The King and I (Blu-ray) Single Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Thomas T]

SOUTH PACIFIC. Not a single musical number knows it's in a motion picture. Static staging, as if at least one foot is nailed to the floor (sand). Also, Logan thinks his color filters are a bigger mistake than say, the entirety of CAMELOT?!

That's what's wrong with My Fair Lady. Cukor may as well have plunked his camera down and just filmed the stage show! The film makers treated the stage show as if it were the Bible and to deviate in any way from it would have been tantamount to blasphemy! As cinema, Camelot is a far better "film" than My Fair Lady. At least you know you're watching a movie without having the ghost of a proscenium arch hovering over the proceedings.

 

[MatthewA]

Cukor may as well have plunked his camera down and just filmed the stage show!

That's basically what Susan Stroman did with The Producers.

And it's telling that Cameron Mackintosh has (mercifully) given up his remake quest and decided to merely be content with a revival, while (arrogantly) thinking he can create a better film of Oliver! than Carol Reed could. You'll have to tell me if it is because I won't see it if it ever happens.

 

[GlennF]

I agree with Matthew A. THE PRODUCERS, the way it is now, would have been better as a filmed stage play. At least there would have been an audience and the approach would have been understandable. However, I think Susan Stroman was restricted somewhat by Mel Brooks. He was the "king" as far as this production. Apparently that is why Nathan Lane and others play their parts as if they were on stage performing to the balcony. That's what Mel told them he wanted them to do. (Or so Nathan Lane has said in several interviews.) One of the few numbers Brooks agreed to elaborate is the "I Want to be a Producer" song and it is the best number in the film. Stroman obviously needs to take much of the blame, but not all. It still adds up to the same mess of a film no matter how you look at it and another reason why Hollywood is so afraid of musicals.

 

[MatthewA]

The fear of a fan backlash is another reason Hollywood is afraid of musicals.

 

[Thomas T]

I love musicals both on stage and on film. But I never understood the vehemence of some fanboys when changes are made during the transition from stage to film. Some Sondheim enthusiasts were very vocal and unhappy about the elimination of The Ballad Of Sweeney Todd from Tim Burton's film version. While I love the number, it's a theatrical artifice and while effective on stage, it has no real place in the film. I'm also glad that Helena Bonham Carter (or Burton) gave a radically different interpretation of Mrs. Lovett. Angela Lansbury's stage performance was brilliant but her Mrs. Lovett would be totally unacceptable for the screen.

 

[John Maher_289910]

That's what's wrong with My Fair Lady. Cukor may as well have plunked his camera down and just filmed the stage show! The film makers treated the stage show as if it were the Bible and to deviate in any way from it would have been tantamount to blasphemy! As cinema, Camelot is a far better "film" than My Fair Lady. At least you know you're watching a movie without having the ghost of a proscenium arch hovering over the proceedings.

MY FAIR LADY is the worst "A" movie ever made, imo. If only it was a fraction as good as the stage version. It lacked the scope, excitement, choreography and performances of that.

 

[classicmovieguy]

That's basically what Susan Stroman did with The Producers.

And it's telling that Cameron Mackintosh has (mercifully) given up his remake quest and decided to merely be content with a revival, while (arrogantly) thinking he can create a better film of Oliver! than Carol Reed could. You'll have to tell me if it is because I won't see it if it ever happens.

And Stroman's audio commentary on "The Producers" was basically just an essay read aloud. Every bit as boring and calculated.

 

[rsmithjr]

I agree with Matthew A. THE PRODUCERS, the way it is now, would have been better as a filmed stage play. At least there would have been an audience and the approach would have been understandable. However, I think Susan Stroman was restricted somewhat by Mel Brooks. He was the "king" as far as this production. Apparently that is why Nathan Lane and others play their parts as if they were on stage performing to the balcony. That's what Mel told them he wanted them to do. (Or so Nathan Lane has said in several interviews.) One of the few numbers Brooks agreed to elaborate is the "I Want to be a Producer" song and it is the best number in the film. Stroman obviously needs to take much of the blame, but not all. It still adds up to the same mess of a film no matter how you look at it and another reason why Hollywood is so afraid of musicals.

