dirac

That was a rather odd review -- as if Scott couldn't quite decide if the picture was actually any good. To me, it sounds like another one of those 'gorgeous white movie stars discover things are really bad in poor countries populated with brown skinned folks' opuses, but I plan to see it and I hope I'm mistaken. Ed Waffle writes: Hi, Ed. Nice to hear from you and thank you for bringing up IA, which is terrific. Nicholson started off note perfect and I began to hope that we'd actually get a good performance, but no. I'm not sure that it was really his fault. I didn't get to the theatre this weekend -- going to try to catch 'The Queen' this week....

I didn't much care for the musical or the John van Druten adaptation (or Julie Harris in the movie version) as versions of Isherwood. It seemed to me that all the adaptations largely missed the point, although I enjoyed 'Cabaret' for itself.

I've done this accidentally -- it's very embarrassing. Me, too.

papeetepatrick writes: She had it under control for most of the movie, and suddenly at the end she’s Judy Live at Carnegie Hall. But I suspect she wasn’t discouraged. York was great, although I couldn’t quite imagine the two of them actually having sex. Of course, making the Isherwood character bisexual is ridiculous, anyway. I'm afraid I've seen very few of these shows live....sidwich? bart?

Revisiting is one of the greatest joys of reading. It reconnects me to an earlier self, and -- more important -- it's a great marker that helps me see how much I've changed ... or not changed ... and in what areas. Very true. I went back to The Once and Future King not long ago, and it can be read at any age and you will get something different and new out of it. Of course, on other occasions I'm just being lazy.

This weekend I will see a picture that sounds like 'Oscar bait' with the hook jutting out -- 'The Queen.'

It looks as if Thomas Pynchon’s new book is no mirage. http://www.time.com/time/arts/printout/0,8...1548914,00.html I’m stunned. The thought of Pynchon guesting on Oprah is an enticing one, however.

I've only read 'The Jewel in the Crown,' which I admired greatly and learned a lot from. (At the time, I had taken so strongly to the character of Daphne and what happened to Hari and her so upset me that I didn't want to pick up the next book. Very sentimental of me. I should try again.)

Both British, both more or less in the same generation of directors, and their names scan identically and very nearly rhyme. I think that if you didn’t know ‘The Sound of Music’ originated as a stage production, you might not be able to guess – Wise and Ernest Lehman, the screenwriter, opened it up that well. You may not like it, and I can understand that, but I note that even critics like Pauline Kael, who hated it for perfectly sound reasons, conceded that it was a well made and skillful piece of entertainment (and that was part of the problem). I can’t defend myself, but the things that should grate on me just don’t. Also, I really like Julie Andrews, which helps, and as I said earlier I admire what she does in the role – she makes Maria’s immediate ease in the role of Mommy in Excelsis plausible and likable. Anyway, I’m going to watch it this Christmans the way I always do, so there. sidwich writes: I can handle the lovesome kiddies, but not the amusingly incompetent Nazis of the movie. I’m with you. ‘Edelweiss’ is not only right purty, but it’s believable as a traditional song – I think many people took it as the genuine article. Ummm....you may be right about that. (I think I’m the only person who loves ‘Sixteen Going on Seventeen.’) papeetepatrick writes: I’m not as crazy about the score as some. There’s much to admire, but. (And I thought “I FEEEEEEEEL you, JoHAnna...” was just, well, banal. And goodness knows what ST will look like after it gets The Burton Treatment.

Next up, Sacha Baron Cohen: http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1925985,00.html

Anthony Tommasini comments on the demise of Tower in The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/arts/music/25towe.html

It is -- it's also about adapting stage musicals to the screen and attendant complications. We're not too far off the mark.

On the contrary. (I'm a West Coaster following this discussion closely.) I understood exactly what you meant, you sparked some interesting responses, and I'm reading all of them with interest. Thanks!

Virtually everyone is miscast as 'dirty' Eliza (although Wendy Hiller's performance, mentioned previously by sidwich, is a very strong try). I think Shaw is partially to blame. The early Eliza is at times a borderline caricature, her agitation when Higgins takes his notes is horribly overdone, she screams too much, etc. What is a poor actress to do. With all due respect, papeetepatrick, I'm not sure that a good notice from Bosley Crowther is a point in Hepburn's favor. But you are quite right, she never really had a chance with all the tohubohu over Andrews not getting the part.

