A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC -- film-version coming to DVD!- Page 2

[Dark_Angel]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:47pm

Not to mention the very same poster I used on the other thread!

[Dark_Angel]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:53pm

I may rent this if it's available from NetFlix just out of curiosity. From what I've heard and read about it the film should have been left on the shelf.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:54pm

"I can't stop laughing at the line "send in the crowds.""

Something more that most readers of this board just don't "get." ;-0

[Dark_Angel]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:58pm

Does everyone in the film do their own singing? Liz Taylor, Diana Rigg and Lesley Anne-Down aren't necessarily known for their stellar pipes.

Was a soundtrack album ever released?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 3:08pm

I have the soundtrack LP, and I must be the sole dissenter here.

This film -- static as cinema, to be sure, with prosaic direction -- is a disappointment, but hardly the dog that MAME is. Taylor's performance is not a pitiful debacle by any stretch -- she is almost eerily typecast in the role of peripatetic diva. She's too heavy for the Klotz costumes -- thought the famous red dress looks better on her than anyone -- but not offensively so. And her "Clowns," if slightly overwrought, is respectable. And unlike many stage versions, she's not afraid of the role's comedy. I've seen plenty of elegant Desiree's who looked swell, sang effectively,but played her as a stiff. For my money, Taylor's the only Desiree to mine what Glynis found -- the outre humor.

Importantly, this was the first form of the show to use the beautiful and haunting "Petra's song" -- the piece of "Glamourous Life" that really soars. It's one of Sondheim's most poignant melodies and somehow deepens the beat in the story.

You also have Rigg -- perfectly cast -- and some lovely location work in Austria that's poorly shot but there nevertheless. I disagree that the film is a dog. It's nothing like it might've been -- but it will be a welcome addition to most libraries at this site and elsewhere.

I wouldn't be surprised if it finds some new fans.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 3:11pm

YESSSS. Although I just tracked down the VHS about a month ago. I don't mind, because the VHS is rare to find.

I hope the movie quality is much better. When I saw MAME coming, I was hoping for this too!

The film really isn't THAT bad. The first 40 or some minutes are pretty strange, but it picks up.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 3:18pm

The convention of a group of actors performing it as a play is a hoary and tired device that's clunkily set up, and not sustained. But ... once it's underway, I actually like the performing montage of Taylor in her stage roles that plays under "Gladmourous Life." You get a solid idea of who this touring diva is, and Taylor plays it to the hilt. Again, a better director could've made her performance sparkle. And I wish Cariou had been a tad less starchy -- the stage-bound diction in Wheeler's script ("Good morning, Lawyer Egerman.")

You're always aware of what might've been, in every scene. But still, it does capture the general flavor of the stage play. The only really laughable revision is the dreadful lyric put to the "Night Waltz," when Taylor warbles "Love is the LEC-ture on how to per-FECT your mistakes" or something like that.

Ol Steve musta' smoked some bad s--t the day he shoved those words in his beautiful melody -- which needed none.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 8:55am

As I mentioned on another thread, Taylor does all her own SOLO singing (except for in LOVE TAKES TIME). So there are a couple of harmony lines in YOU MUST MEET MY WIFE that were dubbed.

Elaine Tomkinson (Tomlinson?) dubbed those Taylor bits, as well as all Lesly-Anne Down's singing, and the actress playing Fredrika as well ... budget constraints. All the other actors do their own singing. A body double for Taylor is also used during parts of LOVE TAKES TIME because she sprained her ankle right before they filmed that number.

And since they filmed the movie backwards, she actually "loses weight" as the film goes on. That's why she looks as good as she does in the famous red dress, and why she looks squeezed into the costumes (she was) in GLAMOROUS LIFE.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:07am

I wouldn't look for this to be a stellar transfer.

Hen's Tooth (??) is not known for quality. (Are they even known?)

They will likely take the best source available, such as it is and release it. It will surely look better than any VHS copy you have seen, if for no other reason that VHS uses 260 lines per inch (on screen) and DVD uses 480... nearly twice as many.

It's very likely not an enhanced 16x9 picture either. Just a matted 1.66:1.

The movie is dreary. Still there are a few moments when it's good (precious few) and a couple of solid performances (Rigg and Gingold).

