The original is one of my guilty pleasures, as awful as much of it is (particularly the direction and photography. I'm reminded of Pauline Kael, "It appears that Hal Prince has never even SEEN a movie...") The parts that work, most of "Glamorous Life" are kind of wonderful, and has Taylor's best work in a strange way (and most beautiful shot, the peach dress on the train), show us what might've been. But then, it sinks horribly in the second half, and the outdoor sequences are in near-darkness* and just dreadfully shot. The film has some of the worst cinematography ever done in a major project, with interiors garishly and inconsistently lighted. When Taylor looks bad -- the "You Must Meet My Wife" sequence her nadir, thanks to the cameraman and Prince -- you feel for her. I always thought she was just about ideal for the role. Maybe Vincent Minnelli, in his prime, could've done something wonderful with the material.
But is it really a movie? When you look at how much the music slows down the action? A lot of it, other than "Weekend," really is ruminative, not active enough to invite what the camera brings. I'd rather see a brillliant production get photographed like the original "Woods."
*By the way, much of the second half of "Into the Woods" looks much darker on the screeners than in the theater. "Last Midnight" seems in near darkness. I found it troubling, because I loved the dark look in the theater. It's somewhat of a different experience on DVD.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 1/11/15 at 10:04 AM