OLIVER! (the movie musical)

Me too - and I was also captivated by it. I haven't seen it in years either, and I was astounded by how well it has held up. Much better than the stage version.

"The actor who played Sykes was also perfect"
Oliver Reed. Nephew of the director and one of the few British film stars to have never worked on stage. His entire career was in film, and mostly in England. He hated Hollywood.

---

Updated On: 3/1/10 at 11:03 AM

Respectfully disagree, Gotham. I thought she was wonderful.

Oliver!, in my opinion, is quite possibly one of the best stage to screen adaptations ever, if only because it far exceeds its source material. It's both intimate and lavish at the right moments. Some people have complained that it isn't "grungy" enough and doesn't really feel like the dirty, crime filled parts of London, and that's probably true. But Carol Reed wisely knew that if he were to make the setting as realistic as possible, the movie wouldn't work. Instead, Reed creates a wonderful atmosphere where singing and dancing are totally justified and it makes the movie work on so many levels.

The one flaw in the entire movie is Oliver's dubbing. I understand if the lead actor couldn't sing, but they could have at least found a boy soprano who could to dub him, rather than the musical director's daughter. It sounds extremely fake. Worse than Nixon/Hepburn in My Fair Lady. Other than that, the movie's wonderful and I'm glad you've rediscovered it, Capn.

---

Julie Andrews was their original choice for Nancy (back when she was offered pretty much every single role), and she would have done it, if not for her other film commitments. I think they figured Shani would do it in the same way that Julie might. Actually, I think Julie would have brought a bit more Eliza-type fire to the role. I saw the original Broadway show, and Wallis and even Moody couldn't compare to Brown and Revill. Or Wild to Jones or Lester to Prochnik, for that matter. However, I've come to appreciate it for what it is, rather than for what it isn't; and, it is certainly a monumental piece of fine film making. Onna White's Oscar was well-deserved!

I also think this is one of the best examples of adapting a song for film where it VASTLY improves the impact over the stage version.

"Oom Pa Pa" is nothing but a bar song in the play. A throw-away "fun" and "atmospheric" number to open Act II. Moving it near the end and using it as a smoke screen for Nancy to help Oliver escape is utter genius. It's an exciting, energetic number that builds the tension in a way the stage show could never match.

That's the genius of Carol Reed, a "suspense" master film director, along with the brilliant screenplay adaptation by Vernon Harris.

---

Updated On: 3/1/10 at 03:00 PM

Agreed about "Oom Pah Pah". And the score as a whole is used far more cleverly and effectively in the film - it occured to me when I saw the stage version last year that it basically just has too many songs that don't advance the story at all. Like "That's Your Funeral" - we are in exactly the same place plot-wise at the end of the song as the start, and haven't learned anything about any of the characters! The film sensibly cut that, along with a few others like Bill Sikes's solo (though the latter could have been cut because of Oliver Reed's lack of musical skills - see Tommy for more information!).

Updated On: 3/1/10 at 03:34 PM

Marius, speaking of "That's Your Funeral" it was sung in the original Broadway production of "Oliver!" by Barry Humphries as Mr. Sowerberry ... who is DAME EDNA, back on Broadway now.

Yeah, i'm glad they cut the undertaker's song. Also, "I Shall Scream," which doesn't add a thing to the story. We learn later on that Mrs. Corney married Mr. Bumble, and we don't need a whole number about it. We also don't need to make those characters "lovable" or funny, by any means.

I think it was right to cut "My Name" for Bill Sykes, too, although they use it as his "theme," every time he's on screen. So I don't miss it at all.

I like my Dickensian villains without a sugar coat.

Borstalboy---the stage show works well, with good people in it. But it can't compare to the film which shifted some problems in the book and tightened things up quite a bit. It also added a level of suspense and tension that is not even written into the play. Also, "Oliver!" can't be produced cheaply, or with five orphans and an ensemble of ten. It would be costly on Broadway ... and I think if they attempt it again, they should make some of those script changes seen in the film. Particularly with Oom-Pa-Pa.

I get so mad when i see how that song was wasted in the stage show. I've seen several productions, and I was musical director for this show myself, once. It's just not as strong as the film. Nothing you can do about it. It's written that way.

---

I'd never seen the stage version until this past spring when I saw the current revival in London. It's a HUGE production - there must be 50 kids on that stage in the opening scene alone!! The film is, as has been noted here, a vast improvement on the show as it is written.

I'm not sure if it would or would not be a big hit here - the current revival is a blockbuster over there, and yet I haven't heard any rumors of a transfer. Usually there are at least 87 threads about such things. Unless I've missed them.

---

I loved this movie and had the pleasue of meeting Jack Wild (Dodger) almost a decade ago. Really nice guy. I met him the same time the Jay-Z track "Anything" came out. Jack was saying he was in shock to hear that he was on the billboard charts. He had no idea ahead of time that Jay-Z would be using a sample of "I'd Do Anything" in a song. Funny haha

I'd never seen the stage version until this past spring when I saw the current revival in London. It's a HUGE production - there must be 50 kids on that stage in the opening scene alone!! The film is, as has been noted here, a vast improvement on the show as it is written.

