#or his being able to impose casting choice on famous actors when he was not yet an established star

[histoireettralala]

Hôtel de Bourgogne vs Palais-Royal. Andromaque and the rise of a star.

More than a few trees have died so biographers and critics could try to figure out why Racine, in defiance of custom, gave the same play to two theatres. Leaving aside questions of Racine's bad faith, however, a more interesting question is why the Hôtel was apparently able to dominate the competition so quickly. Granted, reputation was important and the Hôtel de Bourgogne was the tragic tripot, but the actors at the Palais-Royal started out in a position of strength. The first night attracted a glittering audience; Robinet's review promised a fine experience; and yet the audience deserted them for the other theatre.

The answer lies in the casting. A comparison between the two casts not only has something to teach us about the differences between Molière's actors and the tragedians at the Hôtel de Bourgogne, it also forces us to consider that our own idea of good acting was not necessarily shared by audiences in seventeenth century Paris […]

It may be helpful to think about tragedy as it was played at the Hôtel de Bourgogne in the seventeenth century the same way we thought about opera through most of the twentieth. As the Grands Comédiens saw it, the voice was what mattered. Mlle Des Œillets enchanted the listener, not the spectator, while Montfleury was the Luciano Pavarotti of his day, so heavy that he needed a supporting frame to hold up his belly on the stage. That apparently could be overlooked as long as the voice struck the ear harmoniously and conveyed the meanings of the text. As Sabine Chaouche writes, of tragic acting:

"We know that on the seventeenth-century Stage, "dire c'est faire", to speak is to act… at "to speak" is above all to appeal to the imagination by the evocative power of the word, to create lively and stimulating images capable of insinuating themselves into the minds of the audience, and to make an impression, arouse the senses, and deeply move the spectator."

This aesthetic of acting, which stresses the written text at the expense of visual action, also indicates the growing importance of the playwright. No longer, like Hardy and Rotrou, merely the hired help, the playwright now could feel that it was the job of the actors to serve him and his intentions. On the other hand, Molière, although a playwright, was an actor as well, perhaps an actor above all, and while he was not personally succesful in tragedy, he had an idea of how it should be played. That idea, which was less formal and formulaic than what took place on the rival stage, would be conserved and refined by Michel Baron, who began his distinguished career in Molière's troupe. The clash of these opposing styles would continue long after both Molière and Racine were dead.

Racine may have given his play to the Hôtel after discovering during rehearsals that he was unable to persuade the actors at the Palais-Royal to speak his verse the way he wanted it spoken. According to the unknown friend who recored what Racine's elder son Jean-Baptiste had to say about his father "[Racine] did not approve of the too lively way in which Molière's troupe performed verse. He wanted the sound of verse to join meter and rhyme, distinguishing it from prose." Molière, believing that verse could be performed as if it was actual speech, made fun of the measured delivery practiced at the Hôtel. As Béatrice Dussane notes, Molière was also unlikely to permit the young Racine to "encroach upon his authority." Mlle Du Parc may have been somewhat more tractable, a "docile imitator", according to Dussane, leading Racine to believe that he could shape her performance to achieve exactly what he had in mind.

[..]

Why did Mlle Du Parc leave the Palais-Royal for the Hôtel de Bourgogne ? Georges Forestier thinks she was dissatisfied with her roles and peeved because she was always being passed over for the other actresses. But he has not thought about what roles may have been available for her in the tragedies, nor about her importance as a dancer. He also asumes, as does everyone else, that Racine had a hand in the change of venue. He points out that the Hôtel de Bourgogne, with Mlle Des Oeillets and Mlle d'Ennebaut, did not need Marquise Du Parc, and that she was not given any of their roles. In his view, then, Racine imposed her on the troupe so that she could be his Andromaque, and the troupe was happy to have the chance to annoy Molière. This is as good a reading of events as any.

[…]

In his gazette of November 26, 1667, Robinet most unusually begins his review of the new play Andromaque on page one and devotes an astonishing 90 lines to it. He describes it as "the play, completely new, of Andromaque, the widow of Hector." This lady, many years after her death, is reborn in the person of a charming actress,"a tall temptress, who, dressed in magnificent mourning, with her voice, her gestures, and her eyes, fills the role admirably." He continues with a description that focuses on Andromaque's unintended effects on her captor, Pyrrhus, who has fallen madly in love with her:" It is Mlle Du Parc, served by her faithful escort, the Little God who Bears the Bow", that is, Eros. Racine has clearly relied on her sexual appeal to add a layer to the play that would be not there with a less naturally seductive actress in the role.

Forestier believes that Racine was taking a certain risk casting Mlle Du Parc as the faithful widow, considering that by this time she was seeking solace in the playwright's bed for the loss of her own husband. In his view their relationship was already underway when Racine had preferred her to Mlle de Brie for Axiane in Alexandre le Grand. If that was the case, Forestier argues, the audience, up on the latest gossip, might actually have laughed at the sight of the mery widow in her classical weeds. Nonetheles, suitable or not, Marquise Du Parc finally had her starring role as a tragedy queen.

