Le chanteur de jazz

I try to go into a movie uncolored with opinions, and thankfully hadn't heard any negative reviews on this one prior to seeing it for the first time in 1980. That allowed me to view it with an open mind.

The score is superb. It's what makes the movie what it is. The songs fit the mood in every scene, and are all well-placed. The acting, while not the best I've ever seen, isn't nearly as bad as made out to be by critics. Let's face it. Neil Diamond is not an actor. He is a singer, a performer. In this movie he does that very well. And yet, he manages to pull off his character, Yussel Rabinovich, without a hitch. His scenes with Sir Lawrence Olivier are touching and believable. They are indeed a good match as father and son cantors. But for Yussel, his heritage isn't enough. His music roots drive him, and that's what he sets out to discover. Against the will of his father, and over the protest of his wife Rivka, he leaves his home in New York for L.A. and seeks his destiny.

Lucie Arnaz turns in a good performance as Molly Bell, a "retired" music promoter who sees potential in Yussel and takes him under her wing. What follows is a tug-of-war, a battle of values---old and new---as Neil's character, now Jess Robin, climbs the charts professionally, yet never really forgets where he came from.

Watching Neil perform in this movie is like seeing one of his concerts. He's all-show, and not a bit shy. When he picks up a guitar, you know you're in for a treat, and he does music as only he can. It's a great story, well-told and, on the whole, well-acted. Neil gives emotions where called for. But in this movie, the music's the star. That's where Neil really delivers.

I like to see remakes, because in many cases you experience two films at once: the film you are watching of course, and the one you recall. Usually that prior one is pretty good. In this case, it IS pretty good, and historically important too.

It was the first popular talkie, and not all talkie either. It was pretty amazing in depicting New York Jewry in a way gathered from the reality of the era, and on that score alone is fascinating. It was perhaps overly melodramatic, but suitably severe. And its "message" though simple wasn't quite dumb: that "jazz" music can be sacred work if delivered so. Along the way, we got (still!) entertaining songs.

Now this. I do not know what prompted the remake. It seems that they simply had Neil Diamond and saw a fit. He is Jewish. He has a fantastic portfolio of songs, some of which seem written for the project, and he is at least a credible actor. So they tromped through the old script, modernizing as they went. They shifted the focus to the music and the self- discovery of the musician. The rift with the father is recast as upset over sex rather than jazz, something I think is a big mistake.

And the script and production values (other than the songs) is horrible, Laurence Olivier embarrasses himself and us all every thing he speaks with some sort of faux stage accent. he is truly dreadful. Everyone is, save one, but he is the worst. The only good actor is on screen only a few times: he is the booker, played by Sully Boyar, and every time he shows up to speak, the sun shines. Doesn't kill the mold though.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Okay... all these submissions below? Ignore them. Here's the real scoop.

The biggest problem most folks have with this film is that they're comparing the two male leads' acting ability. BIG MISTAKE.

One is Neil Diamond-- one of the greatest singers of all time. The other is Sir Laurence Olivier-- one of the greatest ACTORS of all time. Think of it this way: if Sir Larry accompanied Neil in a recording of "Cherry, Cherry"-- people would rave about Neil's performance, but then spend an hour going on about how much Olivier sucks.

The fact is this: neither of them suck. Everything is great! Neil Diamond is a fine actor. (Not an AMAZING actor, mind you... but a fine actor.) He'd even beaten out Dustin Hoffman for the role of Lenny Bruce in "Lenny", but turned it down... leaving the door open for Hoffman.

I made the mistake of reading all of the below jeers and whines about Neil Diamond's "terrible acting performance" in this movie. I then watched it over at my girlfriend's house with very low expectations. But I was very impressed, and greatly enjoyed the film. Granted, there are some times when Neil's performance isn't exactly as dramatic as it should be... (i.e., when his father shrieks "I HAVE NO SON!!", Neil doesn't exactly seem to be heartbroken.) But then, there are times when he manifests a great deal of emotional power... especially in the scenes where he gets angry.

Okay, so I'm a huge Neil Diamond fan, yes. I love his music, and I think it's cool that he's had a lead in a major motion picture. BUT-- from an acting perspective, he has my respect. From one actor to another. (YES, I consider him an "actor" too... and so does the IMDb.)

I only have two complaints: one is that this is the only movie he's been in until Saving Silverman-- where he had just a cameo. That sucks. I want to see Neil in more movies.

The other complaint is what everyone else doesn't like: "The Jazz Singer". AL JOLSON sung Jazz. NEIL DIAMOND sings Pop. Soooooo... couldn't it have been called "The Pop Singer", and had an addition in the credits that read, "Based on 'The Jazz Singer' by Al Jolson" or something?

Anyway... the music is great, (even "Love on the Rocks"-- and I'm not a big ballad fan... as they depress me. But I can't dislike a Neil song.) the movie is a great story, and the acting is FINE. Watch it. If you're a fan of Neil's, or even just a fan of 20+ year old movies that have good stories.... check out "The Jazz Singer".



--and by the way.... neil diamond rules. thank you.

A Jewish man, Yussel Rabinovitch, seems destined for a life in the synagogue. Every generation of Rabinovitches for five generations has served in the synagogue and his father can't imagine any other path for him. However, Rabinovitch would prefer to be a singer and gets finds success writing and playing secular music. When this leads to a recording contract he has to choose between his passion and tradition, a choice that will alienate him from his father.

The original The Jazz Singer was released in 1927 and starred the legendary Al Jolson in the lead role. It told roughly the same story and was an historic movie in that it featured the first ever audible words uttered on film. (For the next Trivia evening, those words were "Wait a minute, wait a minute. You ain't heard nothin' yet!"). The story itself was rather dry, predictable and trite - it is only really watchable for the history attached to it.

This, the 1980 version, updates the story and casts Neil Diamond, at the height of his powers and fame, in the lead role. The story remains fairly basic, however - there's nothing too profound, original or engaging about it.

However, what makes the movie is the music. Neil Diamond wrote the soundtrack and it includes some his greatest songs. These get a lot of airtime, in one form or another. More than just good in isolation, the music gives the film energy. The minutes seem to fly by due to the music.

Not a must-see, but certainly not dull.

I love Neil Diamond. I had always heard of this film, but never knew what it was about, what type of reviews it got... anything. So I Netflixed it this weekend, and I loved it. There were even times where I got choked up in parts.

So I came on here, saw the negative overall reviews, and was SHOCKED when I learned Neil won the Razzie Award for Worst Actor for this. I thought he did a very fine job. The story unfolded very nicely, the love story was genuine... I would say this film was even better than the "music" genre film Dreamgirls.

Sure it had it's glitches here and there, but for the most part I was very pleased.