|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Jul 1, 2016 3:23:35 GMT -5
_poster.jpg) Across the Universe
Dir. Julie Taymor
Premiered at Toronto September 14, 2007
What, exactly, is the point?
I really didn’t want to do this one. I like the Beatles, and I’d like to be able to keep listening to their music without cringing from the memory of Across the Universe’s silly covers. And even if it wasn’t the Beatles, it’s still a jukebox musical, the pinnacle of Broadway’s evolution into generic, homogeneous, safe tourist fodder. And on top of that, it looked like yet another mindless baby-boomer greatest hits album with no real insight, in the vein of Forrest Gump. I approached my viewing like a condemned prisoner. But Minnie assured me it wasn’t as bad as I feared.
Liverpudlian Jude (Jim Sturgess) takes a job as a sailor in order to find his father, who fathered him during the Second World War and now works as a janitor at Princeton University. Discovering his father wants nothing to do with him, Jude falls in with slacker student Max (Joe Anderson, putting out some serious Chris Evans vibes) and jumps ship. The two begin sharing an apartment in Greenwich Village with a ragtag bunch of outdated 1960s hagiographic stereotypes, as well as Max’s younger sister Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood), who falls in love with Jude after losing her high school sweetheart to the Vietnam War.
From that point, the entirety of the 1960s happens. Max gets drafted, things get sad, bad things happen to black people, and weirdos do a fuckton of drugs. Lucy gets into the anti-war movement hard, alienating Jude, who becomes an artist while she is radicalized into the violent New Left. All to the music of the Beatles.
On the one hand, the film actually tries to tell its own story rather than slavishly building one around the Beatles’ lyrics; I can respect that. On the other hand, the film then struggles to justify the inclusion of said songs, which are used in place of whatever emotion, chemistry, or character development is supposed to take place. Consequently, the actors have little to work with. There’s not much to say about the music. It’s the Beatles, it’s hard to fuck up, and at least these cover versions sound better than, say, Glee. But it’s pretty clear the this was only made because said music was well-known and there’d be a built in audience.
I can’t talk about Across the Universe without talking about the environment in which it was made, because it never commits to its period setting. The real-world revival of 1960s fashion and aesthetics was still a few years away, and you can tell, as people’s hair and clothes are slightly off, and the cinematography and lighting immediately marks it out as a 2007 film.
Most of all, though, it’s the attitude that kills the mood. When Across the Universe came to theaters, Mad Men was in the middle of its first season, and while that season was unnecessarily heavyhanded in its borderline-alien depiction of a bygone era, it still succeeded in showcasing a time period that valued ambition and optimism, the hard-won hope born of decades of untold pain and tragedy. The characters in Across the Universe, by contrast, talk and act with a directionless, winking cynicism that screams “I am not old enough to remember the Cold War.” In Mad Men’s Sally Draper, I can genuinely see the girl who grew up to be my mother, but these characters feel more akin to a bunch of theater kids who just watched Slacker.
So I ask again: what, exactly, is the point?
Additional Notes
- We don’t see much of Jude’s Liverpool origins, but Julie Taymor definitely tries to show humble they are. Having actually been to Liverpool, Taymor’s idea of postwar British poverty is laughably naïve. I think Americans still have this unreasonably lofty image of Britain, even today, as being an empire of sorts– at least they did before last week. It’s understandable for the most part, but here it comes off as kind of insulting.
- Speaking of cultural imperialism, I also find it uncomfortable that Taymor decided to use the music of the ever-so-British Beatles to capture the milieu of 1960s America.
- This movie also appears to exist in a world in which The Beatles don’t exist. My head hurts.
- Fuck me, Bono is in this?! If this is how he and Julie Taymor met and then conceived the biggest, bloodiest, most spectacular failure in Broadway history, all is forgiven!
|
|
|
|
Post by Superb Owl 🦉 on Jul 1, 2016 13:15:04 GMT -5
Oh god, fucking Dragon Wars
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkInTexas on Jul 1, 2016 13:25:35 GMT -5
I'm not saying Spider-Man wasn't a disaster, but once it officially opened (after six months of previews), it did manage to run for 2 1/2 years and over a thousand performances, which is pretty impressive for any show, especially one as plagued by problems as that one. That said, it is the rare thousand-performance show that seems to have completely vanished into the either--no Vegas production, no national tour, no London production, no regional productions, as far as I can tell.