Racine's friend Boileau later said that Racine was in love with "la Du Parc" and wrote the role of Andromaque for her, although in what sense he might have done so has been disputed. The romantically inclined like to think of her as Racine's muse:

"The author watches the woman, this young widow, mother of a little boy. The heart of the actress, faithful to Du Parc, beats with the same rythm as the heart of Andromaque, faithful to Hector: [Racine] is inspired by her, watches her work, listens to her intonations, to the inflections of her enchanting voice. There is a veritable osmosis between the poet Jean Racine and the actress Marquise Du Parc: the conception of Andromaque without a doubt owes as much to the one as to the other."

Others recall that Boileau went on to say that Racine "taught her her role; he had her repeat it like a scholar", which sounds more like Pygmalion and Galatea than a tragic poet inspired by his own Melpomene. André Chagny tries to resolve any conflict. "Their artistic collaboration created a strong and intimate link between two sensibilities, two intelligences, two wills," but why should it be a problem if, "in order to be certain that his verses were understood and would be spoken with the correct expression, Racine felt obliged to teach her the role himself" ?

No anecdotes have come down to us suggesting that Mlle Des Œillets- whose role as Hermione was larger and required a far greater range than did that of Andromaque- had to be taught her text word by word, inflection by inflection, and after devoting 13 lines to Mlle Du Parc, Robinet gives 30 to her rival, far more prominent in the action and, in the end, seen "in full glory".

Virginia Scott- Women on the Stage in Early Modern France: 1540-1750.

[sprawa-przybyszewskiej]

I cannot claim to know about this play more than some others (Ewa Graczyk, Jagoda Hernik-Spalińska, Kazimiera Ingdahl and Maria Janion, in alphabetical order, are the official Horsewomen of the Apocalypse in this topic), with a lot to bring to the table, and so I will sometimes discuss parts of it which are - at the very least at the first glance - absolutely and doubtlessly simple; but  by discussing them I hope to be able to bring into the discussion some new material, new evidence, perhaps - for the contrary of the popular belief.

I remember when I first read the scene between Danton and Robespierre, I was completely mystified, just as Maxime. To somebody who at that point knew nothing about the historical events, the exchange between them was very logical (and everyone knows how hard it is to obtain, especially in a piece of media where the author blatantly favours one of the characters over another). I am very glad then, to be able to say that while Przybyszewska did everything she could to humiliate and belittle Danton in the more visual aspects of the scene - his gestures, movements, actions, mimicry, even the sound of his voice etc.  - she didn't bother making him out to be a complete clown. His arguments are populistic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing when you're n politician aspiring to be even more than that. Perhaps she thought that painting him out to be a weakling would somehow diminish Robespierre's awesomeness, which is a valid concern. For Robepsierre has little left to do in this scene - it is made out to ba a confrontation between them, of sorts, but is it one, really? I don't think so, not for the large part of it. Robespierre comes in, dishes out few sarcastic lines, looks at Danton with disgust and contempt and then crushes him in a yet another sarcastic line and then leaves. There isn't that much he can do not only to participate in the exchange, but to be visually and audially appealing to the audience as a character in a play. And even though we all know staging The Danton Case is a secondary affair, the main thing you can do with it is to read it and ponder over it, when you do stage it, a lot of responsibility rests on the actors recreating the part. Which is why choosing a good actor can, potentially, make all the difference, sometimes going as far as completely changing the way you view the very same scene you read earlier.

I have always assumed by "the same man" they meant Robespierre. It makes some sense in the light of the conversation, altough I have to admit it makes little sense in the light of Robespierre's reaction. The question thus presented to us is: do we go by what is written, do we percieve a play as a piece of fiction in a real world, OR do we immerse ourselves in the fictional world, suspend our disbelief and for a moment treat it as an alternate reality of sorts?

Polish director Jan Klata has managed to put on stage a compelling retelling of The Danton Case and I would like to present to you a scene from his version, which we're lucky enough to have on YT, with translation courtesy of @that-one-revolutionary​. I've seen the play in its entirety: some metaphors were heavy-handed to say the least, some aspects I wish he'd done differently, but all in all, when choosing the main protagonist, the director casted in the role a truly splendid actor (please note that Marcin Czarnik was young. Young! It made all of the difference and it's worth watching if only for that), who brought home some of the points of character of Robespierre's which could have easily been brushed aside in order to highlight some other aspects of the conversation (the most famous example of this would be the very same scene from Wajda's movie, where the appealing and in all aspects imposing Gerard Depardieu dominantes the scene, thus presentign it in a very different ligt). While it can be read as a political statement, or a match of two great personalities, or a display of cunning on either part, Klata (or Czarnik; it's hard for me to say what the director tried to do with it, a lot of Robespierre's quirks, mimicry, gestures etc. seemed to come directly from the actor, which I can only say because I've seen him in other things and that's sort of his style of acting; all in all, I'll try to treat this not as a discussion over this particular staging, because for that I lack needed data, but it's unavoidable in the long run at least at some points, so please bear that in mind) treats the conversation itself as a minor thing in comparision to what is going on in Maxime's mind at the moment.  Just look at this: there is no significance brought into their meeting, no change of the scenery, nothing indicates this meeting is special in any way. The logical conclusion is, then:  it's not special. Both Danton and Robespierre seem to treat this as a step which cannot be avoided, but which bears no great weight either. The only reason they agreed to make this step altogether is - for "the same man". For Camille.