Still, for those who like this sort of thing... this is the sort of thing they like.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:11am

And apparently, the original film elements are in such lousy shape that Image passed on doing a transfer of this film years ago.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:12am

Thank you, Phil; I didn't know any of that. I am not surprised about the harmony dubbing, but really thought she sounded like "herself" in "Love Takes Time." It's odd about Downs being dubbed. She seemed too sophisticated for Anne, and one wonders why they didn't go younger and more "innocent." She seemed almost closer to Charlotte than Anne. But she's beautiful, and we have three pretty stunning brunettes up there.

Can't wait to take into account the reverse weight loss for La Taylor.

I,too am worried about the quality of the transfer. I recently bought a fairly rare DVD of CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, and was suprised how dreary that transfer was -- lifted, it seemed, from a bad video. (Wish that would be redubbed -- still quite a powerful little film.)

Still, to have this NIGHT MUSIC on hand, why not? There are far worse adapatations. I will be curious to see how it looks.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:52am

Yes, both this and MAME will be my "guilty pleasure" DVD purchases this year.

Sadly neither in stereo, but neither WAS in stereo on original release to begin with, so we can't ask for the moon.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:53am

CARNAL KNOWLEDGE isn't a rare DVD, it's still an easily available MGM DVD release. You most likely obtained a low-cost DVD issued by some other company, hence the low-quality transfer. Though the MGM isn't an anamorphic release, the quality is simply great.







CARNAL KNOWLEDGE on DVD (DVDEmpire.com)

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:59am

Yikes, that's the CARNAL I have. With the "collectible booklet." Oddly, it was 11.99 at Barnest and Noble. I didn't think the transfer pristine; perhaps I should take another look. I'm not technically savvy, so I'm out of my depth here commenting on such matters; it's just perception.

Isn't it odd that NIGHT MUSIC was released without stereo? What were they thinking?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:59am

Yikes, that's the CARNAL I have. With the "collectible booklet." Oddly, it was 11.99 at Barnest and Noble. I didn't think the transfer pristine; perhaps I should take another look. I'm not technically savvy, so I'm out of my depth here commenting on such matters; it's just perception.

Isn't it odd that NIGHT MUSIC was released without stereo? What were they thinking?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 10:06am

Most movies were released in Mono from about '72 to '77. Theatre owners didn't want stereo, and movie audiences didn't care.

Even movies like The Godfather and Jaws were originally mono movies. (Only for their DVD releases where the original sound elements remixed into stereo.)

All of that changed back again with "Star Wars" in 1977. Suddenly people wanted that amazing sound (so prevalent in the '50s and '60s "event" movies). And theatre owners scrambled around to install the new Dolby Surround Sound systems in their theatres. "Night Music" came out in '77, the same year as Star Wars. It's not a surprise at all that this film is in mono.

Updated On: 3/8/07 at 10:06 AM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 10:14am

Per the specs of the original theatrical print of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC (and MAME, as mentioned above) -- it was released to movie theaters in mono; it was not a stereo theatrical release. This was quite common in the 1970's -- JAWS nor THE EXORCIST were released in stereo...much to everyone's shock today, those classic films' original theatrical print is in mono. The 'stereo' soundtracks on the current DVD issues of these films are re-mastered soundtracks, which is simply an artificial stereo-recreation of the mono print. Thank God these DVDs now include the original 'mono' soundtrack for you to choose for those film and audio savy people to see (and hear) the films as they were originally intended.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 10:18am

Um, hooray?

[bk]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 11:42am

Others got to it before I - both Mame and Night Music were mono releases and should be presented that way. As others have pointed out, the majority of movies in the 70s were mono, except for the biggest roadshow releases. Cabaret was in mono, although I saw it at a very early sneak preview where it was stereo, separate picture and sound interlocked - not great stereo, but stereo. It was also pre "Screw Brian" (the original had "F**k Brian").

Night Music is one of the worst movies I've ever seen - Rigg is fine, Cariou works too hard for the camera, Liz is lacklustre and all affectation, and Prince, who can make stage magic with the best of them, makes his movie look like a piece of dead whitefish. He has not one cinematic bone in his body - he does on stage, but not when actually put behind the camera.

Hen's Tooth video has released some really bad DVDs - rarely enhanced for widescreen, and most often from dubious elements. Although, that said, Night Music has always looked terrible - I saw it the day it opened and I just couldn't believe that a then modern film could look that bad.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 12:40pm

I saw it the day it opened, too, and thought something wrong with the projection. The bulb seemed to be burning out. It was washed out and didnt even seem to fit the screen. But some films look better reduced to a smaller screen, and this one, even with a lousy transfer, might benefit. I taped it off cable a decade ago, and still have that. Even that looks better than I recall it appearing in the cinema.