But yeah, jukebox musicals suck. Except for Jersey Boys.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Stuffingtacular She-Hulk on Jul 1, 2016 13:42:28 GMT -5
I hated this movie so much I almost drop-kicked the DVD into traffic before remembering I had borrowed it from my then-girlfriend and couldn't destroy property that belonged to someone else. The songs were the only good part; everything else was just a horrible mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jul 1, 2016 14:18:53 GMT -5
The mere existence of this movie angried-up my blood at the time. It's not like I would ever deign to see it myself, but I remember someone told me at the time that it included a girl actually coming in the bathroom window. The fact that there's a character named Jude just makes me roll my eyes even harder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Lemur on Jul 1, 2016 14:29:41 GMT -5
I'm not saying Spider-Man wasn't a disaster, but once it officially opened (after six months of previews), it did manage to run for 2 1/2 years and over a thousand performances, which is pretty impressive for any show, especially one as plagued by problems as that one. That said, it is the rare thousand-performance show that seems to have completely vanished into the either--no Vegas production, no national tour, no London production, no regional productions, as far as I can tell. But yeah, jukebox musicals suck. Except for Jersey Boys. Did it last that long‽ I have to assume most people bought tickets with the expectation of watching some kind of bone-crunching mishap. |
|
|
|
Post by firstbasemanwho on Jul 1, 2016 14:33:24 GMT -5
This sounds like the '00s version of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band with the Bee Gees. (Note: I have seen neither of these films.)
|
|
|
|
Post by rimjobflashmob on Jul 1, 2016 14:49:21 GMT -5
I always liked this movie, but I haven't seen it since I was 16, and I thought 300 was pretty good too at that age. So I'm afraid to watch it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Jul 1, 2016 15:03:44 GMT -5
I'm not saying Spider-Man wasn't a disaster, but once it officially opened (after six months of previews), it did manage to run for 2 1/2 years and over a thousand performances, which is pretty impressive for any show, especially one as plagued by problems as that one. That said, it is the rare thousand-performance show that seems to have completely vanished into the either--no Vegas production, no national tour, no London production, no regional productions, as far as I can tell. But yeah, jukebox musicals suck. Except for Jersey Boys. In order to break even, it would have to have sold out every night for ten years. In consideration of the fact that the creative team and investors assumed it would be a hit on par with Phantom or something, I feel perfectly comfortable calling it a disaster. In terms of net loss, both nominally and relative to the budget, it is the biggest flop in Broadway history. And it will never cease to amuse me. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jul 1, 2016 15:20:26 GMT -5
This sounds like the '00s version of <i>Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band</i> with the Bee Gees. (Note: I have seen neither of these films.) I've seen both of them, and that's basically what it is, the main difference is that Across the Universe is less weird and better-made. That's part of why the movie didn't bug me; I'd already seen the same thing done much more offensively. |
|
Ice Cream Planet
AV Clubber 
I get glimpses of the horror of normalcy.
Posts: 3,833 
|
Post by Ice Cream Planet on Jul 1, 2016 15:55:51 GMT -5
I hated this movie so much I almost drop-kicked the DVD into traffic before remembering I had borrowed it from my then-girlfriend and couldn't destroy property that belonged to someone else. The songs were the only good part; everything else was just a horrible mess. I love this comment so much. If only I knew people like you when that film came out (everyone in my high school loved it). |
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Jul 1, 2016 16:02:00 GMT -5
I hated this movie so much I almost drop-kicked the DVD into traffic before remembering I had borrowed it from my then-girlfriend and couldn't destroy property that belonged to someone else. The songs were the only good part; everything else was just a horrible mess. I love this comment so much. If only I knew people like you when that film came out (everyone in my high school loved it). This film made zero impact whatsoever at my high school. As far as we were concerned, it was the summer of Superbad and nothing else. ganews ditto. I think I saw the trailer in front of (probably) Spider-Man 3 and thought "how could anyone find this anything but embarrassing and awkward?" That was the vibe I got from the rest of the audience as well. |
|
Ice Cream Planet
AV Clubber
I get glimpses of the horror of normalcy.