I do think Przybyszewska's intention was actually to disguise Maxime under this vague title. If this is a play about love - as I will always state it is - she wanted to underline the fact some people will be hatefully loved by those who are beneath them, who have nothing whatsoever in common with the object of their affection simply because the loved one is so great, so genius, so shining and bright it is impossible not to love them. I think this is the relationship between Danton and Robespierre (that is, on Danton's part) up until this point in the play. Danton idolizes Robespierre against his will (against both of their wills, really), because Robespierre is truly made out to be a demi-god at the very least. If you could team up with a hero like this, you should. So Danton goes through a humiliating process of trying to reconcile with Maxime, because humiliation, if everything paid off in the end, would be worth it. That Robespierre doesn't reciprocate the affection is simply a further proof that he is above Danton in every way.

Klata-Czarnik duo seems to have gone into another, subtler direction though. The man that both politicians make an exception for seems to be Camille, moreso because Robespierre loves him than because Danton has any special feelings for him. What is his relationship with Camille, anyway? They are cordial enough, but always a bit on the edge, and we know that Danton doesn't know everything that Camille thinks and feels in regards to Robespierre, mostly because he doesn't care that much, but also because he is characterised as a brute, and this simply goes above his head, it's too subtle, too delicate of a feeling for him to know it. It is also clear he knows Camille pretty well, but he doesn't know his soul, so to say. Therefore, he cannot actually love him, not to the point to make him the one and only excpetion from his otherwise coldly and precisley calculated plans.

Is there, however, a scenario in which Camille could be Danton's exception? Yes, when it becomes more about Robepierre than about Camille. When Camille is sort of offered as a mean to lure Robepierre in. Danton could make this exception only if it meant getting what he wanted (which is later mirrored by his blatant admission that the only reason he lets Camille take the fall with him is to deny Robespierre any joy in life after this point).

Robespierre, however, doesn't see it this way. He actually makes the exception for Camille and I think Danton's words – whatever he means by them, whichever interpretation we think is correct – put him on alert, for the fear of having his secret discovered. In the video linked above it is even more than that – once Robespierre hears Danton indirectly name "the same man", he gets aggressively defensive. For him to have someone like Danton talk almost openly about what he treats as his personal secret (a secret that Danton, being in great familiarity with Camille, could potentially know for certain) is equal with defiling it. I have violated your secret. Do you know what he says in the original? I have raped your secret. It really brings into the focus how much “the secret” needs to be protected, and how much it will hurt Maxime once it’s uncovered and destroyed.This is what he fears pretty much for the entirety of the conversation, his suspiscion somewhat confirmed when Danton says: No catchphrases, Robespierre. I know you.

As I mentioned earlier, the shift in my reading of the scene was prompted by the video. It is worth observing what exactly does Robespierre do when mentioing Camille by surname – he gets visibly more upset, he ponders for a split second for the best way to talk about him. His choice of words is interesting as well:

Both translations here are poor and I quite like what that-one-revolutionary did with it. "Katarynka" is a music-box, so "an instrument" fits much better (not to mention the obvious English connection to the phrase "play like a fiddle", which is adequate here). A parrots is after all a living being, something with a will of its own, if steered by more powerful handlers. But admitting that Camille, from his own free will decided to go against Maxime and everything that Maxime believes in is much harder for Robespierre than calling him an inanimate object, which can be unwittingly used by people with their own agenda. That leaves Camille almost blameless, perhaps careless and foolish, but not responsible fo anything that has transpired.Calling him names serves another purpose as well, which is to steer away the suspiscion that Robespierre protects Camille becuase he cares about him in a special way. He knows there are Danton's accomplices turning ears by the door, so he doesn't want to give himself away with his care and concern.

Ultimately, what do you believe, whom do you think they were referring to I think says a lot about what you think about Maxime's state of mind at the time. Danton's too, though, it can be used as a litmus test whater or not you believe he was honest in idolising Robespierre and offering him his adoration and obedience. In some stagings it will be presented as true, in some as a lie, and that's the beauty of adapting a piece of literature, there are so many options, all blooming from the same roots.

[douxreviews]

Highlander (1986) Review

[This is a review includes spoilers!]

Brenda: "What can you tell me about a seven foot lunatic hacking away with a broadsword at one o'clock in the morning in New York City in 1985?" Connor: "Not much."