I agree with Matthew A. THE PRODUCERS, the way it is now, would have been better as a filmed stage play. At least there would have been an audience and the approach would have been understandable. However, I think Susan Stroman was restricted somewhat by Mel Brooks. He was the "king" as far as this production. Apparently that is why Nathan Lane and others play their parts as if they were on stage performing to the balcony. That's what Mel told them he wanted them to do. (Or so Nathan Lane has said in several interviews.) One of the few numbers Brooks agreed to elaborate is the "I Want to be a Producer" song and it is the best number in the film. Stroman obviously needs to take much of the blame, but not all. It still adds up to the same mess of a film no matter how you look at it and another reason why Hollywood is so afraid of musicals.

Another reason the Stroman version of The Producers suffers is the inevitable comparison to the original Zero Mostel/Gene Wilder version. That film still is the funniest movie I have ever seen. It manages to include quite broad performances with a more cinematic treatment. Dick Shawn's flower-power Hitler still really works, although it fixes the timeframe to the late 60's.

 

[Rick Thompson]

I had no hope for The Producers musical as a movie. Why? Because the musical made what was a hysterical film into an unfunny stage play. Every joke was drilled into the floor, and "Springtime for Hitler" was expanded so much it went from hilarious -- because this subject was dressed up into pure Broadway professionalism that knew when to stop -- into typical late Brooks excess. Mel Brooks has long needed a strong producer or director who can stand up to him and say, "Mel, that's not funny any more. You're beating it into the ground."

Of course, that won't happen.

The original film was close to perfect, though it could have been improved by cutting in half the wooing old ladies and infantilism of Gene Wilder's character segments. The stage musical was one of the most disappointing and dreary evenings I've ever spent in a Broadway theater. I expected more disappointment from the film (though I hoped for less), and that's what I got.

 

[MatthewA]

MY FAIR LADY is the worst "A" movie ever made, imo.

Replace My Fair Lady with Mary Poppins (I only even speak or type that name when it's absolutely necessary to do so ) and this statement would be accurate. I wish they'd have cut 20 minutes out of that, along with the two hours that would have remained. My Fair Lady, on the other hand, is one of the greatest films of all-time and one of the best films based on any kind of stage play from any era, and, quite frankly, one of the few that actually was good enough to deserve Warner Bros. "change very little and give moviegoers pretty much the exact same show Broadway got" treatment. As for all the carping about the economical camera movements being "static" (hardly. There's plenty of camera movement; right now, I can remember a zoom-in as Eliza says "I shall catch me death"). I'm really tired of this film getting attacked in the manner it is.

Camelot only worked because of the music. The stage libretto was a mess and so was the film script, even with Alan Jay Lerner's involvement. The Sword in the Stone, also based on T.H. White, didn't have that strong of a story either, but it was half as long and twice as much fun (and reinforced the Sherman Brothers/Lerner & Loewe connection).

Now, back to The King and I, is there anything that can be done to let Fox know that this is not how the film is supposed to look, and that it has never, ever looked like that?

 

[classicmovieguy]

There is a Fox Studio Classics FB page - maybe that might be a possible avenue for communication - although from a quick glance it appears they never answer specific posts.

https://www.facebook.com/FoxStudioClassics

 

[SFMike]

There is a Fox Studio Classics FB page - maybe that might be a possible avenue for communication - although from a quick glance it appears they never answer specific posts.

https://www.facebook.com/FoxStudioClassics

That's the new corporate ethic when it comes to customer service.....never answer a specific question. See Disney's response to anything regarding their 3D releases on bluray.

 

[MatthewA]

That's the new corporate ethic when it comes to customer service.....never answer a specific question. See Disney's response to anything regarding their 3D releases on bluray.

Disney will remove any post that's critical in anyway. It doesn't matter if it's the absence of 3D releases of mega-hits in Region A, the smeary Sword in the Stone, the cut-down Bedknobs, Pocahontas, Muppet Christmas Carol, etc. They can't take criticism, even if it's reasonable.

 

[Thomas T]

re: The Producers. I actually prefer the second version. Mainly because of the cast. I know he's beloved but for me a little Zero Mostel goes a long long way (thank heavens he wasn't allowed to do the film of Fiddler On The Roof) and Gene Wilder began grating on my nerves after about 20 minutes. I found Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick much more tolerable. Still, I realize this is a minority opinion.

