Took Caroline to see her first movie yesterday: “Chicago.” Actually, I’d already seen it, but Kathleen and Ariel hadn’t. So we all went with the understanding that, if the baby started to fuss, I’d take her out. As it happened, she fell asleep ten minutes in and napped through the whole thing.
I come away from seeing it a second time with my opinion even more solidified than ever. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Rene Zellwegger act the roles great, but the success of their dancing is a tribute to direction and editing rather than talent. They move very well…but there’s a difference between being a great mover and a great dancer. I’m not sure what it is. A confidence, a sharpness, a focus. Any or all of those. All I know is that Bebe Neuwirth as Velma on film would have amazing. On the other hand, she would have left Zellwegger so far in the dust that you would’ve had to use someone else for Roxie as well.
On the other hand, perhaps it’s appropriate to the film to have used two women whose singing and dancing was good, but not great. It plays to the notion that their success stems from their notoriety rather than their talent.
PAD
• 
I saw Neurith and will apparently be the only person taking a disinterest in her performance to my grave. I saw ‘Chicago’ a few times before the revival (you know, when it was FUNNY) and thought Neuwirth’s revival Velma may have brought a feeling of calculated arrogance to the role but lost the personality, the spark of the whole thing (and it’s something I attribute to Walter Bobbie’s one-note direction and Anne Reinking’s obsessive, but cold choreography as well as Newuwirth’s simplistic performance.)
Which is why I love the movie. Although it made a couple mis-steps into drama, at least they had the sense to adapt the script to accomodate their mood changes. The beauty of ‘Chicago’ as originally conveived is its irreverence, it’s LACK of class about these very serious matters being addressed (which is what makes that song work, obviously on stage.)
I think Catherine and Renee nailed the roles. Catherine’s venom has swagger but it’s a ‘played’ bìŧçh, it’s a bìŧçh as part of a satire or a comedy, not a bìŧçh for the sake of being nasty. ‘Chicago,’ even when it’s just the girls alone in their cells is supposed to be A SHOW — it’s about people who sell their every behavior as part of a Vaudeville circus.
Renee may not be a great dancer but, again, the movie script at least takes that fact into consideration but I thought she was SUCH a breath of fresh air compared to the snoozers sauntering around the Shubert Theater for the past how ever many years. How many people were going to play Roxie as ‘Guys and Dolls’ Adelaide gone sour before an actress finally said ‘how about I try doing something original here?’ And thank God, Renee did. I thought the sweetness she able to put on for both herself and the worlds finally made Roxie a character worthy of all the adulation it always gets.
‘Chicago’ the movie, as far as I’m concerned, is a triumph because of the power of its performers and little else. Yeah, it’s well-directed, well-shot and the revised script makes a lot of sense, but, in the end, it’s Zelwegger and Zeta Jones (and John C. Reilly) that should be getting most of the credit for ‘reviving the movie musical.’
I took my Mom to “Chicago” on Friday (pretty much an “I acknowledge I made your life a living hëll the 18 years I spent under your care” thing, and I made the mistake of using my first viewing as an “imagine/critique the screenplay” exercise, so I’m still not sure how I felt. I do have some general impressions, though:
1. Catherine Zeta-Jones didn’t impress me much. Yes, the numbers were well-performed, and the role was adequately performed, but that’s all: adequately. To me, just doing well with an excellent script isn’t enough for an Oscar; one must go above and beyond the call of duty, and I didn’t get that from Jones.
2. I must give mega-props to John C. Reilly’s wonderfully understated Amos. Any time he’s on screen, the cynicism and specatacle falls away, and you’re reminded that real people are being hurt by the characters’ actions (and I don’t just mean the multiple gunshot victims). Now I’m all for cynicism and spectacle, but Amos adds a balance to the film that I think it needed. I also have to say that “Mr. Cellophane” was one of only two production numbers to elicit any emotional reaction from me other than “That’s pretty neat.”
3. As our dear departed Slo-Bo would say, Richard Gere makes an excellent bastich.
4. I’m going to have to wait for another viewing to rate Renee Zellweger and the film as a whole. But I had fun, so it’s at least a 3 out of 4.
Isn’t most success a result of notoriety these days rather than talent?
You took a baby to see this movie?!?
I didn’t realize that you were one of THOSE people.
I haven’t seen CHICAGO on Broadway, so I can’t compare the stage version to the screen version. However, they *are* two different mediums; and a movie that was a continuous shot of dancing might show the dancers’ skill better — but it’d be a dull flick.
That said, I loved both Catherine Zeta Jones (who *must* play Wonder Woman!!!) and Renee Zellweger. Their singing was great, their acting was fun, and while their dancing might not have been perfect, it impressed me to no end. (Just watch the anger in Jones’s body during “The Cell Block Tango.”) While there was a good deal of editing, ’twas clear that it was done to convey the flashy, near-hyperactive feel of the time rather than to cover up the stars’ inability to move.
CHICAGO wasn’t my favorite film of last year (I remain a true LOTR fan), but it was close. It’s a wonderful spectacle, a grand movie that leaves you with the magic feeling a movie should give.
(Also, did anyone see Salma Hayek on SNL last night? She was great, with her ads slamming CHICAGO (“Can we definitively prove a link between CHICAGO and Al Queda? No. But I can tell you that the makers of FRIDA are in firm opposition to terrorism.”) and urging people to “vote FRIDA” at the Academy Awards. ‘Twas a great parody of the smear campaigns that go on to get the awards!
Jim Lynch
>>You took a baby to see this movie?!?
I didn’t realize that you were one of THOSE people<<
If by “those people” you mean people with a small child and no one to watch her, then yeah, that’s us. However I sat near the exit and was prepared to bolt the moment she started to fuss. The last thing I was going to risk was ruining the movie for others.
PAD
A) as a movie goer, i thank you for what you said here : “So we all went with the understanding that, if the baby started to fuss, I’d take her out.“
So many times have i cursed parents who do nothing when their child is crying…
B) I have to agree that Bebe Neuwirth would have been great to see. I’ve always been a fan of hers.
If by “those people” you mean people with a small child and no one to watch her, then yeah, that’s us. However I sat near the exit and was prepared to bolt the moment she started to fuss. The last thing I was going to risk was ruining the movie for others.
And as a movie goer who was summonded ushers to escort crying babies out of R rated movies, I thank you.
The concept that director Rob Marshall is so clever that you can use it to explain any flaw the movie has. Zeta Jones is shot beautifully when viewed through Roxie’s adoring eyes–but her dancing looks more ordinary in “I Can’t Do It Alone” when Roxie is unimpressed with Velma. If Roxie doesn’t belt the songs out(neither did Gwen Verdon, of course), it’s because it’s still her under all that glitz. And if the cell block doesn’t look totally real–well, it’s as real as Roxie would imagine. This is the most clever re-imagining of a musical since Fosse’s CABARET (where every number is in a performance space, so it all seems more real).
And “She Didn’t Do It” and the”Cell Block Tango” are flat out brilliantly staged and performed!
CHICAGO and TWO TOWERS were both fantastic, making for an excellent movie year. Of course, I can’t explain why Oscars liked dour THE HOURS–the worst chick flick since SHE DEVIL!
Saw the title and expected a Todd McFarlane story…