As B-movies go, this one isn't all that good. But it did something extraordinary: it introduced a unique fantasy universe that has captivated fans for years. I've spent a lot of time fantasizing about the Highlander-verse. If I wrote fanfic, it would probably be Highlander fanfic.

These immortals appear to have it made. They live forever and don't age after their first death. They regenerate and recover from everything but beheading. But Highlander at its best effectively explored the drawbacks of immortality. They must always live on the fringes for fear of discovery. They are constantly at war with each other, competing for "the prize." If they love a mortal, they must watch them age and die. If they don't love mortals, they cut themselves off from the world. The fact that they can't procreate intensifies their isolation; this was a particularly clever writing choice. This movie dipped its toes into this theme with Connor's marriage to Heather, and his relationship with his adopted daughter, Rachel.

Christopher Lambert's Connor is pretty good, especially considering that the actor barely spoke English at the time. He doesn't do it for me like Adrian Paul does, though. Bringing in Sean Connery as Connor's immortal sponsor was a good move, although I've always had a hard time getting past them casting a Scot as an Egyptian in scenes that take place in Scotland.

Along with the fantasy universe itself, there were several things I loved about this movie. The utterly gorgeous Scottish scenery. The clever transitions from Connor's present to his past – my favorite was the Mona Lisa on the wall. The fabulous rock score by Queen, particularly "Princes of the Universe" and "Who Wants to Live Forever," which has become even more poignant after the premature death of Queen's lead singer Freddie Mercury.

And then there's Clancy Brown, one of my favorite character actors, as the Kurgan. He may be the scariest, most over-the-top Highlander villain ever. He's certainly the most physically imposing. I just loved him in that insane costume in the irreverent church scene. Also loved him chasing Brenda around her apartment, and their kamikaze drive around the city. It takes a very good actor to pull off stuff like this.

Highlander is not a long movie. For reasons I'll never understand (probably the deeper wisdom of the suits, who do their best to screw up movies), the U.S. version of this movie is eight minutes shorter and lacks some backstory, some of the more violent bits, and (idiotically) the war flashback that explained Connor's relationship with Rachel.

Lots of bits and pieces:

— Connor was born in 1518 in Glenfinnan. Ramirez told Connor that he was born 2,437 years ago, but we don't know the year that scene took place.

— Kurgans were an ancient people from the steppes of Russia. We don't know how old the Kurgan was. But he was definitely the first of a long line of immortal villains with names that begin with the letter K.

— Many of the basic "rules" are introduced in this movie: feeling ill when encountering another immortal (the "buzz"); holy ground; not being able to have children. All wounds heal, with the exception of wounds to the neck which appear to be permanent. (Loved Clancy Brown's safety pins.)

— My favorite scene may be the 1783 flashback to the duel on Boston Commons, with Bassett having to kill the drunken Connor over and over again, as Connor giggled and staggered around. It showed comic possibilities to immortality which were later explored extremely well in the television series.

— The brief zoo scene felt like a deliberate homage to Christopher Lambert's previous movie, Greystoke.

— Most Obvious Symbolism was Connor and Kurgan fighting for the Prize under a huge sign that said, "Silvercup." And in the same scene, Brenda was wearing plaid.

— Dan observed that Highlander felt a lot like Terminator with its exuberant guerrilla filmmaking, an unkillable, unstoppable foe and a couple on the run from him.

— Connor had a specific look: trenchcoat, jeans, and sneakers. It worked for him.

— The final battle in front of all of the windows (which you know will eventually all break) was striking. Pun intended.

— Connor made his living as an antique dealer. A marvelously logical occupation for an immortal.

— Birds flew up into the air right before Ramirez died.

— Sean Connery's red costume with the peacock feather cape was too much. Not too many men could carry that one off, but he did.

— Connor's last five aliases were Adrian Montagu, Jacques Lefebret, Alfred Nicholson, Rupert Wallingford, and Russell Nash.

When you have a fantasy universe with multiple movies and a long-running television series, you're going to have inconsistencies. How could they know? Here, there are lots of them:

— Ramirez told Connor he was experiencing a "quickening" but it was unrelated to taking someone's head. The whole thing with the stag is inconsistent with the later Highlander-verse.

— When Connor was stabbed and drowned, he didn't die and revive; he just stayed conscious.

— The biggest was the ending, of course, with Connor being the last of the immortals and getting the prize. The fact that it included having kids and growing old was probably intended to be ironic. The Kurgan would have been deeply disappointed.

Quotes:

"There can be only one." The most famous line from the movies and the series.

Connor: "Stop, sir, I beseech you. I apologize for calling your wife a bloated warthog, and I bid you good day."

Kurgan: "Happy Halloween, ladies. (thrusts his tongue in and out at them) Nuns. No sense of humor."

This isn't a particularly good movie in the grand scheme of things, but it's certainly compelling and unique. Three out of four stars,

Billie Doux knows that there can be only one. And that's Methos.

