Should I see the film version of "A Little Night Music?"- Page 2

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 12/11/09 at 10:36pm

I love the tagline on the movie poster... "Send In The Clowns....Send In The Crowds"!!! That is craptastic! Did someone get paid to write that blurb? I hope not.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/11/09 at 10:37pm

I have no answers.

Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:15pm

I always seem to be defending the film--but seriously its reputation is far worse than the film--this was particularly true before the DVD when it was hard to come by and most who went on about how awful it was never even saw it.

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.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:20pm

I don't like how much they cut of Madame Armfeldt. The entire story doesn't come together without showing the character's final moment.
Updated On: 12/11/09 at 11:20 PM

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:23pm

Can't believe this was released the same summer GREASE was, the summer of 1978. I clearly remember GREASE that summer and seeing it in a movie theater but I never even heard of this one until many years later. I didn't even know it existed.

[[tos]fan999]

Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:33pm

"Love *Breath* Takes *Breath* Time"
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.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/11/09 at 11:36pm

I respect people who say "It's not that bad," (I always say that about the Phantom movie), but I disagree with you. I think this movie is dreadful!

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 12:10am

Just watched th opening on youtube and the choreography is by PATRICIA BIRCH who also choreographed the stage and screen versions of GREASE.

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

Yeah, Night Music on stage was the start of many Birch/Hal Prince collaborations (Pacific Overtures etc etc)

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

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 10:59am

The Academy obviously saw it and/or heard it, since it was nominated for two Oscars (Best Costumes and Best Adapted Score), winning the latter for Jonathan Tunick.

The film has its fleeting moments, but most of it is a deathly slow, muddy-looking mess.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 10:59am

I watched maybe the first 30 minutes or so of it on YouTube the other day and it's just a painful as I remember. It's so slow and plodding and I can't find myself caring about any of the characters.

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:01am

Wasn't it Peter Finch originally?

Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:11am

Awww well I kinda like it anyway :P

(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)

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:23am

Not to burst anyone's bubble that someday a remastered, beautiful-looking transfer of this icky movie will one day surface, but ...


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?

Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:30am

I didn't mean to imply anything but--that's a well known fact that was part of the super cheap budget Corman and crew put on the film (as was filming in Austria with their heavy tax breaks). Image saw it wasn't worth the trouble--that said if the film had been better preserved it would certainly look better than it does now on DVD. Look great? nah prob not.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:36am

At least the bad scratches would be gone.

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.

Updated On: 12/14/09 at 11:36 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:40am

They should have just destroyed the whole thing! And wow, I know people looked older then, but I can't believe Cariou is only 38 in this.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:43am

He always looked older than he was.

Just like Lansbury, who was 37 when she played 34-year-old Laurence Harvey's mother in "Manchurian Candidate."

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:53am

I never knew that about the day-for-night, process, besty.

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

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 12:00pm

Day-for-night was a very popular process in the '60s and '70s, but it goes back earlier than that. It saved money, primarily, with cast and crews not having to work overtime. But unless everyone involved knew exactly what they were doing, it could really screw things up. If the film was shot with too much exposure, you wouldn't be able to see enough detail, and you'd have to shoot it again (if budget allowed).

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."

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 12:09pm

My favorite "ooops" in a day-for-night shot is when you can see the sun blaring brightly in the background and casting shadows on streets or sidewalks, and it's supposed to be midnight. Or when there are birds in the trees or flying overhead.

It's clearly a day-for-night shot, even if they're trying to make it look like "darkened" nighttime.

Posted: 12/14/09 at 1:35pm

I wuldn't blame Prince for the day for night filming but the budget--but of course he can be blamed for it being poorly used. The technique is still used on a lot of tv isn't it? (though with modern technology I'd assume mistakes like tree shadows can be remedied).

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)

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 4:22pm

I blame Prince for this choice, since most of the movie takes place in this perpetual twilight, and I blame him for the washy filters. Just like I blame Josh Logan for using those horrible colored filters in the movie South Pacific. That film was shot with the color filters on the camera lens, so there's no way to remove them now. They're on the negative.

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.

Updated On: 12/14/09 at 04:22 PM

Posted: 12/14/09 at 6:08pm

That all makes sense and I agree in particular that his lack of a decent cinematographer is particularly odd (surely he knew e should hire someon to make up for his inexperience?) but my original point was using that process was, and I stand by this, done partly because of the insanely limited budget they were using (what wasn't going to Liz Taylor's not-all-that-expensve fee, and hiring her was part of the deal with New World) (But I do find al your knowledge on this fascinating and appreciate it)_

[alterego]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:22am

Should you see it? Yes. Sure it has major flaws, but on the positive side there are fine performances from Diana Rigg, Len Cariou, Laurence Gittard and the definitive Mme Armfeldt of Hermione Gingold. You also have Patricia Birch's original Night Waltz in the opening and Florence Klotz's (variation) original costume designs. Enough there to give you an idea of just how good the original must have been.

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).