On the other subj, I recall the first re-release of THE EXORCIST, before the added footaged, in "Dolby Stereo." We all trundled back to hear the new effects.

But I recall CLOSE ENCOUNTERS as the first movie to make a big whoop out of "six track Dolby stereo." The sound system was broken in the theater I saw it in (The Cinema, Washington, DC), that Christmas it opened, and some people actually opted not to go. I think people assumed "Dolby" was akin to sensurround back then.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 1:03pm

Close Encounters had six-track, but only in a very few theatres. Still, that was a bit of a "return." But more of a novelty (the way Fantasia had been in 5.0 surround back in 1940, but only in two theatres: one in NY and one in LA).

Star Wars was the first (the same year, but a few months after Close Encounters) to try to make it more "wide released" in surround sound. I don't think it was very "wide," but that's when theatre owners started scrambling to install the new speakers in their theatres. It was the reason for the "return to aural glory" that happened that year... although you could probably attribute it to both films without an argument.

I grew up in Lawrence, Kansas, and Star Wars played mono in our town. The following year when Superman came out, it was the first to be in the new "stereo surround" for us... and I remember how everyone was excited about the remarkable difference.

Back on topic... I read somewhere that Hal Prince was going for that shadowy, "perpetual sunset" look in Night Music... BOY did he fail, as did the cinematographer. They should have shot it day-for-night, and worked out the effects in post. Instead they ended up with a muddy negative that nobody can fix.

Updated On: 3/8/07 at 01:03 PM

[B3TA07]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 2:11pm

<3

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 2:43pm

I hope they fix the sound or remaster this or something because my VHS of this has HORRIBLE quality to everything!!!!!!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 8:50pm

I'm honestly thrilled. As people on here know i'm a ridiculous fan of this movie (even own three copies of the soundtrack haha) even though I aknowledge it has a LOT of problems--and my video of it (it's an old used commercial video and they even taped it at the worse quality speed) is very hard to watch.

IMAGE promised for a while they would release it then announced the original copies were so damaged and they couldn't justify the costs of restoration on it--I hope Hen's Tooth gets a good print as they're not the best for quality (I ahave their copy of Neil Jordan's Company fo Wolves and it's one of the poorer DVDs I own) and I doubt would restore it. )Image also promised aroudn the same time we'd see Pacific Overtures SIGH)

Still great news :)

As for fixing the sound--the original theatrical prints were all mono (ah the joys of working with with ROger COrmon's distribution branch so I dunno if much can be "fixed" without costing money Hen's Tooth prob won't spend. Still will be nice to see letterboxed

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 8:55pm

As for the people complaining of the cover it's just a slightly uglier version (and less subtle in terms of people outlines) version of the original theatrical cover...

I love the quotes form critics--Paulene Kael hated it (but seemed to hate SOndheim--if your ead the full review she says something like "how anyone can get enjoyment about the nastily sour and graceless sentiments of Sondheim and songs liek Everyday a Little Death is beyong me"--I'm paraphrasing but that's close to it--the woman wrote great reviews but had some odd taste) and Rex Reed who I never underestood WHY he was a respected film critic--LOVED it. Go figure.

Is there a link to an official announcement for this ?

As to some comments on here--I don't remember Erik (Henrich's new name) singing IN a tree--I remember him singing at the base of a tree outside. Erik's kinda hot I remember too :P (and sings ina different key which suits the role IMHO)

Auggie I think ius spot on--jhaving this readily available will prove to many that while by NO means a great film it has some really good moments (Diana Rigg in general, Weekend in the Country) and the singing (which is, someone asked, largely lip synched by for the women, I knwo the daughter CHloe Frnaks and Lesley Anne are synched by the same woman) is great. I actually prefer the versions of songs on the soundtrack to the OBC--the tempo is tighter and Tunick improved the orchestrations notably in Everyday a Little Death which has added a haunting string line.

There was some cut material (liaisons) but I guess it won't be found for the DVD (I was pleased it'll be letterboxed but really, like most Cormon productions I believe it was original shot full frame and just matted for theatres so we son't see much new--the letterboxing is very small anyway).

I wonder if Hal Prince's other film--the bisexual nasty comedy Something for Everyone with Angela Lansbury and Michael York will nwo see the light of day...
E
Updated On: 3/8/07 at 08:55 PM