Galileo

Galileo wheedles, cajoles, and instructs in this filmed stage version of Bertold Brecht's play, as translated by Charles Laughton.

Director Joseph Losey had directed its Broadway debut eight years earlier, and it's offered as a stage show, albeit with cinematographer Michael Rand offering a variety of angles and editor Reginald Beck trying his hardest.

It's one of those shows that is a hagiography, as Topol ages and looks weary, but maintains his childlike wonder. It's got some stage luminaries giving restrained performances -- except for John Gielgud as an elderly, ranting cardinal. The great charm of this production is, of course, seeing these fine stage actors in their natural medium. With Edward Fox, Margaret Leighton, Clive Revill and Tom Conti.

Joseph Losey's adaptation of Bertold Brecht's controversial play about the famous philosopher and scientist. The story focusses on Galileo's run in with the Catholic Church, who whilst largely accepting his scientific evidence on a number of issues, particularly that the Earth was not a stationary object at the centre of the universe, were not prepared for it to be accepted truth. They simply could not allow this scientific fact to interfere in the order of things, particularly in their view the undermining of god and the church first and foremost.

An exception cast has been pulled together to tell the story and it is an absorbing tale, essentially delivered as a play with no exterior shots to be seen. The cast are universally good, although, I was never entirely convinced by Topol in the lead.

I wrote a previous comment on the film of Bertolt Brecht's play "Galileo" a few years ago. Since it's posted here I will try not to repeat myself. However, comments from other reviewers need addressing, especially since this film is finally out on DVD and more people may be interested in seeing it. Brecht's intent in this play, which he wrote and rewrote over a period of thirty years, was never intended to be a "biography" of the scientist. Brecht was a Marxist and he saw theatre as a means of propaganda, to jolt viewers out of their complacency, to shake up their way of thinking and their view of the world. How well he succeeded may be open to question, but it is important to understand his intent and point of view. To this end he incorporated what he called the "alienation effect" into his plays. He did not want viewers to get emotionally involved in the characters or experience a catharsis afterward. He wanted to address them directly and tell them that there were important ideas being presented and they should pay attention and think about them. He did not want his audience to be "entertained". If you ever see a production of his "Three-Penny Opera", for instance, the characters come out to the front of the stage and sing little lectures to the audience. The best known tune from this show, "Mack the Knife" is not the swinging jazzy Bobby Darin version, but is supposed to be sung in a grating, irritating voice. This is perhaps the most obvious example of Brecht's alienation effect. In "Galileo" this effect is less apparent, perhaps because this play leans toward the genre of realism more than most of his other plays. It is a rather straightforward, narrative story. In the film the choir boys sing between what would be different scenes in the play. In the play, the lyrics the boys sing are supposed to be on a sign or projected on a screen to bring the tell the audience the year, the place and the general theme of the upcoming scene. Why the producers or director chose to use the choir boys for this purpose, I cannot say and I do think the message get lost in their shrill soprano voices. But for Brecht, this was to be his alienation effect in "Galileo", a break in the action to remind the audience not to get involved in the storyline or the characters, but to pay attention to the ideas he is presenting. I'm pretty sure that the choir boys are in this film to do the same thing, to break up the narrative, to take the focus off the characters in the story, and to communicate the information about the next scene in a way unrelated to the rest of the play. If only they weren't so screechy! One last comment about Brecht & Galileo, the character. I mentioned that Brecht rewrote this play several times, He did this because he was unhappy that actors portrayed Galileo too sympathetically; Brecht wanted him to be a villain, a coward and a betrayer of humanity. Actors, however, were seduced by the slyness and humor of the character. Charles Laughton, who worked with Brecht to translate "Galileo" into English in the late 1940's was among those who couldn't avoid making Galileo likable. Brecht admired Laughton's theatre craftsmanship as they rehearsed the play, but was horrified to find the audience liked the character of Galileo & saw him as a hero instead of a villain. Brecht tried and tried to make Galileo unlikable but never succeeded. Years later, after he have returned to communist East Germany he again tried to make Galileo despicable rather than heroic. But even though he had his own Marxist theatre company in a Marxist country with Marxist actors, his audiences still loved Galileo. It may be the only time a character defeated the author who had created him.

