Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Man of La Mancha - Something Missing?


darkblue
 Share

Recommended Posts

I recorded it last night - haven't seen it before.

 

The recording came in 3 minutes short of the supposed running time - according to every source I've looked at, it should've run 132 minutes. The recording runs just under 129 minutes.

 

Anyone have an idea about what might have been removed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recorded it last night - haven't seen it before.

 

The recording came in 3 minutes short of the supposed running time - according to every source I've looked at, it should've run 132 minutes. The recording runs just under 129 minutes.

 

Anyone have an idea about what might have been removed?

No very successful critically acclaimed Broadway show has ever given rise to a film version that was such a dud, as this one was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they skipped the intermission? LOL. I admit I'm not familiar with the stage version, (except some of the songs) but I didnt understand the movie version at all. Only saw it finally during the Roadshow theme last month. Can understand why it tanked big time.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No very successful critically acclaimed Broadway show has ever given rise to a film version that was such a dud, as this one was.

Loved the stage version I saw with Richard Kiley.

This version was VERY disappointing. Nice cast,  stars tried but not only couldn't do justice to the songs, unimaginative production looked cheap, boring cinematography, orchestration sounded like a high school band and all-around TERRIBLE direction by Arthur Hiller.

Phooey!!

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved the stage version I saw with Richard Kiley.

This version was VERY disappointing. Nice cast,  stars tried but not only couldn't do justice to the songs, unimaginative production looked cheap, boring cinematography, orchestration sounded like a high school band and all-around TERRIBLE direction by Arthur Hiller.

Phooey!!

:(

 

 

Agree the production design was terrible and so dreary looking. I remember reading about that in the reviews at the time. Most of the film was shot on that one set. If they were going to dub Peter O'Toole, why didnt they use someone with a good voice? Was that to make it more believable coming out of his mouth? LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it last year as a filler to eventually complete Loren and O' toole,terrible film,dreay you can give it some life by fast forwarding the singing parts,a total waste,it was a very painful night last year.,one of the worst with major stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1990 Leonard Maltin Video Guide I use as a reference has "Man of La Mancha" at 'Color-130m'.  It also gives it a 'BOMB' and says, and I quote: "Beautiful source material has been raped, murdered and buried".  Ouch!  I don't think this 1972 movie received any +positive+ reviews.  I've never seen a good review, anyway.   

 

The 1990-91 'Movies on Tv and Videocassette' by Steven H. Scheuer has the running time wrong for sure.  It says '140 mins' and gives it  *½, a half-star higher than Leonard Maltin's 'BOMB' rating.  However, I reckon that's faint praise!  Anyway, some of these video guides are pickier about the accuracy of run times than others and it's possible the run time listed in Scheuer's guide may have simply been a typo.  

 

    Another bad musical from 1972 to watch if you're a glutton for punishment is ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND (1972).  Another waste of a talented cast.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1990 Leonard Maltin Video Guide I use as a reference has "Man of La Mancha" at 'Color-130m'.  It also gives it a 'BOMB' and says, and I quote: "Beautiful source material has been raped, murdered and buried".  Ouch!  I don't think this 1972 movie received any +positive+ reviews.  I've never seen a good review, anyway.   

 

The 1990-91 'Movies on Tv and Videocassette' by Steven H. Scheuer has the running time wrong for sure.  It says '140 mins' and gives it  *½, a half-star higher than Leonard Maltin's 'BOMB' rating.  However, I reckon that's faint praise!  Anyway, some of these video guides are pickier about the accuracy of run times than others and it's possible the run time listed in Scheuer's guide may have simply been a typo.  

 

    Another bad musical from 1972 to watch if you're a glutton for punishment is ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND (1972).  Another waste of a talented cast.  

 

 

It's possible the film was cut after its initial showings resulting in the differing running times. That often happened when films opened to disappointing response. I think I read the film cost 12 million at the time. I dont know where the money went, but it doesnt show up on the screen..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No very successful critically acclaimed Broadway show has ever given rise to a film version that was such a dud, as this one was.

For me, that honor goes to MY FAIR LADY or A CHORUS LINE, because their sources were so phenomenal, and their film version so inept.  MOLM is nowhere near as good a show, at its source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, that honor goes to MY FAIR LADY or A CHORUS LINE, because their sources were so phenomenal, and their film version so inept.  MOLM is nowhere near as good a show, at its source.