I saw it in Philadelphia last year and with the adult ensemble & two sets of children, there were over 70 people in that cast!

---

Just came across this thread while searching for something else, and I have to take exception to these statements:

1) The lip sync is 100 percent perfect on everything. Even adults can't achieve that. Even Marni Nixon can't achieve that.

**I took your challenge and went back and watched the DVD. I see the usual moments of mismatching I usually see with lip synch.

2) I think that not only did Mark do his own singing, he did most of it "live" during the visual take.

**That would be >extremely< unlikely. First, even seasoned performers like Judy Garland did everything to prerecord. It's just too tough to sound good on set. Second, it makes life hell for the editor. It has been done, but it's so much harder to piece together that 99.9% of all musical numbers are done to playback, and have been since the early 30s. (Rex Harrison was one of the few exceptions. He refused to sing to playback, so all his numbers in MFL were recorded on set - but he had to fight for that.)

3) It's not a little girl singing. I've never heard a little girl sing with that mellow, full tone.

**Here we just have to disagree. I find the singer's voice to be very whispy and light - something a girl could easily do.

I call bull on this one. It's an unfortunate "rumor" at best.

**I've seen video of Johnny Green saying that Mark was "tone deaf and arrhythmic" (I didn't just read it on the web) and Kathe stating she dubbed all of Mark. That would make it not a rumor, but a bald-faced lie. I don't know why they would feel the need to do that, and why Mark wouldn't publicly call them on it. He never has.

Updated On: 7/29/11 at 01:47 AM

I'm so glad to see all the love for it here. It is my favorite movie musical and I've never understood some of the carping about it being an undeserving oscar winning best picture. Reed's direction is masterful and the cast uniformly terrific.

Someone mentioned that Shani wasn't convincing as an alcholic, but it never occurred to me that Nancy is supposed to be one. I am sure Georgia Brown was a much grittier Nancy, and probably gave an amazing performance, but I still find Shani's work flawless.

Gypsy9---my parents saw Oliver! on Broadway and shared your opinion. They loved the movie but felt it traded the intimacy of the stage show in favor of pageantry. The wonderful thing about most of Dickens's stories is that they work very well on both levels. They are both intimate and epic at the same time. I wish I'd seen the original Broadway production. My parents were completely enamored with Georgia Brown, too.

I do think she would have been wrong for the film, and Shani Wallis is absolutely wonderful, but I would have loved to have seen Georgia on stage.

As for my "old" comments, I still don't buy it about Mark Lester being dubbed by a little girl. If you'd said it was a young boy, I'd have a better time believing it. But a little girl? They just don't sing like that. It's not the whispy/breathy part, it's the tone. There is a reason why boy sopranos in church choirs are boy sopranos and not girls. They don't sound the same and never have. If Mark Lester is dubbed in this movie, it's the best dubbing job (bar none, including all of Marni's work) that I've ever seen. Even Marni Nixon can't match the vowel placement to the lips that well. And if yours isn't lining up, you might have a sync issue with your equipment. Mine lines up perfectly, but even more astounding is the vowel placement (i.e., shape of the vowels on the mouth), not the timing. Not one slip-up. To think that a young girl would be able to do that so impeccably is hard to believe.

... and as for singing "live" and recording while on set, it's done more often than you think. Especially during emotional scenes or when improvisational vocal timing becomes an issue. It's definitely not the norm, but a lot more people than Rex Harrison have sung various songs or phrases live while the cameras rolled. Even Jennifer Hudson and Anika Noni Rose had moments in the movie Dreamgirls that were sung live.

EDIT: Judy Garland filmed a live reprise of "Over the Rainbow" for The Wizard of Oz. It was done live because she had to cry through it, and there was no way a pre-record would work or match. Unfortunately, this reprise (filmed when she's locked up in the witch's castle) was ultimately cut, but there was never any intention of pre-recording the singing. And that was back in 1939.

EDIT #2: I'll add one more Oz-related, dubbing-related thought ...

For years, there was a rumor going around the Biliie Burke's singing had been dubbed as Glinda. It even made it into print in a prominent behind-the-scenes book on the subject. The reason? They found an old contract by a session singer hired for the movie that listed her as prerecording the tracks for "Come Out, Come Out Wherever You Are," part of the "Munchkinland" sequence. They had a contract, so they assumed it was true.

It wasn't. They did hire a session singer, and she did pre-record the tracks, because the MGM music team was worried that Miss Burke wasn't up to singing it. But the tracks were never used. Instead, they went through a rather painful and long session with Billie (something like 40 takes!) until they got it right. It's her own voice you hear in the movie, not a dubber. Despite the fact that you can and will find it in print that she was dubbed in the part. So don't believe everything you read or hear. Sometimes, it's just not true.

---

Updated On: 7/29/11 at 07:29 AM