[aion-rsa]

How a Batman 1989 Deleted Scene Cost Sean Young the Co-Starring Role

https://ift.tt/3tLKA4I

1989’s Batman is widely regarded as a time-tested, transformative entry for the comic book movie genre, and its $411.5 million worldwide gross ($872.8 million adjusted for inflation,) certainly shook an unsuspecting film industry to its core. However, for actress Sean Young, who was initially set to co-star in the film as Vicki Vale opposite Michael Keaton’s Caped Crusader, it represents a point in which misfortune pulled her away from a prospective mainstream breakthrough. Indeed, not only did a pre-production accident force her off the film, but the scene for which she was preparing ended up getting cut from the movie!

Director Tim Burton’s choice of Sean Young for Batman’s leading lady role, photojournalist Vicky Vale, seemed auspicious, since it brought the genre experiment a rising star with pertinent gravitas from roles in then-recent offering like Blade Runner and Dune, along with dramas like No Way Out and Wall Street. It was a positive outlier against the buildup from the film’s 1988 production, during which it was preemptively savaged by fans and critics over Burton’s selection of comedic character actor Michael Keaton—fresh from starring in Burton’s 1988 hit, Beetlejuice —as opposed to a conventionally imposing action movie star. However, a fateful accident would see blonde bombshell Kim Basinger take the role of Vicki, depriving Young of the film’s defiant, industry-altering success.

Amongst a normal number of revised permutations, the Batman script, written by Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren, once had equestrian leanings—initially involving Vicki—designed to build toward a major action sequence. Consequently, in a setback that now resides in the realm of comic book movie legend, Young, who had been in London for four weeks of read-throughs and rehearsals for Batman’s imminent production in Pinewood Studios, was practicing her horse-riding skills when she was thrown off and sustained a fractured arm. That led producer Jon Peters—who had purportedly convinced Burton to cast Keaton—to suggest that the incapacitated Young be replaced with Kim Basinger, as cameras were set to roll in a week. The suggestion was immediately accepted, resulting in the replacement being quickly flown in, costing Young what was to be the biggest role of her career.

“They did spring the horse-riding thing on me, and I fell and had an accident,” explains Young in a recent interview with The Daily Beast. “Could they have kept me on the show and shot around my arm? They probably could have. I think [producer] Jon Peters had this hard-on for Kim Basinger, and he saw an opportunity to exit me, and he did. And no one ended up being very happy with that choice. But it is what it is. I had an accident and then got walked to the door.”

Warner Bros.

The scene in question was the intended start of Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale’s first date, set at Wayne Manor. While the final cut started the date inside the dreary, echoey estate, the date would have instead started outside, at the horse stables. There, we briefly see the two riding horses—with Vicki coming across as the more experienced rider—before they dismount and kick off their flirtations. In an example of intended foreshadowing, Bruce says, furtively alluding to his secret crimefighting exploits, “Horses love me. I keep falling off. Maybe that’s why they love me. You should see me, I’m one big mass of bruises.” At that point, they walk off to a patio on which Alfred (Michael Gough) awaits them with a bottle of champagne,” at which point their date continues inside. Indeed, it’s a minor scene, and, as we were meant to see later in the film, Vicki’s horseback riding was merely a plot device designed to set Bruce on an arc for his own horseback action sequence; an aspect that lends Young’s role-costing accident a cruel element of irony.

The eventual payoff to the stable scene would have manifested after a scene that did make the film (at least partially), in which Bruce visits Vicki in her apartment, hemming and hawing as he tries to muster up the courage to reveal to her that he’s Batman. Of course, the Joker (Jack Nicholson)—enamored with Vicki—then interrupts at the door, resulting in a confrontation with Bruce that ends with Joker—after dropping the crucial clue of the “You ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?” line—shooting Bruce with a pistol, leaving Joker convinced that he killed him before leaving Vicki with an offer to consider. As we saw in the movie, Bruce secretly lined his shirt with a bullet-stopping metal tray, and pulled a Batman-esque disappearing act on Vicki after Joker departed. However, this scene was initially designed to kick off an elaborate chase sequence.

Read more

Movies

Batman 1989: The Long Journey and Enduring Legacy of a Superhero Classic

By David Crow

Movies

Michael Keaton is Not Becoming the Default DCEU Batman

By David Crow

In a major contrast from Batman’s onscreen form, early drafts of the script’s apartment scene had the Joker kidnapping Vicki after he revealed the suicide of girlfriend Alicia (Jerry Hall), and smashed the porcelain mask that covered her acid scars. Indeed, the famous, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs” line was to be followed by a dramatic cut, after which we see that Vicki was taken by the Joker and his men in their convoy of purple vehicles. At this point, Bruce arrives on the scene to find a mounted policeman in bad shape, sporting a familiar unnatural grin delivered by Smilex gas. Thus, without any other vehicle nearby, Bruce commandeers the cop’s horse and proceeds to chase down the Joker’s convoy. As the chase through Gotham starts to prove fruitless, a red symbol light flashes on Bruce’s belt, at which point a Volkswagen Bug—conspicuously going 70 mph—closes in on him, revealing the driver to be Alfred, who arrives bearing a bundle of fresh Batman attire, resulting a quick pit-stop before the rescue commences. It’s a major divergence from the film itself, in which Vicki wasn’t taken by the Joker at all, save for the climactic scene atop Gotham Cathedral.

