I cannot believe it is here already. It seems like months there has been nothing but talk about the arrival of Lea Michele in "Funny Girl." Now, I am more thrilled that Tovah Feldshuh has been cast as Mrs. Brice; she should have been, in the first place. Lea is I am less sure about, as I am not a fan. Oh, she can sing, but with distinction? Will she just be Rachel Berry in "GLEE," or will she be able to make something of it on her own, like Julie Benko? Tonight, will tell, girls, and frankly, I am not optimistic.
"If everyone in the world who dreamed of playing "Funny Girl," were laid end to end..." well, there we go, back to Dorothy Parker.
Hey, if Lea triumphs, I would be happy for her. But she has a lot to prove, not just in performance in but in personality, working with the company, and being gracious to audiences. I know Tovah will keep her in line; she is a pro.
So, break a leg, Lea, darling! Just not anyone else's!
Prostitutes in Victorian times may have looked hardened with age, but they dressed better, and with elegance. There was a bit of mystery and class to it, back then, that is sorely missing now.
That whole Betty Page show-your-garters thing, and then skirts so high as to leave no room for mystery, practically showing the cooch--oh, my God! how disgusting and disgraceful.
Nineteenth century ladies of the evening--what a refined term--dressed better and acted better. It may have been the bottom of the heap, but there was still a kind of dignity to it. Plus, a lack of obviousness that is missing today.
Bring back the Victorian prostitute look. The girls today dress like they emerged from a garbage dump.
Unfortunately, maybe some of them did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I always wondered why this day was called Labor Day, because on it most people do not work. Which is its purpose--to honor those who do. But why in early September, so that it becomes the unofficial end of Summer? A fond farewell? A cruel jab at all vacationers? I have always questioned its placement, too, but really, what other day would suffice?
And so here we are. Though another sixteen days remain till the arrival of Fall, and Proserpina returning to Hell, for most of us, the summer here comes to a screeching halt. And in my hometown of Highland Park, NJ, as stated, it signaled the imminence of the starting of school, which was the Wednesday following Labor Day. I wonder if that still applies, there?
Here is one person who knew the meaning of Labor Day--
That's right, darlings! Little Edie, in "Grey Gardens!!!!!!!!!!!" And here is Christine Ebersole, as Little Edie, in the musical "Grey Gardens, singing Labor Day's unofficial anthem, "Another Winter In A Summer Town!"
I have been so worked up after writing the last several posts, I forgot to mention something.
Regular readers know they can comment anytime, and please do. But I would like to reach out to anyone alive who was part of the filmmaking experience of "Oliver!" particularly if one was in the "Who Will Buy?" or "Oom! Pah! Pah!" I would love to know what it was like, filming these.
I usually hate, in film adaptations of Broadway musicals, when the song placement is changed, but I have to confess there are times when it does work. Two examples come from "The Sound Of Music," where "My Favorite Things" is used as a device for Maria to win over the children, rather than the duet between Maria and Mother Superior in the show, prior to her leaving for the Von Trapp villa. Another is "The Lonely Goatherd," which is brilliantly staged as a puppet show, and becomes an extra special number. In the stage show, it is used the same way "My Favorite Things" is in the film but does not work as well on stage.
But the greatest placement switch of all was accomplished in Sir Carol Reed's production of "Oliver!," 1968. In the stage show, "Oom! Pah! Pah!" opens Act Two, simply as a music hall type number for Nancy, and to settle the audience down for the drama to follow. There is nothing wrong with the song; it's great. I have read that initially, Reed did not want to put it in the movie, unless he could find a way of doing so. And he did. Here, as part of the thrilling denouement, the song is used as a device for Nancy to get Oliver out of the tavern, and delivering him to Mr. Brownlow, on London Bridge, at midnight. This can be seen within the first twenty-five seconds, as the camera goes, from Nancy, to Bet, to Sikes and Fagin, to Oliver and Bullseye, the dog, and Nancy looks around, wondering, with Bet, what she can do. A distant male chorus strikes up the song, and you can see her mind working, planning this as an escape device for she and Oliver. Shani Wallis plays it brilliantly, and, because of this, the song, marvelously staged, has a dramatic tension that adds to the story. And even though Nancy was not killed at London Bridge, (she was bludgeoned by Bill Sikes in her residence in the novel) setting this tragedy at said locale gives it a heartbreaking theatricality, and aids in the downfall of Bill Sikes, betrayed even by his dog. Nancy's death is more heartbreaking than Fantine's; not only because it is horribly violent, but, because, like Charlie Malloy (Rod Steiger) in 1954's "On The Waterfront," she knows it is coming. Yet she does the right thing, knowing it will cost her.