Posts: 3,833
|
Post by Ice Cream Planet on Jul 1, 2016 16:04:34 GMT -5
I love this comment so much. If only I knew people like you when that film came out (everyone in my high school loved it). This film made zero impact whatsoever at my high school. As far as we were concerned, it was the summer of Superbad and nothing else. ganews ditto. I think I saw the trailer in front of (probably) Spider-Man 3 and thought "how could anyone find this anything but embarrassing and awkward?" That was the vibe I got from the rest of the audience as well. That was another popular one too. |
|
|
|
Post by MarkInTexas on Jul 1, 2016 17:04:57 GMT -5
I'm not saying Spider-Man wasn't a disaster, but once it officially opened (after six months of previews), it did manage to run for 2 1/2 years and over a thousand performances, which is pretty impressive for any show, especially one as plagued by problems as that one. That said, it is the rare thousand-performance show that seems to have completely vanished into the either--no Vegas production, no national tour, no London production, no regional productions, as far as I can tell. But yeah, jukebox musicals suck. Except for Jersey Boys. In order to break even, it would have to have sold out every night for ten years. In consideration of the fact that the creative team and investors assumed it would be a hit on par with Phantom or something, I feel perfectly comfortable calling it a disaster. In terms of net loss, both nominally and relative to the budget, it is the biggest flop in Broadway history. And it will never cease to amuse me. No doubt the show was wildly misconceived, but the weird thing is that it was a huge flop that sold a lot of tickets and had a long run (it ended up with a few more performances that Newsies, which opened that same season and was a big hit). When I think true Broadway disaster, I think of shows like Carrie, which lasted one whole weekend before shuttering. But then, even Carrie has its fans. I'm not sure if there's anyone who thinks Spider-Man is underrated. |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 5, 2016 1:55:44 GMT -5
I'm not saying Spider-Man wasn't a disaster, but once it officially opened (after six months of previews), it did manage to run for 2 1/2 years and over a thousand performances, which is pretty impressive for any show, especially one as plagued by problems as that one. That said, it is the rare thousand-performance show that seems to have completely vanished into the either--no Vegas production, no national tour, no London production, no regional productions, as far as I can tell. But yeah, jukebox musicals suck. Except for Jersey Boys. In order to break even, it would have to have sold out every night for ten years. How? Are the costs of a Broadway production not basically on a per-performance basis once you get over the costs of sets and costumes and paying people to write songs and dialogue and hire the actors and stuff? |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 5, 2016 1:59:48 GMT -5
This sounds like the '00s version of <i>Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band</i> with the Bee Gees. (Note: I have seen neither of these films.) I've seen both of them, and that's basically what it is, the main difference is that Across the Universe is less weird and better-made. That's part of why the movie didn't bug me; I'd already seen the same thing done much more offensively. Honestly, I liked the Sgt. Pepper film more if only because it's so insane and utterly nonsensical that it has no reason to exist. Across the Universe is just mediocre and consistently overly-on-the-nose when it comes to it's use of Beatles covers. |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 5, 2016 2:02:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure if there's anyone who thinks Spider-Man is underrated. The Edge? |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jul 5, 2016 6:02:10 GMT -5
I've seen both of them, and that's basically what it is, the main difference is that Across the Universe is less weird and better-made. That's part of why the movie didn't bug me; I'd already seen the same thing done much more offensively. Honestly, I liked the Sgt. Pepper film more if only because it's so insane and utterly nonsensical that it has no reason to exist. Across the Universe is just mediocre and consistently overly-on-the-nose when it comes to it's use of Beatles covers. I'll grant that Across the Universe doesn't have anything as entertainingly poorly conceived as Steve Martin's "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" or George Burns's "Fixing a Hole". I think the production of the Sgt. Pepper movie probably used up half of the year's cocaine crop for the year it was made. |
|
|
|
Post by pairesta on Jul 5, 2016 9:08:10 GMT -5
FUCK I hated this movie so much. It also introduced me to Julie Taymor, such that every time I hear her name I can feel my blood pressure spike.
