The Brits who brought Billy Elliot to the stage are doing the same for Bridget Jones’s Diary. This elicits a host of conflicted feelings from me: I am a huge, unabashed fan of Miss Jones for all she did to advance the cause of singletons everywhere — hell, I even liked the second, inferior book, though I drew the line at the second, beyond-inferior movie. But therein lie my concerns about mining poor Bridge yet again for material. She’s v.v. entertaining, yes, but I worry that the more we see her suffer through her Daniel Cleaver-versus-Mark Darcy conundrum, the more we erode her pop cultural legacy, such as it is. Billy Elliot feels fresh partly because it came from a quiet little, critically beloved film, not two bestsellers and two blockbusters. That said, Bridget Jones has the uplifting spirit that made Legally Blonde work well for the stage. And we can only hope the opening number riffs on Renée Zellweger’s oddly touching lipsynch rendition of "All By Myself" (embedded below), while the big production number before intermission includes that hilariously choreographed "It’s Raining Men" fight scene between Hugh Grant and Colin Firth.
What do you think, PopWatchers? Would you buy tickets to see Bridget Jones sing?
Without Colin Firth as Mark Darcy (and that’s never going to happen), nothing would be the same. As much as I love musicals, I won’t be spending my money to see “Bridget Jones – The Musical”. (And Ms. Fielding’s last columns became more and more unacceptable. None of my BJ fan friends could stomach them.)
No, no, no! A thousand times no. Why can’t all the playwriters/screenwriters/tv writers come up with some original ideas?? Seriously. I loved loved LOVED Bridget Jones (the movie more than the book, admittedly…there’s a first time for everything). But taking it to the stage…meh. Like the previous poster said – without Colin Firth (or Hugh Grant), it’s just not the same. As for Billy Elliot – I’ve yet to see the musical, mostly because I loved the movie so so much – especially Jamie Bell and Julie Walters.
as the previous poster said, without Colin Firth as Mark Darcy, what’s the point? and if it includes the storyline from the rumored book 3, i will boycott it to be sure!
I agree with other posters here. Ms. Fielding ruined BJD by adding the new columns. They ruined the second movie by having Daniel Cleaver(Grant) in it as it was. Then there’s the whole idea that Bridget can’t sing (see the first movie# to begin with. This is just a ploy to keep something going that shouldn’t and ruin a perfectly good thing. Do I see $$$ dollar signs. Working Title and HF should just let this go.
Besides that. Mr. Darcy #any of them) would never burst out into song. It’s not their/his character to do so.
I have to admit, this report left me feeling not-quite-sure. I mean, it’s BJD, fer cryin’ out loud, which i LUUUUURVE. The ’05 columns were a disaster, a huge step backwards in the progress Bridget had made as a person. And, let’s face it: Colin Firth *is* Mark Darcy, by way of 1995′s Mr Darcy. And Darcy (either) doesn’t sing.
But there are two things buoying my hopes: ABBA, and Star Trek. When I first heard there was a musical being made out of the music of ABBA, I laughed my Brazil-sized butt off. Yet, when I actually saw the musical, I fell in absolute love. So if anyone could make it work, the Billy Elliott team could. And Harry Bright sang! (Ironically: also Firth in the movie.)
Then there’s Star Trek. Did anyone think anyone could fill the shoes of The Shat as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock? Yet fans and non-fans alike are lovin’ the new movie.
So… I’m cautiously optimistic.
…I forgot to add that the (extreme) rumoured casting of Jack Davenport as Cleaver is something I raise an eyebrow at… in interest.