Here is that moment. It is heartbreaking, not only because most know what is coming, but because, following this, Oliver returns to Nancy, and, with "Where Is Love?" underscored, the two have a heartfelt embrace, which I bet was as real to Mark Lester and Shani Wallis as Oliver and Nancy. But then.... I have no doubt that, when Oliver grows up, if he has a daughter, he will name her after Nancy, the brave woman who saved him. And Shani Wallis is magnificent throughout.
I don't know how else to convey it, but--
Here is "Oom! Pah! Pah!," and then Nancy's fleeing, and death. Watch these chronologically and see what great film making is!
Shani Wallis should have been Oscar nominated for her Nancy. No one I have seen has done the role better!
And that red dress, girls! We all want to wear it!
When "Oliver!" opened, in December 1968, at the Loew's State I Theatre, ("Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang" was at Loew's State II) the critics went wild. "TIME Magazine," whose review I was always quoting to my parents, practically said it was the year's best film. On the morning the reviews were posted, my friend Doug, before school, called me up with the review from the "NY Daily News." We both screamed into the phone, "It got four stars--FOUR STARS! --by Wanda Hale!" Not only that, but she also said, "'Oliver1' is the best musical I have ever seen!" I had never heard anyone say that.
After that, I was psyched. I had to see "Oliver!" and ASAP! Because it was playing in Manhattan on a reserved seat basis, that meant it was a very big deal--these were called "roadshows," and they don't exist anymore--so then by the time the film got out to the suburbs where I was then living, it would take two or more years. I wanted to see it NOW!
So, I kept at my parents. Christmas came and went, then one Friday, post-Christmas, after all the presents, tree, and decorations had been put away, my father, at dinner, placed into my hand a small envelope, inside of which were three tickets for the next day to a screening of "Oliver!" in New York! I was so excited!
We took the bus into the city next morning. I was so dazzled by Times Square, with all the film posters--"Oliver!," "Romeo And Juliet!", "Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang!," and a special re-issue poster of "Gone with The Wind," then playing at the Rivoli. At my age, it was like walking into a movie wonderland, and it helped crystalize my desire to eventually live in New York. Though I did not know it at the time, my cultural erudition was being formed; 1968 was also the year I saw for the first time both "Gone With The Wind," and "The Song Of Bernadette."
As for "Oliver!," I knew from the start it would be special. The titles are done against Victorian sketches, and the set design and costumes were as accurate as having stepped from a color illustrated Dickens novel. To this day, I am convinced Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes was not really acting. I was scared of him and thought I would never want to work with him. The perfection of Mark Lester, Ron Moody, and Jack Wild deservedly earned the last two their Oscar nominations, and Shani Wallis is still the best Nancy I have ever seen. Best of all was Onna White's choreography, which I had never seen put to such advantage, especially in "Consider Yourself," 'Oom Pah Pah!," and the number from this musical that always blows me away, "Who Will Buy?" As I said in my last post, I would see "Oliver!" anywhere, but just look at how it was handled on film--
Oh, my God, isn't this brilliant? And on screen it grows and grows. By the time the film ended, I had to be lifted from my seat. I had been transported. And I agreed with Wanda Hale--it was the best musical I had ever seen!
"Oliver!" is one of those films that was meant to be seen on the big screen. But with today's advent of wide computer screens and high-definition television, it may be possible to re-experience the magic again. I watched two numbers on this screen, and I felt the magic. When the film was shown on the small network television those my age grew up with, it did not quite work.
There is talk of re-making this. But why, when it was gotten so right the first time? And no finer cast for the roles could ever be assembled again. Though it takes some liberties with Dickens that work, this, for me, is the definitive telling of "Oliver Twist." And probably, in our culture, the best known!
How I long to see this film again. As for comments, I would love to hear from anyone, still alive, who was in the "Who Will Buy," or "Oom! Pah! Pah!" numbers. What was it like, filming those?
I am "Oliver!" charged, darlings!
As a lyric says,
"Nobody has to be la-de-dah, or uppity, There's a cuppa tea, for all!"
How I long once more to drink from the "Oliver!" cup!
Here is the full sequence of "Who Will Buy." Watch this, enlarge it full screened, and be transported by nine of the most magical minutes ever experienced in musical film!
This film may be at the milestone of fifty years old, but, like "The Killer Shrews" last week, it is the kind of film, where first time viewers have no idea how awful it is, and second time watchers know before beginning how genuinely awful it is going to be.
It is an amphibian version of "The Birds." Except the frogs in this film don't seem to do anything. They just multiply, people scream, and that's that. Now, of course, there is a young Joan Van Ark with that Seventies/Farrah hair style, and a young Sam Elliott, who was hot, even then. So, this film does offer something for everyone.
But it is slow moving and tedious. This time around, I am looking forward to the commercial segments, featuring Svengoolie and Kerwyn.
Still, this is a Saturday night tradition. So, see you at eight, girls!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posts