“Falling off that horse was something kind of—I couldn’t hang on. There’s kind of a poetic symbolism about that,” lamented Young back in 2005 DVD documentary Shadows of The Bat: The Cinematic Saga of The Dark Knight. “In a way, I look back at that particular time in my life and I go, ‘Wow, I wish I’d been able to hang onto that horse. I wish I’d been able to do that.’ Because then the turning point in my particular career—I would have been able to stay on the film, I would have been in a big box office hit, I would have been able to go on to other big box office hits. That kind of domino effect would have occurred in my career. That was the turning point in my career where that didn’t happen.”

DC Comics

The horseback scenes, while ultimately cut, weren’t as excessive as they seem in retrospect. That’s because it was always clear that Burton’s version of Batman was to reflect the darker elements that came into prominence with Frank Miller’s groundbreaking, profoundly influential 1986 DC Comics miniseries The Dark Knight Returns. By no coincidence, that comic story contains a scene in which Batman rides a horse off into battle; an element of the story that created iconic imagery. Thus, it was merely a reflection of the revolutionary influences—divorcing Batman from the comical stereotype from the 1960s Adam West TV series—that helped form the film. Additionally, one draft even used this sequence as the vehicle to set up the origin story of Robin.

Yet, the saga of Sean Young and Batman continued in the public sphere—sans horses. As the sequel that would eventually become 1992’s Batman Returns had just cast Michelle Pfeiffer for the key role of Selina Kyle/Catwoman, Young felt slighted for not having been given the chance to audition for the part. It’s an understandable feeling, given the way she was unceremoniously recast, which belied any serious volition for her to field the part, since they could have possibly shot around her broken arm during the production’s initial months. Consequently, Young started what became a very public campaign to be cast as Catwoman. This culminated in a 1991 appearance on The Joan Rivers Show (seen just below), in which Young showed up in a homemade Catwoman getup and—through a sultry performance of the character evocative of Eartha Kitt—took Tim Burton to task on his apparent reluctance to even meet with Young in any capacity.

“Even if he wasn’t even going to use me in the sequel, I can’t understand why he wouldn’t at least see me. He wouldn’t see me,” exclaimed Young—at this point out of character—to the late talk show host, who then brought up the rumor that Burton thought the Walkie-talkie Young liked to carry during those days was a gun. “How would I know what he thinks,” Young responded. “He wouldn’t see me, he ducked me, he ran. And then later on, my agent told me that he was going to hire a bodyguard because I was like a dangerous lethal person.”

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Nevertheless, Batman‘s nixed horseback scenes ultimately proved to be a major undoing for Sean Young. Her status as a rising headliner evaporated after that tumble. She would subsequently suffer from, as she now alleges, being blackballed by prominent Hollywood figures such as Steven Spielberg, Warren Beatty and, yes, Tim Burton. In fact her most prominent post-80s movie was the co-starring (twist-touting) role in 1994’s Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, which Young says she only landed because star Jim Carrey advocated on her behalf in spite of studio Morgan Creek. Yet, Young has always worked steadily, and was recently seen in director Tracy Wren’s 2020 drama, Rain Beau’s End, with multiple movies still on her backlog. So, don’t discount the prospect of a potential Sean Young-issance just yet.

The post How a Batman 1989 Deleted Scene Cost Sean Young the Co-Starring Role appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3vWGuIP

[thesnootyushers]

We like our fan casts here at Snooty Ushers Towers, and now for the first time we jump into the majestic world of Warhammer.

Given the sources that have been mined over the years in order to provide material for films, in particular fantasy. It strikes me as odd that the Table Top Games produced by Games Workshop have never been adapted to a more visual medium. I am not sure if this is a choice on the part of the company , so as not to risk a film/televison vehicle flop like say Warcraft did. It could also be their just hasn’t been anyone willing or able to do it justice, given the scope and scale of the products range from high Fantasy to bleak war torn space and everything in between.

Whats more in 2001 the company even worked alongside New Line Cinema to bring A Lord of The Rings dice based games into their stores. Given the success of LOTR and now the popularity of shows such as Game of Thrones it’s just unusual that Games Workshop haven’t entered the proverbial cinematic battlefield.

The Games Workshop’s lore and worlds are phenomenal. Everything is backed up by incredible art, miniatures, clever gameplay and also its Fiction. Games Workshop have an immense collection of short stories, Novella, character bios and army books all designed to enhance the world of the game. This collection is dubbed the Black Library.

I am a collector and player of the Games workshop products. Mainly playing fantasy and have for years. When I was twelve and very much just getting into it I read and played as much as I could, building my knowledge of the world in which the game was set. Then I was recommended a Novel called Trollslayer….as you can guess it started something.

