By Rachel J A Crane, The Lemony Site Webmaster
I am so very unhappy with the way that Paramount has been handling this property. Lemony Snicket's books are international bestsellers, second in contemporary children's literature only to Harry Potter. Three of the Snicket titles made the top 100 sellers of 2002 list, amongst both adult and children's books. As of this month, over 6 million books in A Series of Unfortunate Events have been sold. And the series has only been out since 1999.
I don't know why a film studio would consider this property a risky venture. As far as I can tell, Lemony Snicket's series is no more chancy than The Matrix Reloaded. The book series has millions of fans in all age groups across the globe. Paramount should not be worried about recouping their original $100 million budget. Losing Scott Rudin and Barry Sonnenfeld over $13 million is not a sound economic decision in my opinion. Of course, casting Jim Carrey as Count Olaf will help opening box office and all that, but adds a great big $20 million to the budget.
Which brings us to my second (chronologically, it was my first) problem with the Lemony Snicket production: casting. Yes, I think that Jim Carrey can act. I love watching many of his films, especially The Truman Show. However, I do not think that he is the best choice for this project. The series' author (and film's screenwriter), Daniel Handler, originally wanted Alan Rickman for the role of Count Olaf. As Rickman is busy working on Harry Potter, casting him was impossible. Now, think about what Alan Rickman conjures. He's creepy, dark, funny, and still charming. One could say the same of Jim Carrey. The difference is in the fact that while Rickman exudes a "keep an eye on this guy" type of scariness, Carrey has more of an "institutionalize him now" type of scariness. Let's just say that subtlety is not Jim Carrey's greatest asset. Don't flame me for typing that! Jim Carrey is talented, but the role of Count Olaf does not jive with his talents. As chameleon-like as Carrey is, you wouldn't want him to play Jubilee in the X-Men sequel, right? Yet I am looking forward to watching Carrey in Bruce Almighty, because that's the kind of film wherein his great big talents can be let loose for the greater benefit of entertainment.
I still think that David Bowie would be perfect as Count Olaf. Another great suggestion is Jeremy Irons. I also like the idea of Vince Vaughn or Vincent D'Onofrio, both of whom are tall and quite adept at scaring me silly.
Granted, Paramount is still better than Warner Brothers, which has a terrible way of purchasing amazing, beloved properties and micro-managing them into the ground. Hopefully the addition on DreamWorks to the stew will improve the production's lot. They don't always have the best stories to work with, but their productions have a consistently high quality and they have yet to churn out a complete stinker.
Further, I don't understand why this production is considered a special-effects laden blockbuster. Unless someone gets Joel Schumacher involved, it should make blockbuster money. All the same, it's not like Harry Potter or Men in Black. What would all of these special effects be? There's an off-screen fire, a hurricane, some large snakes, and maybe a prosthetic nose for Jim Carrey. Lemony Snicket is not some bloated Titanic. It's a dark, creepy little movie. I've always pictured the stories as being cramped and looming. They are told from a paranoid, trampled-upon perspective. This is not a story that should be filmed in sweeping pans of huge sets. The Lemony Snicket movie should be oppressive, dank, malicious, and generally unfriendly.
It should gleefully loom over the frightened little children in its grasp.
The work of Terry Gilliam comes to mind. Of course, he's stated that he's not wild about working with children. Yet Gilliam has the properly skewed, subversive personality without which the Lemony Snicket film cannot survive.
Rob Reiner would be fun. Maybe even Danny DeVito (I just love his Matilda!).
And please let Stephin Merritt compose the underscore.