You know what I hate most of all? Almost every song begins with a tight closeup of the character singing, and they've got this smirk on their face, like "Yeah, that's right. You know this one!" And it's always just the first line, they kinda sing-speak it, then the music kicks in. Oh jesus I hate this movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 10:15:48 GMT -5
In order to break even, it would have to have sold out every night for ten years. How? Are the costs of a Broadway production not basically on a per-performance basis once you get over the costs of sets and costumes and paying people to write songs and dialogue and hire the actors and stuff? I'm not positive, but I think we're also including the massive costs of paying out the many, MANY injury claims for the actors who were hurt during PRE-PRODUCTION, and probably massive insurance costs afterward? List of Cast InjuriesAlso, funny connection - the THIRD person to play Arachne in this mess was TV Carpio, who was ALSO in Across the Universe as Prudence. Yes, as in Dear Prudence, which was just as blatantly obvious would be sung as soon as you heard her name. |
|
|
|
Post by MarkInTexas on Jul 5, 2016 12:59:31 GMT -5
How? Are the costs of a Broadway production not basically on a per-performance basis once you get over the costs of sets and costumes and paying people to write songs and dialogue and hire the actors and stuff? I'm not positive, but I think we're also including the massive costs of paying out the many, MANY injury claims for the actors who were hurt during PRE-PRODUCTION, and probably massive insurance costs afterward? List of Cast InjuriesIt doesn't help that Spider-Man is far and away the most expensive Broadway show in history, costing a whopping $75 million. The second most expensive, Shrek The Musical, cost less than $30 million. Spider-Man actually did very well, box-office wise, regularly taking in over a million dollars during the course of a week, and occasionally topping $2 million during holiday weeks (Hamilton, which, to be fair, is playing in a much smaller theater than Spider-Man did, has only started topping $2 million a week since that show jacked up ticket prices at the beginning of the summer). The problem, as it has been pointed out, is that when your show costs $75 million to mount, and is extremely expensive to run every week, even regular grosses of $2 million a week probably won't cut it. |
|
Paleu
AV Clubber
Confirmed for neo-liberal shill.
Posts: 1,258
|
Post by Paleu on Jul 5, 2016 14:38:10 GMT -5
I'm not positive, but I think we're also including the massive costs of paying out the many, MANY injury claims for the actors who were hurt during PRE-PRODUCTION, and probably massive insurance costs afterward? List of Cast InjuriesIt doesn't help that Spider-Man is far and away the most expensive Broadway show in history, costing a whopping $75 million. The second most expensive, Shrek The Musical, cost less than $30 million. Spider-Man actually did very well, box-office wise, regularly taking in over a million dollars during the course of a week, and occasionally topping $2 million during holiday weeks (Hamilton, which, to be fair, is playing in a much smaller theater than Spider-Man did, has only started topping $2 million a week since that show jacked up ticket prices at the beginning of the summer). The problem, as it has been pointed out, is that when your show costs $75 million to mount, and is extremely expensive to run every week, even regular grosses of $2 million a week probably won't cut it. Indeed. If the per-show costs are high enough, marginal revenue will only be enough after each show to recoup a little bit of the massive, 75 mil sunk cost. Or, to put it in shitty MS Paint graph form:  If the slope of that curve is low enough, it will take that long to break even. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Lemur on Jul 5, 2016 15:09:04 GMT -5
I demand we give Paleu his own infographics forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 5, 2016 21:56:46 GMT -5
