I’m not sure how I missed this one. Better yet, I’m not sure how everyone missed such casting news. I just happened upon it by accident and then I scoured all the blogs that would know. I must believe that had it not been for his bandwidth issues, Uncle Grambo would have been all over this. How did I miss the news that Justin Timberlake is looking to star in an adaptation of Rent to be directed by Chris Columbus?!?!?!
Believe it or not, Fiona Shrek’s boyfriend doing this film wouldn’t be the worst news, assuming he’d be Roger and not Mark. The role of Roger was created by Adam Pascal, at the time a wannabe musician who had never acted professionally before, and even by the time I saw the show (about a year after it opened on Broadway), you could still tell. He could sing, though, and basically, that’s what you’d be getting with Justin. A guy with a strong pop voice, the right pop look, who can be overdramatic when necessary to the pop-rock music, and wouldn’t have to carry the movie alone since the show is a complete ensemble piece.
But Chris Columbus as director? Is this for real?
I so totally missed this announcement. Last I heard, Spike Lee was trying to put together a filmed adaptation for Miramax; and then I heard that Spike had given up, as had several filmmakers before him. Doing a little Variety search (subscription req’d), I see it was announced the first week of May. That would be a time when I was otherwise disposed and not really blogging. Maybe someone saw the story then, but I didn’t, and seriously, I can’t think of a less-appropriate director for this material.
Forget the fact that Columbus is simply “competent.” I mean, he’s one of those directors who will (generally) not royally fuck-up a movie. But he’s never exactly added anything to any of his films either. They’re mostly amusing little comedies that often are fan favorites because they don’t take too much brain-power, are filled with sight-gags and dumb (read: easy) physical humor and move along at a relatively brisk pace. If you watch his first film, the Elisabeth Shue “classic” Adventures in Babysitting and then take in Bicentennial Man (his last pre-Harry Potter movie — I’ll get to those in a sec), you won’t exactly see a director going through any sort of growth. The only upward trend noticeable in the 12 years between those films is his ability to work with bigger-budgets and more expensive above-the-line talent. The first Home Alone was cute; but the second verse was the same as the first. Mrs. Doubtfire and Nine Months? Two very solid mehs. Nothing interesting, nothing horrific. (Although I’m sure there are plenty of you who would disagree with me on the “horrific” side of things.) Stepmom, on the other hand, was relatively awful, and that’s one reason to not let the man approach drama.
As for the two Harry Potter films, I don’t give a shit how much they each made, they were both no better than utterly mediocre. And the second film in particular completely mangled the entire central focus of the book from which it came. I’ll admit, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is my least favorite of the books I’ve read so far, but I believe it contains a crucial element in the continuing evolution of Harry as a character: his fascination with the diary of and eventual relationship to Tom Riddle, who is really Lord Voldemort. In Tom Riddle, Harry thinks he has found a relationship with another extraordinary wizard, someone who can understand the problems and issues he encounters that his best friends Ron and Harmiony can’t comprehend. He’s an orphan still getting used to a world with which he is completely unfamiliar, but in his conversations with Tom Riddle through the diary, he starts to believe he is finally on course to learning exactly who he really is. And then, ultimately, he’s betrayed; or is he one with his enemy? Who knows? That’s the continuing mystery.
Of course, you would barely know any of this (and my description is relatively minimal as it is) without reading the novel because Columbus doesn’t know how to tell a damn story. In both Potter movies, he’s so concerned with the flashy big scenes and special effects, reproducing the heart of the novels (and J.K. Rowling’s books have a lot of heart!) is neglected. In fact, the absolute best thing to happen to the Harry Potter series of movies is that Chris Columbus will no longer be directing them.
As for adapting Rent? Oy! Columbus’ statement in the Chicago Sun-Times article is reason enough to doubt his judgment: “”I’ve been obsessed with the play for years. It’s the best musical ever. I also feel the message is really important in today’s world.”