At least MY FAIR LADY received many honors. The disdain for MAN OF LA MANCHA was universal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, that honor goes to MY FAIR LADY or A CHORUS LINE, because their sources were so phenomenal, and their film version so inept.  MOLM is nowhere near as good a show, at its source.

I am very grateful to the film version of MY FAIR LADY, if only because it immortalized Rex Harrison's performance as Henry Higgins for generations of filmgoers to see in the future (not to mention Stanley Holloway's performance, as well). I have a CD of Harrison and Julie Andrews from the Broadway production, but that hardly does that stage musical justice.

 

And the Lerner and Lowe music is so divine (did any Broadway musical ever have better music and lyrics than this?) that it's a joy to listen to it in the exceedingly handsome Warners film adaption. And, yes, I enjoy Audrey, too, even if it wasn't her singing voice. She's lovely when Eliza becomes a "lady."

 

Always a little odd watching a future TV Sherlock Holmes singing "On The Street Where You Live" (but what a GREAT number that is).

 

I haven't seen Man of La Mancha yet because of the terrible reviews. But, yes, visually, from what I have seen of the photography and set design, it's a dreary looking production.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very grateful to the film version of MY FAIR LADY, if only because it immortalized Rex Harrison's performance as Henry Higgins for generations of filmgoers to see in the future (not to mention Stanley Holloway's performance, as well). I have a CD of Harrison and Julie Andrews from the Broadway production, but that hardly does that stage musical justice.

 

And the Lerner and Lowe music is so divine (did any Broadway musical ever have better music and lyrics than this?) that it's a joy to listen to it in the exceedingly handsome Warners film adaption. And, yes, I enjoy Audrey, too, even if it wasn't her singing voice. She's lovely when Eliza becomes a "lady."

 

Always a little odd watching a future TV Sherlock Holmes singing "On The Street Where You Live" (but what a GREAT number that is).

 

I haven't seen Man of La Mancha yet because of the terrible reviews. But, yes, visually, from what I have seen of the photography and set design, it's a dreary looking production.

I was not comparing the two musicals, per se.  My only point was that in the case of MFL and A CHORUS LINE, their stage sources were so magnificent, that the disappointment I felt seeing their film versions, was monumental.  In the case of MFL, I never got over it.  It remains the greatest show I ever saw on stage (and that's a hell of a lot of shows).  The film's direction is so dreary, when compared to the show I saw.  As for MOLM, I didn't like the original show, so the crappy film version was not that great a disappointment for me.  At least in the case of MOLM, it seems like a film.  MFL is such a non-cinematic, studio-bound bore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not comparing the two musicals, per se.  My only point was that in the case of MFL and A CHORUS LINE, their stage sources were so magnificent, that the disappointment I felt seeing their film versions, was monumental.  In the case of MFL, I never got over it.  It remains the greatest show I ever saw on stage (and that's a hell of a lot of shows).  The film's direction is so dreary, when compared to the show I saw.  As for MOLM, I didn't like the original show, so the crappy film version was not that great a disappointment for me.  At least in the case of MOLM, it seems like a film.  MFL is such a non-cinematic, studio-bound bore.

Well, John, you saw the stage version of Fair Lady (would that be the one with Harrison and Andrews?) and I guess that makes a huge difference. As a person who has only seen the film version, I quite love the techicolor, art direction and costumes, performances by all involved, story line and, of course, the great music. With all that going for it, I find it anything but a bore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I don't find it anything but a bore.

 

So Tom! Do ya like the freakin' movie or NOT?!

 

;)

 

Sorry, but ya might wanna edit out the word "don't" in your previous posting, as I think you have kind of a double-negative thing goin' on there.

 

(...hey, SOMEBODY'S got'a occasionally take the ol' Sprocketman's role around here, ya know!!!)

 

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely this is one of the most ugliest looking film I have ever seen. Peter O'Toole could not sing one iota. I guess he was hot at this period and that is why he was cast. Loren did okay. Mostly a lavish bore. GOODBYE MR. CHIPS is another musical that starred O'Toole that tanked. Again his singing voice was awful. He admitted he could not sing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely this is one of the most ugliest looking film I have ever seen. Peter O'Toole could not sing one iota. I guess he was hot at this period and that is why he was cast. Loren did okay. Mostly a lavish bore. GOODBYE MR. CHIPS is another musical that starred O'Toole that tanked. Again his singing voice was awful. He admitted he could not sing.

