Recently, he met with the Coen Brothers to discuss a role in their forthcoming “Hail, Caesar!,” a comedy set against the Hollywood studio system of the 1950s. The Coens were interested in Lloyd for a character based on Herbert Marcuse, the German-born philosopher and sociologist who became one of the leading exponents of Marxist theory in America. Lloyd felt the audition went exceedingly well, but then came the bad news from his agent: the Coens were hesitant to cast him because of a scene that would have to be filmed on open water in a working submarine.
“It’s a scene where he’s talking to someone, smoking his pipe, standing in the hatch of the submarine, and the thing is bobbing on the seas. Then he finishes what he has to say, pulls the hatch and goes down inside,” says Lloyd. “They said, ‘We don’t know, with Norman being 100, on the ocean…we’re very worried about that.’ I said to my agent, ‘There is nothing I can do about the ocean. If they want to take a chance, I’ll take a chance on the bobbing waves.’” Lloyd pauses, feigning disappointment, but with a mischievous glint in his eyes, the delight of having a new tale to dine out on for what will doubtless be years to come. “They’ve since cast the part with a much younger man,” he booms. “In his eighties!”
captveg wrote:Besides, it's a movie about Hollywood - a virtual guarantee to win Best Picture these days.
Why? Because two (three if you count Argo, but I don't) out of the century's fourteen winners have been about Hollywood? That doesn't exactly make it a guarantee.
Question: Can I get clarification for why my post was moved from the Films of 2015 thread? Too specific to a single film? I don't see how it wasn't on topic, as it was basically saying "Hey, this one might be a 2015 film." The statement was more about the date than a discussion of the film itself, per se. It's already in post-production, after all.
Last edited by captveg on Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You are posting about Hail, Caesar. Therefore it goes in the Hail, Caesar thread. The Films of 2015 thread is for discussing films which do not yet have enough discussion to merit a thread. There was already a well-worn thread on this film.
My intent was to add it to the list (Jeff: "Plus...and many others that I'm forgetting!") or potential releases, not to discuss the actual production/artistic merits of the film. Thanks for the feedback, in any case. No big deal by any means.
Now for something completely different, it’s been reported that you filmed a part in the upcoming Coen brothers’ movie. What was it like working with them?
It was a bit of a shocker. They called me out of nowhere a few months ago. Spoiler
It’s a movie set in the 1950s called Hail, Caesar! and it’s about the studio system. Basically, one of the characters is going to defect to the Soviet Union because he loves communism because they have great uniforms [Laughs]. That’s Channing Tatum’s character in the movie,
and they wanted someone to play a submarine commander. I guess they wanted someone kind of iconic where the audience sees the person and says, “Holy shit!” [Laughs]. So I’m wearing a Russian fur hat and I’m on this huge submarine in Malibu. It was fun to work with them. They were very nice guys, and of course I’m a huge fan of theirs and I never expected to be in any Coen brothers movies, but I guess I am!
The production values look impeccable, which is expected with any of their films now. (It's like watching a sparkling re-creation of That's Entertainment!) But it does leave some concern - I wouldn't say dreadful, but for something that's supposed to be a comedy, it wasn't very funny or at least intriguing. Again, this is really speculation, hoping the film comes off better when I see it.
While watching Magic Mike XXL and being suitably impressed with Tatum's dancing ability, I was wondering if anyone would ever cast him in an actual musical. I guess playing the Gene Kelly-character here is close enough!
Looks amusing. I'm not much of a Coens fan outside of two or three films but I admire the way they're maturing and getting less glib in recent years, and even for a comedy this looks at least less misanthropic than most of their "early, funny" films.
movielocke wrote:I love the look tone and style of this. Is Ralph Fiennes playing a riff on minnelli or cukor?
He looks like Cukor, or at least that's what I thought.
domino harvey wrote:While watching Magic Mike XXL and being suitably impressed with Tatum's dancing ability, I was wondering if anyone would ever cast him in an actual musical. I guess playing the Gene Kelly-character here is close enough!