From then I followed the series and still do. I have now read everything save the last two publications which I have just started. Given my love for these two over the years and how I have been invested in them made me think that if anything could work as a film this could. So for about seven years I have considered this fan cast and now am finally going to give it life.

The Series

Gotrek Gurnisson, a Dwarf Slayer, and Felix Jaeger, his Human chronicler, are a duo of warriors traveling throughout the length and breath of the Old World, battling Dark Forces and stopping complots in Gotrek’s quest for a heroic death against a terrible foe. The adventures of these warriors have been written down in the series of books: “My Travels with Gotrek” by Master Felix Jaeger, which outlines Felix’s many adventures with his maniacal comrade throughout many of their endeavours, recording everything till the day Gotrek finally met his doom, and will finally be allowed to enter the halls of his ancestors.

The skills of these two heroes is near unequal in the known world, their deeds becoming near legendary in the eyes of many of their own people. Their exploits have led these two warriors to places only heard of in whispers and legend. Though sometimes considered vigilantes of the law, and sometimes having themselves locked up from the very people they tried to protect, such is the deeds these two have fulfilled in their twenty long years of battles. The forces of evil they encounter during their journeys will always be stopped, for these two are unrivaled in combat, and are considered one of the worlds most powerful heroes of the age, and many ages since.

The stories are violent action adventures, they encompass most of the different races and places within the World of Warhammer Fantasy. Tell me this wouldn’t be an incredible film and or TV series. The duo are an odd couple, but one that is pretty effective against the forces of evil.

The time they spend together they grow and change and their friendship is  believable. Mainly in the sense that it develops over 20 years and some horrendous moments of violence, loss and peril. It is very understated, no declarations of brotherhood or bombastic speeches. Just respect built over time and familiarity.

A major theme in the novels is the tension within Felix between his desire to settle down in peace and comfort, away from the danger of being Gotrek’s companion, and his longing to escape the banalities of civilized Imperial society for a life of heroism and adventure. It is this conflict that shaped much of his relationship with Gotrek.

There is so much depth and narrative meat you can sink your teeth into..it’s just amazing.

Backstory of Dwarven Slayers (as quoted in the Lexicanum) 

Dwarves in most fantasy lore are a proud race and do not cope easily with failure or dishonour. Should a Dwarf suffer some terrible personal tragedy like, the loss of his family, his hoard, or failure to uphold a promise can seriously unhinge the mind of any Dwarf. Whatever the cause, Dwarves who have suffered what they perceive to be a serious loss of honour and great shame will often forsake the Society for a life of self-imposed exile. These Dwarfs become Slayers.

Slayers seek death in combat in order to atone. Although they seek death, Dwarfs are incapable of deliberately fighting to lose, and so always enter the fray to win. Therefore Slayers spend as much time as possible improving their warrior skills.

Slayers deliberately seek uneven combat, for example by entering an Orc stronghold alone. The greater the odds, the more dangerous or numerous the enemy the more glorious the death. Their way of life weeds out all but the toughest and most determined warriors, so that those Slayers who survive for any period time are invariably exceptionally tough, violent, and extremely dangerous. Slayers are almost famous for dying their hair orange and shaping it into Large Crests. It’s one of the most identifiable features of a dwarf slayer.

Now before we start let me say these are just my thoughts and opinions, and what I would do if money were no option.

Gotrek Gurnisson

Gotrek is morose, taciturn and gruff. Even after years of travelling and fighting side by side he still refers to Felix as ‘manling’, though he respects him in other ways and values him more than any other human. Completely obsessed with finding his doom Gotrek is fearless in the face of any danger and actively seeks it out in order to fulfil his vow. He is a heavy drinker, able to consume amounts of alcohol that would kill a human. Though outcast from dwarven society he retains many dwarven qualities, including a lust for gold, mistrust and contempt for other races. The exact nature of Gotrek’s crime has never been explicitly revealed; like many Slayers, Gotrek considers his transgressions an intensely personal shame, and has threatened to kill those nosy enough to pry. However, some hints have been revealed over the course of the novels, though the authenticity of these sources is somewhat questionable.

His signature weapon is a battleaxe imbued with powerful rune magic called the Runemaster’s Axe and supposedly previously belonged to the dwarven deity Grimnir.

 Samoa Joe (Nuufolau Joel “Joe” Seanoa)

I know this will probably enrage the zealots and purists but just hear me out.

Gotrek is a Dwarf like no other he is bigger than an average dwarf, more powerful and he is unstoppable knot of fury and violence. With the Weta workshop magic, used in the hobbit to make Thorin’s Company, he is physically right for the part. Now having no real acting experience could be a setback, he has never really been tested on screen. That being said it hasn’t stopped Batista or the Rock, so it can work.

Not only this but sometimes less is more. Gotrek isn’t a talker, he is surly and gruff so maybe speaking less and using his body language and facial expressions etc could be equally as effective. Especially when he is alongside someone who is more of an experienced actor.  Look at a raging Samoa Joe with that ferocious snarl on his face as he is challenging or choking out an opponent. That’s Slayer right there.

