew Broderick is both. The son of acclaimed character actor James Broderick (best-known as the father on the 1970s hit series “Family”) and playwright/author/painter Patricia Broderick, Matthew’s upbringing in an artistic environment led him to take the stage at age 17, opposite his father in a production of On Valentine’s Day.

Two Tony awards and many decades later finds Matthew Broderick’s resume filled with some of the most iconic films of the 1980s: WarGames, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Glory to name a few, where Matthew established himself not only as one of the finest, and most versatile, young film actors of his generation, but distinguished himself on Broadway as well, in now-legendary plays such as Torch Song Trilogy and Neil Simon’s autobiographical Brighton Beach Memoirs and Biloxi Blues (a role he repeated in the film version, directed by Mike Nichols).

The ‘90s saw Broderick step into more mature roles such as the voice of adult Simba in the Disney hit The Lion King, and that of the hapless, but well-meaning, high school teacher in Alexander Payne’s scathing satire Election, a part which has become somewhat archetypical of Broderick’s later work. He also made his directing debut with Infinity in 1996, penned by his mother. The new century found Broderick again a star of the Broadway stage, originating the role of nebbishy accountant Leo Bloom in the musical of Mel Brooks’ The Producers, opposite Nathan Lane, for which he received a Tony nomination.

Matthew Broderick’s latest big screen outing is writer/director Josh Goldin’s Wonderful World. Broderick stars as Ben Singer, a failed children’s music composer struggling to find meaning in his life. When his Senegalese roommate (Michael K. Williams) has a health scare, Ben finds himself drawn to the roommate’s beautiful and kind-hearted sister (Sanaa Lathan), whose gentle, loving nature forces Ben to reevaluate his cynical view of life. Also starring Ally Walker, Philip Baker Hall and Jodelle Ferland, the Magnolia Pictures release opens in New York and L.A. January 8.

Matthew Broderick sat down with The Hollywood Interview during a recent visit from his native New York to discuss his latest role and other adventures in the screen trade. Here’s what followed:

Tell us about your character of Ben Singer and how you found the heart of this very cynical, “glass half-empty” man.

Matthew Broderick: Well, I have my cynical side so it was fun to explore that. The film is written and directed by Josh Goldin, who’s been a very dear friend of mine for about 20 years, and Ben is very much like Josh in many ways, although Josh is much more cheerful. It was nice that our friendship was able to turn into a professional relationship, and thank God it didn’t go too disastrously, so we were able to remain friends. (laughs) But I liked the part a lot.

Does it make a difference working with a director with whom you have a personal relationship? Is there more of a shorthand present in terms of communication?

Yeah, I think so. I mean, I haven’t done it that often, but I have a little bit and, knock wood, it’s always been a pleasure. I can see how it would not be. I mean, if you’re friends, you might be too careful with each other or it might be strange to be bossed around or directed by somebody with whom you’re close. But that’s never happened with me, particularly with Josh. He didn’t change personalities when he became a director. We still had the same relationship. He was not afraid to be honest with me, and vice-versa, and we always ended up having a drink after we’d shoot, so we never went to bed angry, as they say. (laughs)

L to R: Matthew Broderick, Michael K. Williams and Sanaa Lathan in Wonderful World.

How do you think people will relate to Ben’s character and what he's going through, particularly in terms of what the country has gone through in the past year?

It’s interesting because the story seems to be sort of a litmus test for people in terms of whether you see things as positive or negative, and whether your life is the way it is because of your actual circumstances, or because of how you’re looking at things. Ben sees everything in a kind of negative light when the movie begins, and he’s done it to such a degree that he’s almost bringing it on himself. He’s making things worse than they are, and his daughter, which is an interesting part of the film, his relationship with his daughter, he begins to see that he’s actually hurting her, and that’s when he says ‘Wait a minute.’ Then he has a roommate who gently nudges him along in terms of how he’s thinking about things, and then he gets involved with a romance, which wakes him up and gets him out of just thinking about his ex-wife. So he suddenly has a little luck, and also an internal change in his attitudes that makes him end up in a slightly better place than he was in the beginning of the movie.

I’ve been a huge fan of Michael K. Williams since The Wire and it was great to see him do such great work here. Tell us about working with Michael.