A few years ago, I'd heard that he and Joseph Gordon-Levitt had signed up for a Guys and Dolls remake which might have been a charming showcase for both stars. At this point, though, the project has probably fallen by the wayside.
This one focuses on a single scene, and did a much better job of getting me interested, at least. If more of the film's comedy plays out in extended bits like this I can see why it might be hard to make a more standard trailer out of it. Costumes and art design look impeccable, though I can't help but feel like the way they've tweaked the color is at odds with what's on screen. It's inconsistent, too: the film-within-a-film that begins the trailer seems to be designed to mimic a late 40s/early 50s technicolor production, but when the audience is watching it in the theater at the end of the trailer, it's been almost totally desaturated in a way that doesn't fit the period at all. Weird.
The Coens have almost always put out really good and creative trailers, and this is a good example of that (as opposed to the more generic first trailer). I'm not expecting this film to be a masterpiece or anything, but I'll see it. Certainly, as always, the production design looks sumptuous.
the film-within-a-film that begins the trailer seems to be designed to mimic a late 40s/early 50s technicolor production, but when the audience is watching it in the theater at the end of the trailer, it's been almost totally desaturated in a way that doesn't fit the period at all. Weird.
That "Technicolor" footage from the film-within-a-film may be the finest recreation of Technicolor film stock I've ever seen (I eagerly await the inevitable American Cinematographer article on exactly what Roger Deakins did to achieve that), but it's indeed weird to see footage from that same Technicolor film-within-a-film desaturated (and almost Clint Eastwood-style) at the end. My best guess is that there is a plot point in the film about Technicolor footage losing its color.
the film-within-a-film that begins the trailer seems to be designed to mimic a late 40s/early 50s technicolor production, but when the audience is watching it in the theater at the end of the trailer, it's been almost totally desaturated in a way that doesn't fit the period at all. Weird.
That "Technicolor" footage from the film-within-a-film may be the finest recreation of Technicolor film stock I've ever seen (I eagerly await the inevitable American Cinematographer article on exactly what Roger Deakins did to achieve that), but it's indeed weird to see footage from that same Technicolor film-within-a-film desaturated (and almost Clint Eastwood-style) at the end. My best guess is that there is a plot point in the film about Technicolor footage losing its color.
Isn't the film-within-the-film that we see projected in a theater in black and white? Isn't that the gag? (beautiful Technicolor life rendered into b&w on film?)
There's still color in the image, though (there's still green in her dress, red in her hair, etc). It just looks like the color scheme of an extremely faded color print.
In any case, that was just something I used as an example. I think a lot of the shots in the trailer are stuck in this strange sort of limbo between faithfulness to cinema of the era and an adherence to modern color grading trends. The Coens always have a very strong vision and Deakins, in addition to being a great artist, is also a technical perfectionist, so I'll be surprised if it doesn't all work in the finished film. I'm just kind of put off by it as it's presented in the trailer.
This wasn't bad but it wasn't as memorable as I thought it would be. The performances were all wonderful, and there were certainly brilliant, amusing moments (including one that comprised much of the film's second trailer in re-edited form), but as whole it was a bit unsatisfying. Even the payoffs of the kidnapping plot fell flat - even knowing what the film was referencing didn't help, it just wasn't particularly funny. And Channing Tatum's much-hyped dance scene was particularly disappointing. He doesn't embarrass himself at all, but there's no way in hell I'd compare that number to Gene Kelly - except for the sailor outfits, there isn't much to remind me of Kelly. The dancers came off rather stiff, clunky and slow compared to Kelly's far more dynamic and lively dances. (One key thing maybe the actual movements, which often looked rather small - that is, the general space covered by the motion of their dancing was often small and except for the finish, so much of the dancing didn't use that much of their bodies.)
But again, it's not a bad film and not a bad way to pass the time.
Although it offers a handful of very funny and/or well choreographed scenes in isolation, overall this is a bit of a disappointment. There's just very little meat on these bones, and the skeleton of a plot presented here is surprisingly unengaging. Some of those sketch-like moments are gold, though.
No big deal by any means.