This movie opens as a modern-day movie production filming from above the artificial stage lights. The story begins in 1609 Padua. Galileo Galilei (Topol) is a math teacher demonstrating the new Copernican System. Eventually, he comes into conflict with Cardinal Inquisitor (Edward Fox).

This is like a play or at least a staged film. There are those three singing boys introducing each section. After all, it is based on a play. The story unfolds episodically in nature. Some of this may be educational. The general story is familiar to me. This British film is filled with solid actors, but the tension isn't very high.

Needless to day Galileo, look where we are now. I applaud your work and your dedication to the truth it has changed my future immensely. Sadly, the same can't be same for this film. If there was ever a film that you needed to use as a weapon of mass destruction against an unknown foe, Joseph Losey's Galileo would be my number one pick. By doing this you would ensure victory to your team by forcing your opponents to fall asleep. Galileo was the dullest piece of film I have ever encountered. From the acting to the irritating boys singing before every scene was just pure rubbish. This biography did nothing but uproot past High School science reports about this genius. It presented nothing new and nothing exciting. It was genetic cross between a classic British mini-series and one of those friends that never seems to get the hint that they are talking way too much. It was a disaster that would probably, in today's standards, put Galileo back into house arrest.

The role of Galileo was played an interesting actor by the name of Topol. New to this generation's work, I wasn't sure who Topol was until I watched this film. For those of you who do not know, he is a mix between an insane street urchin and a bearded John Belushi. His actions in this film seemed random and rabid at the same time. I never knew what he was going to do or say next, half due to the poor quality in sound, but also because Topol never looked scripted. I guess this is a good thing because it gave some realism to the scene, but it destroyed his character. I kept seeing Galileo as insane instead of brilliant. I know some will argue that Galileo was insane, but when I read about him I just couldn't picture him as one of those screwball geniuses. I always felt he was the real deal, just misunderstood. Topol's delivery of Galileo is longwinded in the sense that he talks more about his actions than just doing them. There seemed to be a lot of this going around in the film, but I will get into that later. Honestly, I wasn't impressed with Topol's performance in this film. I need to see him in more before I make my final decision on his acting ability, but Galileo was not his cup of tea. Outside of Topol, I didn't care about any of the other characters or really fully understand who they were. The lack of character development (odd in a three hour film) and poor sound (outside of the singing kids) only pulled me further away from the rest of the cast. They were just not up to quality standards.

While researching this film, I read by another reviewer about the reasoning for the American Film Theater to make this style of movie. In the mid 70s the organization released several of their plays to the silver screen for their members. As a chance to capture more people to their plays, they offered these subscriptions with six tickets to other films that they had released. The strange aspect about these movies is that they are not filmed as if the actors are on a stage, nor do they carry a lavish budget. They use some fancy (for the time) camera work to highlight some emotions in the characters, but that is it. The rest is cheap and claustrophobic scenery that would immediately turn the novice moviegoer away. Perhaps during this era this was considered amazing cinematography and set design, but in my eyes it just seems shoddy and poor. For this film to work well there needed to be less conversation, more involvement by other characters, and less singing. I didn't see this film labeled as a musical (and I understand why the kids sang to help guide the audience throughout the film as in a play), so I didn't need the twenty minute sexually driven dance sequence in the middle. It was as if it was put in there for the men in the audience that had patiently been waiting through this film (forcing their eyes to remain open) as an added benefit. Suddenly everyone was awake, just in time for the second act. GRRRRRRR.

Overall, this film put me to sleep several times before it was over. It was not the biography I was hoping for on this acclaimed scientist. As a period piece film it failed and as a 'courtroom drama' it failed as well. The actors seemed like they were overacting for film because they were used to the theater productions. Infants did the camera work and the singing kids who introduced the scenes should have been put out of their misery. At least wait till someone has hit puberty to get them singing! Jeesh. If the American Theater wanted this to attract others to their productions, they should have filmed it on a stage, it would have created a better atmosphere and tone. Topol, I hope to see you in better down the road, but until then, stay far away from science.

Grade: * out of *****