Don Quichotte

(This is a review of the VHS version)

G.W.Pabst's film version of "Don Quixote", originally filmed in three languages, but with the same leading actor, may not please all lovers of the great Cervantes novel, but it makes a fascinating document for music lovers and opera buffs. Although not based at all on the Jules Massenet opera in which he sang the title role, this is the only chance to see and hear the great Russian basso Fyodor Chaliapin in one of his greatest roles.

Chaliapin revolutionized the art of opera acting, and if he had wanted to, could have been an equally effective non-singing actor, although his English is heavily accented and he tends to declaim rather than just speak. His singing voice in this film is probably not what it once was, but he is so charismatic that he holds the audience riveted.(You may squirm through some of the songs, though - this isn't Massenet's opera, or "Man of La Mancha", for that matter.)

The supporting cast is quite good in both English and French versions (I haven't seen the German one), and Chaliapin himself speaks and sings better French than English. The photography is beautiful, although this really isn't Spain,and the windmill sequence is a flabbergasting accomplishment for 1933. You may like a little more emotional involvement in your movies, though.

Be warned - the French version (on the videocassette, not the DVD) has no subtitles - they assume you've already seen it in English since they both come in the same package.

the film of Chaliapin. and it is not surprising. because he deserves the role and the chance to give his Don Quixote to the public. because the voice is only the axis of inspired adaptation of the novel, using the resources of humor and touching dialogues, drama and the force of a vulnerable character. because it is one of films who are, first, beautiful travel in time. and for the opportunity to discover a great artist not only as legend but as inspired interpreter of a text who remains unique. a film like a bitter-sweet mix. impressive and seductive and great. more a page of history than a movie, it is the right option for understand a side of the beauty of Russian artistic treasure.

It is unusual to see scrappy direction from Pabst, but I was disappointed with this film. What is interesting about this film is Shalyapin.

In opera, and folksong, Shalyapin took the art of acting seriously. He would jump into the skin of the character he was playing or of the narrator of a song. He was almost like Lon Chaney, when it came to costume.

Here the great man sings in English, and seems to be ideal as the pathetic character who sells all he has, to buy books of knightly romances; then, with his servant, Sancho Panza, sets out to do good deeds.

Shalyapin's English is excellent, and he speaks and sings with a heavy accent that is Russian, tinged with the accent of the country in which he lived in exile - France.

George Robey, with his music hall accent, who was beginning to shake off his "coward" image (He was a conscientious objector during the first world war) plays Sancho Panza.

Shalyapin does sing some songs in this scrappy production; but, unlike, Pabst, he does not leave us disappointed.

Feodor Chaliapin stars as Don Quixote, a mentally unbalanced old man who believes that he's a knight engaged in fantastic, romantic adventures. He's assisted/enabled by his cohort Sancho Panza (George Robey)

Pabst filmed multiple versions of this at once, with some cast changes, and the English and French versions are apparently the most widely available. I saw the English version. I've read a lot of good things about this movie for many years and was happy to finally see, but I have to wonder if the praise is for the French version. I must admit that I don't really care for the Don Quixote story, nor any film and TV versions that I've seen. In fact, the musical film Man of La Mancha was one of the most excruciating movie watching experiences of my life. In this version, Chaliapin breaks out into operatic song a few times, which only served to throw my interest to the wind. I appreciated some of the camera tricks Pabst used, but with obnoxious characters, terrible sound, and Chaliapin's mangled English rendering most his dialogue unintelligible, I didn't really care for this at all. Oh, and here's another example of a film with no current genre thread in which it fits.

For me, this film is defined by the printed paper and his metamorphosis. The bustle, the delicate ash, the music are principal words of Cervantes masterpiece definition. So, the film must be a success at least for impressive presence of Chaliapin.

In fact, it is not a film but a huge monument, the Baroque interpretation of Chaliapin has the talent to create a fantastic world.The pathetism of opera is part of gorgeous sophisticated fine expression

Only values for a verdict in this case are subjectives. A legend of Russian Opera is Don Quixote. Every feature of character is slice of a subtle science of chimera's revelation. Every gesture is a form to describe sweet secret of fragile world. And Chaliapin is Chaliapin.

But, more important, it is statute of testimony. The trip between symbols and facts, between refuges and truth. "Don Quixote" is not a ordinary picturization, it is a propaganda instrument.

The three versions, "Man and Mask", the recordings , Mefistofele, the shows in Europe and the fame are elements of a special artist portrait who gives to his character not only a special soul but a subtle vision about life and illusion.

I believe that this movie was for Chaliapin an adventure. His art is same, his acting is interesting and correct. For he, the hero from La Mancha is an alter-ego not ordinary character. So, the force of interpretation is charming, strong and pure.