Josh wanted him so badly, from seeing The Wire, and the two characters couldn’t be more different, but Michael just has such great energy and is such a bright and interesting actor. I loved working with him. He’s always surprising, and very present, and has a great attitude. He’s always very happy, as is Josh, and thank God, because we shot the thing in 21 days. When you’re on that tight of a schedule, people can get cranky, but by and large, everyone stayed cool and wanted it to come out well and there was no craziness, and a lot of that was due to Michael and the attitude he brought.

Broderick and Ally Sheedy in WarGames.

We should talk about some of your other films. Why don’t we start near the beginning, with WarGames. You did that right after your triumph on Broadway with Neil Simon’s Brighton Beach Memoirs and you didn’t see a lot of that in the early ‘80s, with actors going back and forth between the stage and screen, as you do now.

Yeah, that happened purely by luck. I was auditioning for WarGames the same time I was auditioning for Brighton Beach and they both worked out and there was time to shoot before the play began. I was cast in the play before I was cast in WarGames, I think, and then luckily the film shot in time for me to be able to do the play, as well. So it was just luck. I didn’t have some master plan to do both. It just worked out that way.

How does your early work hold up for you now?

I don’t know. It’s hard to…my younger things, there are always moments I think are not very good, and I would do better now but at the same time, there’s a lot that I probably wouldn’t do as well. There’s something very nice when you start out and you don’t know too much and you’re more trusting and there’s an ease about the work that’s good. You can’t lose because you’re just thrilled to be there, basically. Then also the nice thing when you’re starting out is the audience is just happy, or hopefully happy, to see this new guy. After a while, that goes away and they’re saying “Hm, is this different from the other thing you did?” And they start to have opinions about you, preconceived things, so you never get that fresh feeling again. So that was an exciting time, because nobody knew what to expect from me, nor did I.

Broderick in an iconic pose from Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Speaking of that, we have to talk about Ferris Bueller, which is your most iconic role. I remember reading an interview with you a few years back where you said, after the film’s huge success, you were afraid of getting typecast as that guy for the rest of your career.

It’s not that I didn’t want to be typecast, I just wanted to make sure my career could withstand being identified with such an, as you say, iconic character. It’s like when, back in the old days, if you were cast as Superman, it was hard for audiences to see you as anything else. So, as silly as it sounds now, that part almost had people thinking of me as that guy. So I was just trying to make sure I had a career, and I did, so no complaints.

What was the experience like of making the film itself? It looked like everyone was having a ball.

We were. It was really fun to shoot. It was all about John Hughes. He was so bright and funny, and had such an original mind. It kind of seemed like a new type of film at the time, something that hadn’t really been seen before. It was a big shift, and John’s work was very much on everybody’s mind at the time. I had seen The Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles, and then to be asked to do his next one was really thrilling. We shot it in Chicago, which is where John was from, and knew every inch of. He showed us around and we just formed this great camaraderie: me, Alan Ruck, Jennifer Grey, Mia Sara. It was a very special time.

L to R: Alan Ruck, Mia Sara and Broderick in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

What film after that would you say helped redefine your career in terms of moving into another genre comfortably?

I don’t know that there’s any one that redefined me. I just think that, after a while, if you keep working you start to feel as though you’re not so defined by one thing. I mean, I liked Election a lot. That was a different way to go. Glory, I think, was different. Then a lot of the plays I’ve done, like The Producers those are different, too. So I’ve had a lot of variety, and a lot of things that didn’t work, too.

Broderick in Ed Zwick's Glory.

Glory is one of those movies with a blessed cast: you, Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Andre Braugher, Cary Elwes, and others. You all either launched your careers with that film, or sent your careers into a new arc.

It was amazing, wasn’t it? I don’t really run into Denzel that much anymore, but his career has really been magnificent from then on. Some of my favorite actors are in that film, so I was very happy to have been in it with them. Morgan Freeman was one of those people. I mean, I grew up watching him on “The Electric Company,” playing Easy Reader. (laughs) Of course Morgan has had a tremendous career, as well. The director, Ed Zwick, too. So yeah, it’s fun to look back and say ‘I knew them when,’ although we were all pretty established at that point, but no one was really a “star,” per se.

You’ve gotten to work with some amazing directors during your career: Mike Nichols, Sidney Lumet, John Hughes, to name a few. When you directed your first feature, what lessons did you take from them?