Very interesting post, sidwich, and thanks, but since we're wandering afield (my fault) I'll respond in a PM, and note here only that I stand by the word 'junk.' I think another factor driving the reluctance to make many musicals is the change in musical taste. Both Saturday Night Fever and Dirty Dancing were built around contemporary pop (the latter used older music, but had current hits on the soundtrack used in the picture). Musicals in the old days also produced songs that made the airwaves. papeetepatrick writes: Travolta is wonderful. (Fred Astaire loved him in it, and used to do a Travolta impersonation.) I didn't like Gorney at first, mainly because she's supposed to be such a wonderful dancer, and she's, well, a klutz. She grew on me, though, and like you I appreciated the fact that they didn't plump for a glamourpuss -- she's a real girl.

sidwich writes: I agree, up to a point. I’d still say that Harrison, although not near his best, is better than Leslie Howard in “Pygmalion.” Howard comes off better, because the picture as a whole is superior. He’s about the right age for the part, too. Off topic, but I’ll go further. It’s one of the screen’s great comic performances. Gosh, he’s funny. However, before we wax too nostalgic, I suppose we should note that the great studio machinery turned out mostly junk - in every department, although I’m very fond of some of that junk. It’s going further off topic, but IMO movies in general improved after the collapse of the old system. Reasons available upon request. You know, I used to think that any musical that managed to get made was a Good Thing in principle, but I'm not so sure any more. The good 'musicals' in the last few decades seem to be hybrids like "Saturday Night Fever" and "Dirty Dancing" -- pictures that are based in song and dance, but in a different way. (Or "Pennies from Heaven.")

Good point, GWTW, but I'm not sure how their decision making process works in that respect.

I thought Andrews was terrific. She's really skipping through a minefield -- many others would have wound up pouring syrup over everything, and hello, she can sing. (Yes, you can have a successful dubbed performance, as we've discussed, but when you have a performer who can really sing and also do justice to the role as an actor, it's great.) To me, Plummer seemed to be wishing that he was elsewhere. I think My Fair Lady is better than it's generally given credit for, although Rex Harrison was getting too old for the part and had done it too many times. (Robert Preston in The Music Man, same problem.) I wouldn't have cast anyone else in either role, however -- as a practical matter anyone else was unthinkable. I like the Thirties version of 'Show Boat' with Dunne, Jones, Morgan, Robeson, et al, very much, although Dunne's blackface number is excruciating now and was probably painful to watch back then, too. papeetepatrick writes: One of 20th Century Fox's rare good musicals, but I agree, the machinery was in place back then for the production of competent musicals. Only a few would be great or even that good, but you had entire studio units with skill and experience ready at hand, a roster of stars who were the best at what they did, and when the chemistry was right everything worked.

Good to hear from you, sidwich. I had forgotten about the Richard Lester version of "A Funny Thing...."

I read relatively few new books, myself. I tend to come to them a year or two later, at least, and I don't rush out and buy something because it's selling well and getting great reviews -- I'll likely check out a library copy, unless I'm in a bookstore and make an impulse purchase, which happens regularly. .

Do report back! I'd love to hear about it and I'm sure others would. I’m sure Pamuk is deserving, political motivations for the selection aside, but at the risk of sounding chauvinistic it seems to me it’s about time for them to pick an American again. Norman Mailer has seniority, but there’s also Roth, De Lillo, etc. Gore Vidal is not a great imaginative writer but he’d be a worthy choice, too.

May God forgive me, I've always liked 'The Sound of Music.' I never saw it on stage but I suspect the picture was an improvement. I remember the film version of 'A Little Night Music' as uniquely ghastly experience. It wasn't just bad - it was in another dimension of badness.

I'm inclined to agree. I'm sure she won't be terrible, but obviously they could have done a lot better, and with her in the cast Depp is in little danger of being upstaged. (My own estimate of the lady's talents coincides with that of richard53dog.)

If I'm not mistaken, I think she's actually married to Burton??? Something tells me the search for the ideal Mrs. L. was not exhaustive....

As Rothstein says in the obit, You can't really tell from the online link, but the obituary takes up a significant section of the page and it's accompanied by a good sized picture.