Should I see the film version of "A Little Night Music?" — Page 2
Posted: 12/11/09 at 10:37pm
Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:15pm
It lacks energy and is largely badly shot and directed. The acting is all fine though with some particularly good moments, I love the slight edits and changes made to (what they kept of) the score including those sublime strings added to Little Death. If you're a Sondheim fan or curious about the show, by all means check it out.
I admit I was disappointed it wasn't the camp debacle I had been led to believe.
Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:20pm
Updated On: 12/11/09 at 11:20 PM
Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:23pm
Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:33pm
I'm in the camp of "It's not that bad, but IMHO, that "new song" is the absolute worst part of the movie. I actually have watched it quite a few times (I received it as a birthday present one year), and I skip the beginning every time. And I actually listen to the Overture on the original cast recording on repeat sometimes, I love it that much. But "Love Takes Time"? No thank you.
Send in the clowns...Send in the crowds!
"I prefer neurotic people. I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface."-Stephen Sondheim
Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:36pm
Posted: 12/12/09 at 12:10am
Edit: I see she also did ALNM on Broadway.....cool.
Updated On: 12/12/09 at 12:10 AM
Posted: 12/14/09 at 10:40am
Liaisons was filmed but cut (and now lost)
The reason no ne heard about it in 1978 was it got no real release--it was done on the chep by Roger Corman's New World or whatever Cinema, had a VERY VERY limited release -- it just was barely even seen
Posted: 12/14/09 at 10:59am
The film has its fleeting moments, but most of it is a deathly slow, muddy-looking mess.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Posted: 12/14/09 at 10:59am
It's just washed out and ugly looking (and I realize that's as much to do with the lack of a remaster as it does the movie itself) which makes it look even older than it actually is.
I don't think anything added or changed enhances it in any way. There is no need for the extra chorus of Every Day a Little Death.
I didn't realize that Liaisons was filmed and cut (and lost). Does anyone know anything about who was allegedly cast as Frederick before Cariou? IMDd said he was cast after the original actor died but it doesn't say who the original actor was.
Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:01am
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:11am
(the added opening bit of Little Death, which didnt even make the soundtrack LP, is pretty poor by Sondheim standards--lame lyrics to rhyme with being in a carriage but I LOVE Mme Armfeldt finally having her own part in Weekend in the Country and I actually prefer the sligthly cut and newly restructured Now/Soon/Later as well as Henrick, now Erick, singing everything in a lower key, and not just cuz it means I can sing his role now :P )
The look of the print is appaling. Image was going to release it to DVD for Sondheim's 75th anniversary (along with the long held off Pacific Overtures DVD) but the material they had was so poor and they couldn't afford to remaster it and said it was beneath their standards to release--so cheapo arthouse label Hen's Tooth (where my poor quality dvd of an obscure fave, Neil Jordan's Company of Wolves is from) quickly churned it out with no remastering, it's not even in its proper aspect ratio but I think that really is the best print they could find. New World didn't exactly keep their films in pristine quality (it was never done in stereo anyway)
Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:23am
The problem isn't the print. The problem is that Hal Prince, together with his cinematographer, decided to shoot this movie at either twilight with heavy filters on the lenses or by using the old cinematic technique known as "day for night." Meaning they shot the outdoor scenes during the day, and then purposely overexposed the film (and negative) to make it darker and appear to be nighttime.
Most filmmakers would know better than to do either one of these things today, because you have absolutely no control over the result. These are called "in-camera" effects. So you can't go back to the negative and make the image clearer, brighter, add more detail, remove more grain, etc. You're stuck with the crap that was filmed directly onto the negative.
In other words, you will never see a "cleaned up" version of this movie. It looked this way when it was released, and aside from some dirt scratches and a few pops here and there that accumulated over time, you're looking at the "best" possible source for this movie now. Sad isn't it?
That's one of the major reasons why it never received either a large DVD release or an attempt at a remaster. Why bother, when the original source material looks so God-awful to begin with?
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:30am
Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:36am
But it would still be a muddy, dark, soft-focused, washed-out mess. And according to DVD Talk, there is a "rumor" that the negatives have long-since been destroyed.