Well, you take different lessons from different people. There are so many ways to be a director, and those are three very different directors with different styles. Sidney’s technical skill is just incredible, and I wish I had that, which I knew I didn’t have. Sidney Lumet has directed ten thousand movies and four thousand live television shows, so he just knows everything. Mike is so great with actors and you just want to be around him. He’s a very fatherly director and everyone just wants to hang around near the monitor and talk to Mike. So I couldn’t do that, either. (laughs) John Hughes was a little more shy, a quiet director, but knew exactly what he wanted, but was a little more reticent, I think. But very, very funny when he wanted to be, and very smart. Plus, John wrote all of his films, and when the writers are directing they tend to have a more exact notion of what they want, whereas if the director didn’t write it, he or she is more likely to say “Well, what do you think we should do?” They’re a little looser sometimes. They’re all different, and those three are three of the best.

Broderick and Marlon Brando in The Freshman.

You’ve also worked with some of the greatest actors in the world. We’ve got to talk about Marlon Brando. Any stories about The Freshman?

Oh God, I’ve got a million. (laughs) I mean, he was just so thrilling to watch. He was very friendly to us, to all the actors. He really liked actors. Me and Bruno Kirby would hang out in his trailer, trying to get information. Marlon was very entertaining, liked to talk a lot, and I just hung on everything he said, and I loved watching him work. I can’t remember any stories, really. Sorry. (laughs)

Did he tape his lines on you?

(laughs) No, by that point he used an ear piece and an assistant would feed him his lines if he couldn’t remember. You didn’t notice it, and he rehearsed a lot, too. So it wasn’t that he didn’t care about it. He just didn’t like to know his lines too well. He said if he knew his lines too well, then it wouldn’t be spontaneous, because a part of you is always thinking “What’s the next line?” He didn’t want that part of his mind going. That’s what he said. But if he could read them or hear them, it took his consciousness away from “What am I saying next?” He was a very unique person, and a great actor.

What about all the great actresses you’ve worked with? Any who stand out in particular?

Well, the danger of these questions is that I’m going to leave people out that I don’t mean to. But I’ll tell you one who comes to mind, and that’s Sanaa Lathan, from this movie. She had to work very hard, and very late sometimes, and always cheerfully. She had to learn dances and accents and really make you believe she was from Senegal. She did all of it. What other actresses…Marsha Mason was terrific in my first film (Max Dugan Returns), Ally Sheedy was great. I’m just going chronologically. I don’t know…I’ve worked with great women. I don’t know where to begin. (laughs)

Reese Witherspoon and Broderick in Election.

In terms of the diversity of the roles you’ve played, where would you say Ben Singer falls?

Gosh, I don’t know. I mean, I hope he’s different. It’s nice because he’s not soft. He has an edge to him, which is nice, because I often get parts which are softer. At the same time I don’t like to play something that’s too foreign to me, because I want to serve the script. I don’t want to be doing some exercise for someone else’s enjoyment. I want to play parts that suit me. It’s tricky to know what those are sometimes, but I don’t necessarily think I should break too far away from how I am, or how I’m thought of. You can go a little bit out there, but not too far. That’s my opinion.

You’ve also managed to continue your balance of stage and screen work, again one of the few actors who has managed to do that now. Is it a different process acting on the stage versus acting on film, or are they first cousins?

They’re first cousins, I think. Technically the process is very different. You never have enough rehearsal on a film. Everything you’re seeing in a film is the first day of rehearsal. So I like plays, because it gives me time. On the other hand, there’s immediacy with film that’s very nice. The fact that you haven’t done the thing 200 times is kind of good. It’s fresh. But scenes either play well, and you either work in it, or you don’t. I either suit a role and bring something good to it, or I don’t. I’m never sure which way it will go, and it doesn’t matter if it’s the stage, film or TV. That part of it is always the same.

Broderick and Nathan Lane in The Producers.

But when you play a part like Leo Bloom in The Producers hundreds of times, I’d imagine that you are able to go deeper into the character just because you get to spend so much more time with him.

Yes. We did that for a year, not including Chicago. Then we did the movie, and then we jumped back into it on stage for maybe another four months, me and Nathan (Lane). I think for like six months you get better, and then after that, maybe you don’t, looking back on it. Some things get better, but some things don’t. Sometimes things can get too much better, too strange. I don’t know if that happened with The Producers, but luckily I had Nathan, and that kept me sane. That made it possible to do it 500 times. We kept each other awake.

Read More

Susan Stroman: THE PRODUCERS Interview

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:

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.

Read More