The Fantasticks

Ok, maybe it can be argued that it is simply not possible to make a decent film of this wonderful musical. But even given that, one certainly could have done a better job than this. I rate this at the bottom of the pile of stage to screen transfers along with the dreadful Bye, Bye, Birdie and Paint Your Wagon.

First, why cut "Try to Remember" (the one song that practically everyone knows) from the beginning of the picture (and trim it at the end). It establishes the whole mood of the show - calling the audience to remember back when they first fell in love and the magic of that moment. This show just opens with Bellamy sewing (?)

Then, because they wanted to make it more like a traditional movie musical, they cut the narrator - and with him went most of the wonderful dialogue much of it spoken in poetry and verse (note the absence of the speech before "Soon Its Gonna Rain"["You wonder how these things begin...]; trimmed down is the "Curious Paradox" speech the most important part being cut out; gone is Louisa's self-description that sets up "Much More" as well as Matt's intro to "Metaphor"; and most important of all the speech opening the second act is gone which explains much of what the story is about).

Gone also are all the wonderful metaphors (the whole idea behind the song of the same title)that prevade the show - the gardening metaphors are gone (hence why "Plant a Radish" was cut, though one wonders why they left in "This Plum is Too Ripe"); gone also is the metaphor of the wall (one of the most important in the show, leading to the most significant, if not most enigmatic, line in the play "Leave the wall, you must always leave the wall.")

Not surprisingly the mute is cut, but other characters are changed as well. With the narrator gone, the motive of El Gallo is unclear. Why is he doing these things? Why does he say the curious paradox speech if he is not going to explain why he hurt them (and himself)? Only the part of Henry remains fairly faithful to the original play (even Mortimer is given over to Teller as a non-speaking role). Louisa is played too simperingly sweet rather than as a self-absorbed teenage girl fascinated more with the idea of being in love than actually loving Matt. Her transition at the end (from "I am love" originally in Metaphor to "You are love" at the reprise) makes no sense in this version.

Yes, most of the songs are there. But they are often trimmed down, replaced with safer songs (like the absolutely horrible "Abductions" replacing the clever "It Depends on What you Pay) or the lyrics are completely rewritten("Metaphor"). I know the arguments for replacing "Depends", but I have directed the show twice and played El Gallo once and have not ever heard a complaint about the song - you simply have to introduce it correctly.

One wonders why they even decided to film this show if they were going to change it so much. I believe a fairly decent film might have been made if they had stayed with what they had. Instead they decided to go Hollywood with it and the result is nothing like the original story. No wonder it stayed in the can for 6 years before being released. It probably should have stayed there. One big disappointment.

As I am reading the comments here I am finding that they are just as I has thought. Some are voraciously against this adaptation, these all seem to be those that are purists of the original stage play. Some are rabidly in love with it, these are primarily families and those that love Joey (sorry, Joe) McIntyre. But the majority, of which I include myself, simply like it.

I watched this with an open mind since I love the original play and had to watch it a second time to really see how I felt about it. Some of the modifications are admittedly baffling, such as the rewrite of "Metaphor", but by no means really detract that much from the original. If there is one thing you can see from this production it is that Hollywood does not know how to deal with a musical anymore. They all panic about marketability and political correctness which can ruin a great show. That being said, I still really enjoyed this production. The addition of the Carnival allowed for a fanciful feel while still grounding the main characters in reality. The character of El Gallo is allowed more freedom to orchestrate the romance between Louisa and Matt by taking a theatre convention of the omniscient observer and applying it to a film. We in the theatre are used to seeing a character come on and off stage, setting scenes and so forth, yet it is a convention rarely used in film but can be done far more effectively since the character does not have to worry about getting set pieces on and off and can simply be a mystical figure. The performances are wonderful, though Joel Grey is woefully underused. Jean Kelly is fabulous as she always is (Uncle Buck, Mr. Holland's Opus). Joe McIntyre is not the greatest actor but his lack of skill adds to the awkwardness of Matt that is revealed once reality sets in. Jonathon Morris is a fabulous El Gallo, much more charming and witty than some of the "salesman-like" El Gallo's I have seen. All in all the things that differ from the original play do not detract from the film itself. All they do is differ from the play. Would that this filmed production were done on stage it would be a mere shadow of the original stage version, but that is why this is a movie and that is a play.

I am a big musical fan. As a high school choir teacher, I require my students to watch them. I won't be requiring them to watch this.