First, Rent is so not anywhere close to the best musical ever. I liked it fine, and it had some catchy music. It is a clever modernization of Puccini’s “La Boheme.” But it received this reputation of being some sort of groundbreaking, be-all, end-all reinvention of the American musical, and really, it wasn’t. What it was, in fact, was simply much better than the rest of the crap showing-up on Broadway at that time. Do you remember the shows Chronicle of a Death Foretold or Swinging on a Star? No? Along with Bring in ‘Da Noise, Bring in ‘Da Funk, those were the other two Best Musical Tony Award nominees in 1996. (Noise/Funk was quite excellent, and in some ways was actually more of a reinvention of musical theater than Rent.) The demise of the Broadway musical was even better reflected the next year when The Life, Steel Pier, Juan Derien, a Carnival Mass and (the eventual winner) Titanic competed for the big prize. I never saw Juan Derien (and I wish I had because it was directed by the brilliant Julie Taymor), but I did see the other three, and if that’s the best Broadway has to offer, then hell yeah, Rent is the greatest thing ever.
To call Rent the best musical ever is to show a complete lack of knowledge regarding musical theater. Even neglecting the golden age of The Great American Musical, leaving aside the shows from Cole Porter, Lerner & Lowe, Rodgers & Hammerstein, etc., Rent isn’t even in the same class as Michael Bennett’s A Chorus Line or Stephen Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd or Company, to name a few. Hell, I’m not sure I’d even put it in the same class as my current fave and Tony nominee, Avenue Q.
I’m not saying Rent isn’t an important musical or even a now vital moment in the history of musical theater, but “best musical ever”? Hardly. Besides, at roughly 10 years removed, it is already fairly dated. When Jonathan Larson wrote the show and passed away, the East Village was a very different place. I remember because that was roughly the same time I moved to New York … to the East Village. In fact, even by then, it was already evolving into something that would no longer reflect the world in Larson’s show. The same might be said for the world of people living with AIDS at the time of the show — it’s a different world now with more awareness, more medical possibilities and actually a better chance for people to continue living with HIV, rather than dying as does Angel. I’m not trying to negate the message of the show, and in fact, maybe now is the perfect time for it since there is still no cure and sometimes mainstream society does forget that HIV and AIDS are still a major problem. However, the problem in 2004 is very different from the problem that existed in 1995.
And to my mind, Columbus will manage to mess it all up anyway. In fact, making the film in 2004, I wouldn’t be all that surprised if Angel lives!! Because, you see, there are better drug cocktails now. And wouldn’t it be just peachy to see how far we’ve come.
I’d love to see a great adaptation of Rent. As a fan of film and theater, it deserves one. It also deserves a strong hand in the director’s chair; a person with vision and an innovative style; a person that won’t simply mimic all that has come before it. (How many people want to bet that somehow the film will resemble Chicago, even if just a little bit stylistically, regardless of how utterly different the two shows are?) It needs a director whose name is not Chris Columbus.
And only then might Justin Timberlake be alright.
Oy … I have a headache.
Out of Focus 
Leaving aside the issue of gentrification, about which my opinions are varied and complex, I can say with no shame that I love Justin Timberlake. But I love him as a pop star.
Sure, the guy is multi-talented but I can’t imagine him in any role in Rent. I was fortunate enough to see the musical with 4/5 of the original cast, so I can agree that it was a less than earth-shattering show and nowhere near the best musical I’ve seen. I much preferred Avenue Q, and even Mama Mia is better suited to be made into a movie than Rent—especially with Columbus directing.
Aside from that, if he’s so concerned with the message of Rent, did he completely miss the made-for-TV Angels in America? There’s no way that Columbus’ Rent can top Tony Kushner, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it would turn out far too Harry Potter-esque, anyway.
Coincidentally, I think that the Harry Potter franchise is, if not a sign of the apocalypse, a sure indication of the complete collapse of Western civilization. Didn’t anyone read CS Lewis as a child?
LikeLike
First off, a bow to Marleigh regarding the Harry Potter comment. And to answer the question — I guess not, and JK Rawling is laughing all the way to the bank as a result.
As for Rent — yes, would probably make a decent film. I think Spike would have been a good choice (although his last musical was pretty weak). Still, he knows NYC well enough.