 

Peter O'Toole's singing was dubbed in Man Of La Mancha,  but either he was dubbed by a not-very-good singer (which doesn't really make sense) OR the singer was purposely told to sound not-so-good since audiences had already heard Peter O'Toole's singing in Goodbye, Mr. Chips  and they were trying to create an illusion that Peter O'Toole was singing somewhat better than he did in Goodbye, Mr. Chips.

 

There is no mention in the movie's credits of the singer doing O'Toole's dubbing just as there was no credit for the singer who dubbed Audrey Hepburn's singing voice in My Fair Lady

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I'd make mention of 1 musical I do like that's rather obscure . . .

 

     The 1975 British musical "The Old Curiosity Shop" (aka:  "Mr. Quilp").  It's based on a Charles Dickens novel (a novel I've never read), but I liked most of the songs and especially the song at the end that's sung over the closing credits. 

 

     ***SPOILER BELOW*** (in 'Honeydew') 

This movie does not have a happy ending and that's another reason I like it; it doesn't cop out and go all 'happy' at the end.  .. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Tom! Do ya like the freakin' movie or NOT?!

 

;)

 

Sorry, but ya might wanna edit out the word "don't" in your previous posting, as I think you have kind of a double-negative thing goin' on there.

 

(...hey, SOMEBODY'S got'a occasionally take the ol' Sprocketman's role around here, ya know!!!)

 

LOL

Sentence duly edited, Dargo. But it drove you crazy for a minute, didn't it? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, John, you saw the stage version of Fair Lady (would that be the one with Harrison and Andrews?) and I guess that makes a huge difference. As a person who has only seen the film version, I quite love the techicolor, art direction and costumes, performances by all involved, story line and, of course, the great music. With all that going for it, I find it anything but a bore.

I saw the show in London, with Julie Andrews and Alec Clunes (Doc Martin's dad).  It was simply, incredible and quite unlike the film. Even though almost all of the show in intact in the film, it's the tone that was completely different. So much energy, on stage, while everyone in the film appears to have iron poor blood.  That, and the lack of the incredible choreography and dance music for "Get Me to the Church on Time", which is all cut from the movie, as well as a few other dance moments. Even the sets were more impressive.  I felt I was at Covent Garden at the Drury Lane, but not in the film.  All the sets looked like sets.

post-7646-0-28710700-1430020853_thumb.jpg

post-7646-0-28710700-1430020853_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter O'Toole's singing was dubbed in Man Of La Mancha,  but either he was dubbed by a not-very-good singer (which doesn't really make sense) OR the singer was purposely told to sound not-so-good since audiences had already heard Peter O'Toole's singing in Goodbye, Mr. Chips  and they were trying to create an illusion that Peter O'Toole was singing somewhat better than he did in Goodbye, Mr. Chips.

 

There is no mention in the movie's credits of the singer doing O'Toole's dubbing just as there was no credit for the singer who dubbed Audrey Hepburn's singing voice in My Fair Lady

"O'Toole's singing voice was deemed to be inadequate, and was re-recorded by Simon Gilbert.[15] All the other actors did their own singing."

 

they shouldn't have bothered :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the show in London, with Julie Andrews and Alec Clunes (Doc Martin's dad).  It was simply, incredible and quite unlike the film. Even though almost all of the show in intact in the film, it's the tone that was completely different. So much energy, on stage, while everyone in the film appears to have iron poor blood.  That, and the lack of the incredible choreography and dance music for "Get Me to the Church on Time", which is all cut from the movie, as well as a few other dance moments. Even the sets were more impressive.  I felt I was at Covent Garden at the Drury Lane, but not in the film.  All the sets looked like sets.

Thanks very much for sharing, John. It does sound like a once-in-a-lifetime stage experience.

 

So frustrating that Julie Andrews' Eliza Doolittle could not have been immortalized on film. Plus, of course, the energy that you saw in the London stage production, as opposed to the film. I still love the film, of course, but I fully understand how when, compared to something that was a far bigger, far grander experience for you, it pales by comparison.

 

Perhaps that's the reason you consider the film terrible, while the majority of us, not having had the opportunity to see a major stage production of Shaw's play (especially one with the most famous Eliza of them all), appreciate the film for the many wonderful virtues that it does contain. 

 

5fba5cb0-2539-4528-8e2c-93a6d3c9fb9f_zps

 

One of my proudest possessions, among the autugraphed pix I've been able to obtain over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...