I'm not positive, but I think we're also including the massive costs of paying out the many, MANY injury claims for the actors who were hurt during PRE-PRODUCTION, and probably massive insurance costs afterward? List of Cast InjuriesIt doesn't help that Spider-Man is far and away the most expensive Broadway show in history, costing a whopping $75 million. The second most expensive, Shrek The Musical, cost less than $30 million. Spider-Man actually did very well, box-office wise, regularly taking in over a million dollars during the course of a week, and occasionally topping $2 million during holiday weeks (Hamilton, which, to be fair, is playing in a much smaller theater than Spider-Man did, has only started topping $2 million a week since that show jacked up ticket prices at the beginning of the summer). The problem, as it has been pointed out, is that when your show costs $75 million to mount, and is extremely expensive to run every week, even regular grosses of $2 million a week probably won't cut it. How much does a Broadway musical that isn't inherently a terrible idea usually cost? |
|
|
|
Post by MarkInTexas on Jul 6, 2016 12:56:49 GMT -5
How much does a Broadway musical that isn't inherently a terrible idea usually cost? I found an article from a couple of years ago listing the ten most expensive musicals of all time, with the then-new Aladdin at #10 at about $14 million. Of this year's crop of new musicals, Hamilton cost $12.5 million, Waitress cost $12 million, and Bright Star cost $10 million. I wasn't able to find numbers on the other two Best Musical nominees School of Rock or Shuffle Along, nor on quick flops Tuck Everlasting or American Psycho, but I doubt any of them were more than the standard $10-13 million most Broadway musicals cost these days. Interestingly enough, of the top 10 most expensive musicals, Disney was responsible for 5 of them. The list was also equally split between hits and flops (did you know Disney spent $16 million on a musical of Tarzan? Even more so than Spider-Man, that's a show that has pretty much disappeared without a trace). Here's the full article if anyone is interested: www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/the-10-most-expensive-broadway-musicals/ |
|
|
|
Post by kitchin on Jul 27, 2016 19:36:59 GMT -5
Spider-Man actually did very well, box-office wise, regularly taking in over a million dollars during the course of a week, and occasionally topping $2 million during holiday weeks (Hamilton, which, to be fair, is playing in a much smaller theater than Spider-Man did, has only started topping $2 million a week since that show jacked up ticket prices at the beginning of the summer). The problem, as it has been pointed out, is that when your show costs $75 million to mount, and is extremely expensive to run every week, even regular grosses of $2 million a week probably won't cut it. Taymor made a few billion - and counting - for Disney with the Lion King franchise. Disney could afford to break even or whatever on Spidey. Plenty of musicals fail completely, don't they? |
|
|
|
Post by MarkInTexas on Jul 28, 2016 9:03:46 GMT -5
Yep. Just this spring/summer, the runs of musicals Disaster, Tuck Everlasting, American Psycho, Bright Star, and Shuffle Along combined were 374 performances. By comparison, Hamilton already has 404 performances all by itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ron Howard Voice on Jul 29, 2016 13:31:44 GMT -5
Honestly, I liked the Sgt. Pepper film more if only because it's so insane and utterly nonsensical that it has no reason to exist. Across the Universe is just mediocre and consistently overly-on-the-nose when it comes to it's use of Beatles covers. I'll grant that Across the Universe doesn't have anything as entertainingly poorly conceived as Steve Martin's "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" or George Burns's "Fixing a Hole". I think the production of the Sgt. Pepper movie probably used up half of the year's cocaine crop for the year it was made. This really, really makes me want to watch the Sgt. Pepper movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jul 29, 2016 13:45:34 GMT -5
I'll grant that Across the Universe doesn't have anything as entertainingly poorly conceived as Steve Martin's "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" or George Burns's "Fixing a Hole". I think the production of the Sgt. Pepper movie probably used up half of the year's cocaine crop for the year it was made. This really, really makes me want to watch the Sgt. Pepper movie. There are individual scenes that are worth seeing. There are long stretches of the movie that rival the Wookiee scenes in the Star Wars Holiday Special, though, with the "I Want You" number being particularly painful. |
|