As for Timberlake — I have no idea. I think I once heard a Back Sync Boy song and it made me want to die. Didn’t he do some solo thing where he thought he was black? I really don’t fancy the idea of a big-budget musical designed around a flavor-of-the-month. What sort of screen presence does he have? Probably none.
Now as for Chris Columbus — Aaron was putting it mildly when he said he hasn’t added anything to his films. The man has no vision whatsoever. Put a page in front of him, he’ll do what he’s told. THAT’S why they give him oodles of cash to make films — there’s zero risk. “Need a re-shoot? No problem!” “Don’t like the ending? Neither do I!” Please – let him stay in the kiddie world of Culkins and Potters.
Great post Aaron. It’s quite the man that’s brave enough in 2004 to admit loving A Chorus Line and Sweeney Todd. (And I couldn’t agree with you more about those shows and Rent.)
LikeLike
Marleigh: I wasn’t actually trying to knock Timberlake … too much. I think he would be just fine as Roger, much as Adam Pascal was on stage. And even mentioning the word “gentrified” was simply my poor attempt at having a clever headline for the post — not an attempt at judging the process.
Filmbrain: I never thought anyone would use the words “putting in mildly” in regards to Chris Columbus and this post. I guess I didn’t spew as much vitriol as I thought.
Both of you: I think you are dismissing Harry Potter because of its being a phenomenon rather than the quality of the books. The books are great; they’re a lot of fun; and they actually aren’t total fluff. C.S. Lewis doesn’t suffer just because Harry’s popular, and the film version of “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” may or may not prove that on its own merits. Tolkien obviously hasn’t suffered either. And in some respects, while the writing itself isn’t as sophisticated, I prefer elements of the Potter stories because they don’t carry the blatant Christian allegory presented by those other two authors, particularly Lewis.
The movies and their popularity is another issue entirely. If they are adapted better (as I hope has been done this time with Cuaron at the helm … this book is my favorite of the ones I’ve read too!) they could be phenomenal fantasy films. But just because something achieves mass popularity does not automatically make it bad or worthless, and Rowling deserves praise for writing intelligent (yes, I used the “i” word) works of fiction that can capture the attention of old and young alike. As I tried to touch on briefly, each of the books in their own ways deal with very common issues regarding adolescence and identity, and she does so in a way that neither babies nor condescends.
LikeLike
I have read as much of the Harry Potter series as I could before my body physically revolted. While on one hand I applaud the fact that people are actually reading books of some form again, just because it’s popular doesn’t mean it is exempt from criticism. I am not excluding these from the canon simply because they are popular. After all, I like Justin Timberlake and The Darkness. Harry Potter is OK, but that is the most lavish praise I can heap upon it. Mediocre it is, and mediocre it will remain until the end of time.
I can’t agree that her take on the stories is necessarily intelligent. She is a competent writer and she can tell a coherent story; that’s a talent that someone like Dave Eggers can’t claim. No matter how you slice it, Ms Rowlings is still writing mass market fiction, which is tagged with the word “mass” for a reason. That doesn’t mean that the people who read it are stupid or unable to appreciate anything more complex, just that Harry Potter isn’t any better than a majority of the paperbacks in print.
To your point about CS Lewis, I can appreciate your criticism as it is a common and apt one. I happen to like both Lewis and Tolkein a great deal, and in defense of my position I offer you my suggestion for the series of books that should have been what Harry Potter has become: the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman. Pullman has been writing for many years and manages to accomplish the very feat you have claimed for Ms Rowlings; that is, writing intelligent fantasy fiction that deals with issues of adolescence and identity which is suitable for adults and children, all without stooping to patronizing the audience.
The title of the series is taken from Milton, and quotes from Blake, Spenser, Milton and Dickinson, among others, pepper the text. Before you accuse me of elitism (which I fully admit to), I must say that I didn’t pick up this book because of Milton or Blake, but because it is formidable enough work to have been banned by the Catholic church. That aside, I have not enjoyed any book (other than The Secret History) as much as this trilogy in a very long time, and I can admit that I cried like a baby at the end both because of the brillant writing and because I didn’t want it to end. Even my sister, an avowed non-reader, loved these books. I can’t heap enough praise upon them.