Nice.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 12/14/09 at 11:36 AM
Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:40am
Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:43am
Just like Lansbury, who was 37 when she played 34-year-old Laurence Harvey's mother in "Manchurian Candidate."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:53am
It further proves the point of Pauline Kael's devastating review: "Hal Prince directs as if he had never even seen a movie before."
Updated On: 12/14/09 at 11:53 AM
Posted: 12/14/09 at 12:00pm
I'm not a fan of day-for-night. I can usually tell pretty easily. The outdoor lighting has to be bumped up, so that when the film is overexposed, it still looks like there's a porch light on, or car lights, etc. They used it a lot in early Bond movies, '60s war movies, etc.
There's even a Truffaut (Oscar-winning) film called "Day For Night."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Posted: 12/14/09 at 12:09pm
It's clearly a day-for-night shot, even if they're trying to make it look like "darkened" nighttime.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Posted: 12/14/09 at 1:35pm
I love reaidng Pauline Kael's reviews, even when I disagree they're always entertaining reads cuz of how well she wrote (and there's a lot I disagree with--particularly whenever she goes into one of her rants about the tragedy inherent to gays) but she HATED Sondheim's music infamously--I dunno if she woulda liked any version of Night Music with that "sour sour stuff".
Interestingly the earlier film Prince did--again with a Hugh Wheeler script, filmed in Austria I believe but with a John Kander score (not songs), Something for Everyone is a bit better directed I think. I love it for its over the top camp black humour--Angela Lansbury and a pre Cabaret Michael York as the bisexual seducer are great--I wish it would be put out on DVD though I expect it looks as crap as Night Music (my VHS copy certainly does)
Posted: 12/14/09 at 4:22pm
Nobody (in their right mind) applies traditional day-for-night shooting today using that technique. They still shoot night scenes during the day (not as often, because it looks so obvious), but it's not an in-camera process of overexposing the film (permanently).
They do all their optical effects and filters in post-production, where they have full control over the brightness levels, colors, saturation, etc., without compromising the negative.
To give you two good examples of "old movies" that handled this well without resorting to day-for-night type, in-camera effects: the Tevye's Dream sequence in Fiddler on the Roof was shot in full color, with overly saturated costumes, then the color was drained from the footage in post-production, so they could get the right "creepiness" factor on screen. Had Norman Jewison not been happy with the end result, they could go back to the negative, and redo the effect, adding or removing more saturation until he was happy with it. The Wizard of Oz added the sepia tone of the Kansas scenes in post-production, when the black-and-white film was given a "bath" in sepia ink. If it was too much or too little, they could have gone back to the negative and redone it.
The way Hal Prince shot Night Music was to do his day-for-night shooting and add the "diffused" filters via the camera lens. But when it's too dark or too washy, he can't go back to his negative and fix it. He can't add missing visual information to the footage if it's overexposed inside the camera. He's stuck with it as is.
Bad move for this particular film. Even for back then.
Most productions in the '60s and '70s would have gambled with day-for-night on a few select scenes in their movies, because if they screwed it up, they'd only have to redo the messed up scenes. It would still be costly, and it would undermine the idea of day-for-night saving them money on union overtime ... but if 90 percent of your film takes place in twilight, this is a really bad idea. You can't go back and reshoot your entire movie. There's no way.
Prince should have hired a cinematographer who knew this and would have suggested a far less risky post-production "enhancing" of the footage to get the desired level of twilight. I realize that post-production effects weren't as easy to come by in the late '70s as they are today, with so many digital post options. But he still had other choices. He chose the cheapest route, but with no possible way of redoing any mistakes. And, IMO, the entire film is a "mistake," as far as the way it was shot.
And yeah, I worked at a post-production house for nine years, in case you're wondering where all of this comes from. I learned a lot watching what everyone was doing.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 12/14/09 at 04:22 PM
Posted: 12/14/09 at 6:08pm
Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:22am
Around the same time Hal Prince filmed Something For Everyone with Angela Lansbury and Michael York. Also shot in Austria (I think). Many of those involved with the NIGHT MUSIC film worked on that as well, including Florence Klotz. They are sort of "bookend movies" to me for that reason. Kander and Ebb did some music for Something For Everyone (it isn't a musical).
BroadwayWorld TV