Felix Jaeger

In contrast to Gotrek’s taciturn and absolutist mentality, Felix is a much more romantic, pragmatic figure. He frequently serves as the voice of logic and moral reason of the duo in order to remind Gotrek of the long-term consequences of his actions, and guide him towards greater heroism. He also finds himself serving in a more diplomatic role, helping to soothe bruised egos after Gotrek’s anti-authoritarian nature provokes people. Felix is also something of a womanizer, and forms several romantic relationships over the course of the series, most prominently with the Kislevite noblewoman (and eventual vampire) Ulrika Magdova.

Felix is a human with a swordman’s physique and long blond hair.  Over years of following Gotrek, Felix has become an accomplished swordsman and duellist. His own weapon is the rune sword Karaghul, a blade with a dragon hilt recovered from the fallen hold of Karak Eight Peaks

After a night of heavy drinking, Felix swore a blood oath to follow Gotrek on the Dwarf’s quest to find his doom in battle, promising to record it in an epic poem. The two have been companions ever since.

Domhnall Gleeson

Mandatory Credit: Photo by Startraks Photo/REX (3095555ac) Domhnall Gleeson ‘About Time’ film premiere at the 51st New York Film Festival, America – 01 Oct 2013

Versatile and off kilter,  this could be a different role for the talented young actor to play. He may need a  slight bit of training for the physicality but he can do commanding, funny, weird, awkward, nervous and evil without effort. He would be fantastic as Rememberer Felix.

This man starred in Richard Curtis Comedy Drama About Time, as Tech specialist in Ex Machina, a drug addict criminal in Dredd and a sociopath in Calvary.

It would be a nice anchor for Samoa Joe who would be very green but they could create that unusual chemistry and characterization that the story is built on. I reckon you could hit some hilarious comedy spots. Even if just for the fact you play off Joe as the Straight man.

Yes this is an unusual pairing but so are the characters they are playing and I think you could get a lot of mileage.

Now the supporters.

Snorri Nosebiter

Snorri Nosebiter is a long time friend of Gotrek, a Slayer who is also on his quest to seek his death in battle. Snorri was a friend of Gotrek long before they became slayers. Snorri’s personality is almost the opposite of Gotrek, while Gotrek is mostly serious and gloomy and has little respect for others, Snorri is always in a cheerful mood, slow to anger. But when he does he is a very formidable foe. He charges into battle swinging his axe and hammer. He is also much more ugly, having a cauliflower ear, a very broken nose, many scars and his most notable feature, three massive nails, painted orange, nailed into his bald head instead of a crest. He too is an unholy consumer of alcohol and a little mentally unbalanced.

Joseph Gilgun

Actor Joseph Gilgun on the red carpet of ‘Preacher’ during the 2016 SXSW Music, Film + Interactive Festival at Paramount Theatre on March 14, 2016 in Austin, Texas. Suzanne Cordeiro for American-Statesman

Now again I am thinking you would need that Weta Workshop Magic but I think there is no one better to play Snorri. This man is quirky, witty hilarious and another very talented actor have a solid resume. This is England, Misfits, Preacher, Pride and Harry Brown. He would bring something novel to the role and would work nicely against the unconventional leads.

Ulrika Magdova

Ulrika was Felix’s lover, and arguably his most beloved one. She first appeared during  the dwarven expedition through the Chaos Waste. She is the daughter of a Kislevite  Noble.  She is described as having close cropped hair, with furred and leather armour. She travels with  Gotrek and Felix on their jouney for a while. It was during this time that she was herself turned into a Vampire, due to the Vampire, Adolphus Krieger. Once he is stopped she leaves to follow her own path and was spun out into her own series.

Choice 1 – Melanie Laurent

Actress Melanie Laurent poses for photographers upon arrival for the screening of the film Inside Out at the 68th international film festival, Cannes, southern France, Monday, May 18, 2015. (Photo by Arthur Mola/Invision/AP)

Melanie is a beautiful, dynamic and sophisticated actress, she has a number of great French and American films Including Dikkenek, Days of Glory, Inglorious Basterds  and Je vais bien, ne t’en fais pas. Although she is slight she could readily handle the action and fit the role of warrior woman turned creature of the night. I also feel she could match wits and bounce off the other cast members especially Domhnall. 

Choice 2 – Katheryn Winnick

Having an extensive martial arts background and playing a viking warrior in the series  Vikings. Katheryn is more than ready for a part like this.

There are several more characters that could fit such as Max Schreiber, Malakai Makaisson and Grey Seer Thanquol. For now however I decided to just cast who I think would be the most important four. I may come back and cast other characters later on, who knows

There it is readers. If you agree tell me. If you don’t agree I am sure you will also let me know. Until next time. Stay Cool.

Warhammer Fan Cast – Gotrek and Felix: The Slayer Saga We like our fan casts here at Snooty Ushers Towers, and now for the first time we jump into the majestic world of Warhammer.