There is something so very wrong about this.
I'm not even a fan of the musical or the film it's based on and I think this casting is absolutely brimming over with wrongability.
I mean, seriously, were there no ACTUAL fat actors available for this part?
Well, I suppose the casting is OK just so long as Travolta is forced to appear in the shot-for-shot remake of Pink Flamingos. I'd pay to see John Travolta eat real dog shit...
OK, well, I wouldn't, but just knowing he had to eat real dog shit would make my day a little better. :D
old thepete.com blog
moral compass online since 1998
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
John Travolta in Hairspray
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well...Travolta's pretty damn fat, actually. XD
ReplyDeleteYou've got a point!
ReplyDeleteBut not quite as fat as Divine was, which is my point.
Yeah, the least he could do is gain the weight needed for the role, like Gwyneth Paltrow did for "Shallow Hal", like Martin Lawrence did for "Big Mama's House", like Eddie Murphy did for "The Nutty Professor", and Tim Allen did for "The Santa Clause". Because an actor wearing a fat suit is so unusual.
ReplyDeleteMy manager saw a sneak preview of this, and said the makeup on Travolta just looked wrong throughout the movie - it did not organically match Travolta's face and just made him look weird. The character didn't simply breathe from under all the makeup. Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to cast this character with a popular actor who isn't fat, simply because the very point of the casting is to cast a fat man in drag. That's the traditional conceit of that part, and how it is cast. Unfortunately, I can't off the top of my head think of someone besides Harvey Firestein (sp?) in the role who is a large man, recognizable to the public, can sing slightly on key, and matches the character. But I'm sure there is a naturally large actor out there who could fill the role brilliantly.
ReplyDeleteAnd Andrew, I understand the sentiment of your point, but look at the nature of the characters and the movies the above "fat suit" acting examples you list. In each of those movies, we needed to see the actors in their "normal" skinny selves for at least part, if not a large percentage, of the movie. Paltrow was her skinny self for 80% of "Shallow Hal" while Jack Black viewed her under hypnosis, Martin Lawrence's character was actually IN a fatsuit in disguise, the point of Eddie Murphy's Professor was that he became skinny and an asshole via a special drug, and Tim Allen went through a gradual transformation from a normal-weight guy into a fat, jolly old elf in the first movie. It's true, all these actors could have gained weight for certain portions of shooting, but that's very impractical. And unfortunately, huge actors are not normally going to be given the chance to carry the weight, pun intended, of a major motion picture. Producers are going to hire attractive, popular, already established stars and put them under gobs of makeup and allow the audience to enjoy the novelty of seeing their favorite actors looking fat for once in their lives. My manager just didn't think that worked in "Hairspray" when he saw it.
So, while actors in fatsuits are not unusual, ThePete's point is that large actors are not being cast in lead roles (as above in Hairspray) even when the original casting practially demands it.
You can tell I don't want to do the work in front of me...this discussion is far too interesting to do it!
-Si
You make very good points, Sierra.
ReplyDeleteTravolta is a bankable asset, and from what I've read, approached the character with respect. This may be the first time in Hairspray's history that Edna has a waist, and womanly curves. That was something he insisted on, that she not just be a fat joke.
I won't know about the make-up until I see the movie, but from the previews I've seen, it doesn't look that bad.
I've been a Travolta fan since about age four. I was pissed when he passed up "Chicago." I'm just glad to see him do what he does best: shake his ass and sing cheesey songs!
Plus, I can't wait to see him with Christopher Walken as Edna's husband.
.... and if memory serves, there was a HUGE stink about the fat suit in "Shallow Hal," and Eddie Murphy didn't need to play all of the Krumps.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Maybe the producers could've booked Chuck Knipp to play Edna.
Siskita got my point. Andrew, obviously you're biased in Travolta's favor whereas I am biased against him (COUGHbattlefieldearthCOUGH). I think he's well past his prime and is an annoying celeb of Tom Cruise's calibre (sp?). So, when I see him get a role that a fat person created, I think it's a shame since there are plenty of fat actors out there. Maybe none of them have the same name status, but that's beside the point. This is Hairspray--they've already got name recognition with the title.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of fat actors that have "womanly curves" too, so I don't think that's a justification, either. In short, I'm against fat suits unless they're somehow part of the story (ie Shallow Hal or Nutty Professor or even Big Mamma's House--as dumb as they all were). There are too many good, overweight, out-of-work actors out there to hire some regular-sized guy to play a fat part. This industry is going to crumble under the weight of it's own lack of diversity one day. I'd say it's already doing exactly that.
As for the bankable asset thing, I stand by that. Having Travolta's name attached to a movie musical guarantees a bigger opening than it would have without it. Same with Queen Latifah. More people will go see this flick ... you know what? This is Industry 101.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way you're going to tell me a fat man has womanly curves. No. Freaking. Way. Man tits? Maybe. But hips and a waist? I do not think so.
And I wasn't using that as a "justification". Merely stating that Travolta is perhaps showing more respect towards large women in this role than any of his forbears. His accepting the role was contingent upon making Edna a sexy, well-rounded character, not just a sight gag.