Another comment on this forum said that the negatively opinionated people should cut the movie version some slack as there are always differences with a screenplay. True, but most of the screenplay versions have become classics in their own right--and for good reason. That reason being that the screenplay itself is an excellent adaptation and it is quality work. Not so with this disappointing movie.

This movie had great potential with a good cast. I think that Jean Louisa Kelly was the bright spot, quite good actually, and the actor who portrayed El Gallo was the low spot.

Ironically, the movie was like the story. Once Matt and Louisa had the freedom to see each other and empowered to make their relationship and fantasies materialize from abstract to concrete, the magic was gone. I felt the magic of the play was gone because much of what was the magic of our imagination and imagery gave way to too many concrete images on screen via sets, props, and what not. It simply didn't work.

I remember the intimacy of doing this play in high school. I was not on stage, but I was one of the "pit" musicians. We did it in 3/4 in the round. The theater seated 70 people. The cast interacted with the pit and the audience. It was simply charming. It was magical. Not so with this movie.

Like others, big question marks entered my head with the script. I kept saying to myself several times during the viewing, "I don't remember this," or "I thought something else happened (or was said)."

No, I'm not going to cut this some slack just because a movie version is going to differ from the staged version. We own most of the movie versions of various musicals and we watch them and re-watch them and re-watch them again and again. Why? Because they're great. This one?....Well, I'm glad we rented it.

Go see the real thing. On a stage.

I think the defining moment of "The Fantasticks" is the presentation of the song, "It Depends on What You Pay." In this film, that title is the only line from the original song that makes it into the film. That's because an alternate title of the original song is "Rape," the word being defined in the musical as "abduction," not the darker meaning. That explanation, curiously, remains in the film, but the other lyrics, describing different kinds of "rapes" are excluded. The exclusion of those lyrics is not surprising--what seemed only risque in 1960 now seems not only politically incorrect but surprisingly callous and insensitive. The fact, however, that one song from a 1960 Off-Broadway musical cannot fit into a 1995 movie, doesn't necessary mean the rest of the musical can.

Much of what was classic in the past no longer fits into contemporary thought. Updating, however, cannot necessarily preserve what made it into a classic in the first place, and it is not just "It Depends on What You Pay" that's been updated.

Speaking of the original "Fantasticks" as a whole, the score is something I fell in love with 34 years ago. The simplicity of it--scored basically for harp and piano--was a revelation compared to overscored Broadway shows. It also accentuated the music's occasional harmonic surprises, which seem to look forward to Stephen Sondheim. More than this, the minimalist staging--no real sets or props--also was very foward-looking, and assisted in making more timeless what might now seem like a very timebound story. I think the fact the original play has run non-stop for 41 years verifies this.

All this is lacking in the film. Jonathan Tunick's updated orchestrations are good, but they blunt the impact of the score. In place of a bare bones stage, we now see location shooting and a huge carnival set. Other songs are abridged, and dialogue omitted. Maybe this had to be done to adapt the musical into something that didn't seem just a filmed stage event and adapt it for modern audiences, but it isn't really "The Fantasticks" anymore, and it shows on the screen. The film comes off hopelessly hokey and contrived. Worse, it comes off as the very thing I believe I remember Luisa asks God not to make her in the play's introduction to "Just Once": ordinary.

Perhaps this is a film that should never have been attempted. And perhaps someone will have the foresight to release the 1960's TV version on video soon.

Let's get the usual remarks out of the way:

1. I saw "The Fantasticks" on Sullivan Street. 2. I've played Hucklebee. 3. I love the show.

The movie was OK. Not special; but OK. This will seem egotistical, but it's not: John Corona & I were SO much better than Joel Grey and Brad Sullivan, and that's on a community theatre level. It's not that we were brilliant, but Brad Sullivan was so completely god-awful that Joel Grey (who at least is competent) was completely sandbagged. Why in the name of David Merrick would you cast someone in a major musical part who can't carry a tune in a bucket? I lamented that "Plant a Radish" was cut from the movie until I saw it as a DVD extra. "Oh. That's why they cut it. The singing sucks."

The young lovers were OK. Jonathon Morris acted wonderfully as El Gallo, danced well... and his singing was OK but breathy. None of the power associated with the role.

The best ones in the movie were Barnard Hughes as Henry & Teller as Mortimer... so of course their parts were heavily trimmed, prompting the heading on this review. Apparently when Francis Ford Coppola was editing the movie, he was shocked and aghast at Teller speaking. Teller is now silent in the film.

Some of the changes from play to film are clever, and there is some beautiful photography. But in a musical, without the voices you're sunk.