 

[GlennF]

Man, you people are tough! I agree MY FAIR Lady could literally stand a breath of air (by not being so studio bound, thank you Jack Warner) and MARY POPPINS might be a little long for some (but it is still a great film) and CAMELOT has considerable problems, (gorgeous as Vanessa Redgrave is and wonderful as an actress, as a singer....not so hot) but in all of them I can find some good that makes me pull out those Blu-rays over and over again. That's the joy of a Blu-ray, you can play the bits you like (mostly the songs) and skip over the parts that annoy you. I am just grateful for the musicals I get, as I know the audience is a minority...imperfect as some of these films might be.

 

[classicmovieguy]

I think the issue with "My Fair Lady" was that the production crew was utterly terrified to change or deviate from the original stage play in any way. I enjoy the film, it has a theatrical flair which is admirable but as a 'motion picture', it needed a certain "oomph" that Cukor may have been perhaps afraid to inject, lest he be accused of trying to change what was a winning formula on the stage.

 

[Ejanss]

I love musicals both on stage and on film. But I never understood the vehemence of some fanboys when changes are made during the transition from stage to film. Some Sondheim enthusiasts were very vocal and unhappy about the elimination of The Ballad Of Sweeney Todd from Tim Burton's film version. While I love the number, it's a theatrical artifice and while effective on stage, it has no real place in the film.

I remember seeing an early IMDB listing that listed "Ghost singer" as members of the cast--
An early idea may have been to have the street ghosts of London (which we assume the characters in the factory basement were, on stage) open the film, but it still wouldn't quite have worked.

As for King & I, Walter Lang (the director of Snow White & the Three Stooges ) basically did plunk his camera down a mile from the stage and capture the whole Cinemascope view for two hours.
Hate to admit it, but I liked some of the ideas for "opening up" the musical numbers that the wretched '99 animated version had (taking the children on a tour of the city during "Getting to Know You"?), but....let's not even mention that one.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I enjoy My Fair Lady as a terrific way to remember Rex Harrison in his most famous role. He is certainly by far the best Professor Higgins I've seen, though I think both Robin Bailey and Richard E Grant came very close when I saw them on stage. And the film does have a great Freddy Eynsford-Hill in Jeremy Brett who brings a perfect Eton swagger into the role.
The film does suffer from having Audrey Hepburn instead of Julie Andrews in the title role ... but I would still immediately buy it if it ever became available on Blu ray .. .maybe one day in Europe or Britain? I refuse to concede that the piece of junk issued in America deserves the Blu ray title since whoever did the transfer gave the movie so little respect!

 

[classicmovieguy]

I enjoy My Fair Lady as a terrific way to remember Rex Harrison in his most famous role. He is certainly by far the best Professor Higgins I've seen, though I think both Robin Bailey and Richard E Grant came very close when I saw them on stage. And the film does have a great Freddy Eynsford-Hill in Jeremy Brett who brings a perfect Eton swagger into the role.
The film does suffer from having Audrey Hepburn instead of Julie Andrews in the title role ... but I would still immediately buy it if it ever became available on Blu ray .. .maybe one day in Europe or Britain? I refuse to concede that the piece of junk issued in America deserves the Blu ray title since whoever did the transfer gave the movie so little respect!

Sadly I suspect that should the film ever be released on Blu-ray in Europe or Britain, it'll probably be the same transfer. But we can only hope.

 

[John Maher_289910]

I think the issue with "My Fair Lady" was that the production crew was utterly terrified to change or deviate from the original stage play in any way. I enjoy the film, it has a theatrical flair which is admirable but as a 'motion picture', it needed a certain "oomph" that Cukor may have been perhaps afraid to inject, lest he be accused of trying to change what was a winning formula on the stage.

Except they did deviate from it. Where's the great opening with the pearlies? Where's the incredible "Get Me to the Church on Time" dance music and standing ovation-getting choreography? Where's an Eliza who can sing and act the role? Where's the pace and excitement of the play? It's nowhere to be found in that gooey-gowned, plodding, old-fashioned even by 1964 standards, relic of dreary film making.