LikeLike
I’ve heard great things about “His Dark Materials,” and plan to read the books myself. While “Harry Potter” has become a super-phenomenon, from what I understand, “His Dark Materials” is actually right on the heels (maybe a step down) in popularity from the “Potter” series, at least in England. The book has already been adapted into a six-hour play directed by Nicolas Hytner for what I believe was a very successful theatrical run (don’t know if it’s still going) in London at the National Theater, and its film treatment is going into production shortly with a script by Tom Stoppard and Chris Weitz directing. I think Pullman’s series of books is doing just fine.
And I wasn’t trying to actually knock Lewis or Tolkien as I too love their stories, and as I wrote before, they are much more talented wordsmiths than Rowling could ever hope to be. I do, however, find the religious agenda, particularly in the Narnia series, to be a little overwhelming for a series of children’s books that are written for a relatively young audience, as opposed to, say, most of Tolkien’s works.
Obviously, we disagree on the potential value of anything marketed to or popular with the masses. I think there is plenty of “mass market” entertainment (visual and written) that is very good and maintains significant value. And at the same time, there are more than a few works of film and literature that are specifically not targeted to the masses that are utter and complete shit! If you’re happy with your self-admitted elitist attitude to these things, great, but you may actually be missing out on something great sometimes.
As for “Potter,” I never claimed it was exempt from criticism. I don’t believe anything is. I just don’t believe that something being “mass market fiction” is in itself a negative criticism. As far as criticism of the actual quality of the books, the first book is fun; the second book is, in fact, very mediocre. If you never got to the third book and beyond (because you were convulsing somewhere in a corner), that’s where it becomes your loss.
LikeLike
HP has nothing on “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” or “The Phantom Tollbooth”.
Hadn’t heard about the “His Dark Materials” series. Sounds interesting.
Back to the issue at hand — was humming tunes from Rent while in the shower this morning and imagining how very bad a CC-helmed version of it would be. Probably even worse than Chicago which was the most unimaginative musical ever committed to film. They should have simply filmed a stage performance (which they pretty much did.)
I think Robert Altman should direct it.
LikeLike
Aaron: Re-reading my post it does seem my elitism extends to everything, but it doesn’t. I am primarily a snob about books, but even there I have read my share of mass market fiction and enjoyed some of it very much. I just think that it is slightly ridiculous that such trends get so far out of control. Perhaps it wouldn’t annoy me quite so much if some of the people who latch onto the Harry Potters and Da Vinci Codes of the world would use it as a springboard into other literature, like Pullman or Lewis or Faulkner or Lovecraft or Huysmans.
Though I didn’t like the film, I was never so happy as to see that Cold Mountain was back on reading lists because it is a book truly worth all the hype. So long as something beyond a cultural frenzy comes from such things, I can’t truly say they are bad. I can’t even say they are bad on their own, as I enjoy plenty of things that could be termed mass market. I’m an elitist with a weakness for Tim Burton and Baz Luhrman, for Chrissakes. I don’t think I could get any less elitist in that respect.
Also, in reference to the popularity of Pullman’s trilogy, I was thinking specifically of it in comparison to the HP phenomenon in America. I’m aware that Pullman is quite popular in England, but I didn’t know there was talk of a movie. I certainly can’t complain about Tom Stoppard working on the script, either. But everyone should read the books first! They’re so good!
Filmbrain: Roald Dahl was my favorite author as a child, and my cousins have all suffered through my affections at Christmastime with copies of The BFG and The Witches.
Hmmm. I don’t know how I feel about Altman directing Rent. I’m a fan, but it just doesn’t seem to be quite the right fit to me. Why would you choose him?
LikeLike
I’ve been watching some early Altman lately, and I so love what he does with his camera. I thought that that would be a great approach to a musical, rather than, as I mentioned, something like Chicago.
On a somewhat related note, I came across this story today, and I don’t have the heart to write about it on my site — Aaron, maybe you can run with it (if you like):
Live action/CGI version of Charlotte’s Web to be directed by Gary “13 Going on 30” Winick. Sigh. Must everything joyous from my youth be violated so?
The story
LikeLike