Speaking of diversity, why not hire ... I don't know ... a fat woman to play a fat woman? How germaine to the story is it that Edna be a dude in drag? Last time I checked, there was a disparity between the number of roles for women vs. men. Not to mention the fact that Travolta is likely making more money than, for instance, Rosanne Barr would in the same role.
As for the bankable asset thing, I don't stand by that--this is my point. Obviously, Travolta was hired for the assumed draw he'd have over moviegoers. Personally, he repells me. I say get a fat actor to play the part and I'd at least respect the casting more. Also, I use the term "actor" to apply to all who act. That point aside, a fat (male) actor originated the part. Want to stay true to the original? Go with a fat (male) actor. I don't know the original, the musical or the movie musical, so I can't judge how "sexy" Edna is supposed to be. All I know is that I respect original visions and don't like changes unless they are strong. And casting Travolta in a role like that is, in my mind, a weak, uninteresting choice.
ReplyDeleteI don't like Travolta. Clearly you do. I don't see any reason for him to be cast over some no-name fat actor, male or female--aside, that is, from the bankability reason. To me that reason is the weakest of them all.
But the point you make is that he's not fat, as opposed to he's not a woman. Why is size more important than sex? Camryn Manheim could've played this role. Or Rosanne, or Rosie O'Donnell, or Delta Burke, or Kathy Bates (well, maybe ten years ago.)
ReplyDeleteAnd I suppose that the current team handling this material doesn't have "original vision"? Maybe their vision is absolutely contingent upon a guy in a fat suit. In the original movie, Divine appears as Arvin Hodgepile, the TV station manager. Maybe the idea of a slick, slim Travolta as the sleezy TV manager appealed to the production team! We won't know until we actually see the movie.
Ah, but as you say the real problem here is you don't like Travolta. So had it been Hugh Jackman cast as Edna Turnblad, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Also, you disagree with the casting for a movie that you're "not even a fan of." Well, I'd say that works out pretty well for you!
At this point I think it's kind of absurd to keep going on about this. It's pretty obvious that what I am trying to say. Since you are putting other words in my mouth, I'll clarify one last time:
ReplyDeleteIt's my understanding that Divine was originally cast in the role Travolta is taking over for the movie, I respect source material, don't think Travolta is worth casting in just about anything, and I feel that it's a shame that they can't just cast the best actually fat actor in the part (so, Hugh Jackman in the roll would still disappoint me--not sure where you got that him in the part wouldn't disappoint me).
Try to find an argument in there if you want, but I won't reply since I don't see anything to argue about. You've made your point and I have made mine. You'll be seeing the movie (I assume, based on how many comments you've left) and I won't be.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got waaaay more important stuff to blog about than who the hell they cast in Hairspray.
"Waaaay more important stuff"?
ReplyDeleteThen why the hell bring it up in the first place?
Your problem is Travolta, not a skinny guy in a fat suit. Paint it anyway you want, it's abundantly clear.
Hugh Jackman ... whatever. "Anyone else" in the role is the point. Anyone else, and you wouldn't give two shits. Do you blog about Angelina Jolie playing Mariane Pearl, a "woman of color," in "A Mighty Heart"? Nope.
You're right. It's pretty obvious what you're trying to say: "Travolta sucks." If you had just said that in the beginning, instead of feigning outrage over fat suits, it would've saved us both a lot of trouble.
The joke's on you anyway: Your GoogleAds is running "John Travolta Fan? See John Travolta as Edna Turnblad in the remake of "Hairspray". 7/20" with a link to Hairspraymovie.com.
ReplyDeleteHey, I think I'll click on the link, so you make a little money off of this exchange.
No hard feelings?
Oh, you're right the joke IS on me. Just not that one. Clearly, you've just been trying to "teach me a lesson" by playing antagonist. Rather than simply moving on, once both of us made our points, you just made crap up like insisting that I have issues with Travolta. It's like you're trying to re-enact that sketch from Monty Python about arguing. Well, you won, man. You taught me a lesson, all right. Now that I've wasted all this time fucking around on a post that was (obviously) a quick one-off post done while I was killing time at a bus stop and not meant to inspire this kind of passion from anyone.
ReplyDeleteThanks for preying upon my need to keep my site somewhat professionalish. I like to reply when people seem to be genuinely interested in a discussion and not obviously being interested in trolling. Be glad I don't feel vindictive enough to figuratively pee all over one of your blogs.
Now, off to do things more important than arguing for way to long with you about something that is really not that important in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, I did say I wouldn't reply to you--but guess what? It's my site. I do what I want here and you can do what you want on yours. But here, I request a bit of respect from my visitors. So, I'd appreciate it if the next time you post a comment that you keep things at least moderately respectful (you know me, this isn't a huge request) and once I say the argument is over, let the argument be over. This is my site and I will take my ball and go home. If you don't like it, then by all means, don't post here.
Incidentally, blocking every Google ad I don't like would take hours. Newsflash: when I post about how Bush sucks, I get pro-Bush ads. When I talk about how Republicans suck, I get "Date Republicans NOW!" ads. This is the way Google ads work--no joke on me, you or anyone else.
And no hard feelings? Sure, unless you play this game again on my site.