L'uomo della Mancha

There are those who would have you believe that this is a bad movie because it deviates from the stage musical. In the play, for example, Sancho has a grating high-pitched voice whereas in the movie, his voice is warmer and stronger. Another example is the deletion of certain songs such as the completely unnecessary and boring "What Do You Want of Me?" and "To Each His Dulcinea." In addition, Cervantes is jailed on stage for foreclosing a church. In the movie, he is sent before the Inquisition on grounds of heresy. This makes the whole thing that much more significant and important. It also relates to a central theme in the movie, that Cervantes' and indeed Don Quixote's way of fighting back at the world is to imagine a new world. To dream, as it were, the impossible dream.

The stage version was one of the most substantially flawed in Broadway's history. Richard Kiley (the original stage actor) had a strong, powerful voice, that is true, but it didn't sound like Don Quixote. The man who dubs Peter O'Toole's voice in the movie, however, sounds not only like Peter O'Toole, but like Don Quixote.

Indeed, the only thing about the movie that is different from the play is that the actors in the movie are GOOD! And they don't just put on big, fake, funny voices in the traditional idiotic Broadway style. They portray their characters honestly and in keeping with the spirit of the story. And it is a story that everyone should hear. If you are like me, a lifelong chaser of impossible dreams, then the story of one man's quest to slay giants which are actually windmills cannot be ignored.

And don't be such a stuck-up tight ass about film adaptations. Of COURSE they're going to be different, that doesn't make them worse.

Bringing big Broadway musicals to the screen has always posed tremendous problems for film makers. The results have by and large been unsatisfactory, with few exceptions. The late 60's brought us "Camelot", (67),"Hello Dolly" (69) and "Fiddler on the Roof" (71), all films adhering to the unquestioned rule that bigger is better, be it casts, sets and orchestrations. All three were overblown bores. Arthur Hiller's concept for "Man of La Mancha" is clearly the antithesis of what had become expected of the musical on film. He decided to use the film media not as a device for augmentation in a broad sense, but rather to focus in on the characters and bring them as close to the audience as possible using naturally many close-ups. They are the crux of the film; not massive sets, huge choruses or dazzling choreography. "Man of la Mancha" boasts two fine songs; the rest are pretty mediocre, which justifies Hiller's keeping the music as a device to serve the characters and not the other way around. From the very start with the credits appearing, the audience is geared up for one of those massively orchestrated rousing overtures. Yet, what we are offered is an underscored, almost chamber music style overture setting the tone for the entire film. The message as with chamber music is clear; the focus is on the content, not the trappings.

The critics by and large hated the film. Maltin in particular is uncharacteristically savage in his criticism. They simply were not prepared to accept an unorthodox approach to a huge Broadway success. While "Dolly", "Camelot" and "Fiddler" tend to be almost impossible viewing today, "Man of La Mancha" remains astonishingly fresh, very much vindicating Hiller's concept of this much maligned and misunderstood movie.

Being so focused on character, the films success would lie with its principal players. O'Toole gives a bravura performance, one of his finest, while Loren too, is perfect in her role. Sure the soundtrack is not one to listen to in the way one would a Broadway musical. But both O'Toole's and Loren's shaky vocals are in perfect sync with the fragility of their characters and hence very human and very moving. If more Broadway musicals had been brought to the screen with such a clear concept as was "La Mancha", the movie musical may have enjoyed far greater success.

As one who is familiar with the works of Cervantes I must say that this particular representation is among if not the best of all.

Peter O'Toole leads an ensemble of many of the best actors, and actresses of the time. Among them that classical beauty Sophia Loren, who played Aldonza/Dulcenea to perfection.

O'Toole gives what I consider to be one of his best, if not the best performance of his life. His natural style captivates audiences, totally. I have seen few actors who can act so natural, and with such eloquence. His gift of oratory is quite remarkable.

The beautiful Loren with her natural acting style, and wit gives the character of Aldonza/Dulcenea the most justice any actress can give a role.

The rest of the cast, the priest, Quijana's niece, housekeeper, play the part of self centered people fooling themselves into "they're only thinking of his (Quijana/Quixote's) well being , to the infinite degree. Equally talented were the muleteers , Pedro the head muleteer was a real card.

The audience must take into consideration the fact that almost all the actors, and actresses were playing dual roles. This in an of itself is an credit to their acting abilities.

No commentary would be complete without mentioning the music. It ranks as one of my top ten soundtracks. I listen to some of the songs on an almost daily basis.

This film is superb.

That was the response of one of the Inquisition prisoners to the inquiry, "Why are you here?" "I was selling lies about one country to fools in the other country who believed me when........." The fact that O'toole can't sing for diddly is OK by me. He played the mad wise old man so wonderfully. The subtle idea that they were all imprisoned by the Inquisition manned by beasts who performed torture in the name of Jesus, who was tortured in a similar Inquisition, "Are you the Messiah?", etc. leaves you reverberating.

Just as you also sit and think about the recursive show within a show within a show that you are seeing. We were shown one other aspect of the corrupt Christian church by the priest who plots with the niece and her fiance to bring the old man back to his 'senses' so he can legally will her his property.

There are so many lines in this movie that are momentous. Just the very idea in this jaded time that there are beliefs worth dying for, worth fighting the valiant but unwinnable battle against the implacable foe for, really knocks me out!!! Was anyone EVER so innocent, so pure?

I live in a country where the president, the Supreme Court and the Congress are filled with low life liars, and yet there are Americans here who are as noble as Senor Cervantes. There is another noble character in here that I would love to see analyzed by some of you scholars: that's the innkeeper/head of the prisoners. He has the respect of the mob, is a stable figure full of common sense, but yet is wise enough to respect the noble mad knight.

And then there's the squire, Cervante's neighbor. He reminded me of my feelings toward Bill Clinton, when he answered the question, "Why do you follow this madman?" "I like him. I just LIKE him." He's crazy, he's mad, he is engaged in an unwinnable fight, but "I like him". And Sophia Loren as the Mary Magdelene figure: those mauling scenes were excellently done, because they scared me and made me fear for her safety, as the men all but rape her. Maybe the reason they didn't was similar to the excuse I heard for my great-great-grandfather's 'kindness' toward his slaves in Opp, Al.: "You don't mistreat your horses, cause you want them to be around tomorrow healthy enough to work for you."

I checked this one out from the rental store, but I will now seek to buy it, as it's one that I will re-visit from time to time as I and my country changes. Will we ever have another time in the USA when 'good' people are able to make changes, when our planet is not allowed to be despoiled by our own government? Or is that to be left to another country whose Constitution is based on freedom, yet uncorrupted?

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to shake loose the bonds of government..........." I'm afraid it's about time.

This is one of my favorite movies of all time. It saddens me that there are those out there who think this movie was horrible. How can you watch O'Toole give his speech: "Maddest of all: to see life as it is and not as it should be!" and not be brought to emotion? This movie is not exactly like the theater version. However, if you note who made the screenplay changes, the song changes, etc., it's the same men who worked on the play. There are some good songs cut out. And Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren are not the world's best singers. But this movie is brilliant. Coco is a wonderful Sancho, I love his voice and his expression. O'Toole is a fabulous actor and I felt like the prisoners in the end singing "The Impossible Dream." I own this movie. I encourage anyone who hasn't seen it to go get it and watch it. It has inspired me to try to do better in everything I do, and I often watch it and sing the songs to remind me to "see life as it should be." And if this movie needs a defender, I sign up for the job.