MovieChat Forums > Something for Everyone (1971) Discussion > The Butler Did It...to Everyone

The Butler Did It...to Everyone


Having first seen and loved "Something for Everyone" upon its original 1970 release, I had occasion to re-watch it only last night in a version taped from an old TV showing -- five minutes short and pan-and-scan, of course -- and was disappointed that neither my memory nor the film held up. Despite hefty credits such as Hugh Wheeler's dry script and Walter Lasally's stately photography, it's directed by Hal Prince with a heavy hand that crushes its humor, so much so that Ralph Rosenblum had to be called in to "save" it in editing. (Rosenblum was a famous fixer in the 70s, having been called in on "Take the Money and Run," "A Thousand Clowns," " "The Producers" and other films by first-time directors whose producers felt the footage needed a pace imposed on it in post-production). While "SFE" was considered daring at the time, it only repeated the screen image of homosexuals (here a bisexual) as stylish, opportunistic, murdering connivers. Compare this with Pasolini's "Teorama" (1968) where the hero uses bisexuality for an apotheosis. All right, all right, it's unfair to hold a 38-year-old film to narrative standards that have changed. But if one compares it to "Cabaret," made only two years later with the same producer, the same writer, the same composer, the same star, the same location, and some of the same themes, one can see how opportunities were squandered. Taken with Harold Prince's other film, "A Little Night Music," one notes that his directorial skills are best seen on the boards, not on the screen.

reply

I'm not sure if the term "bisexual" adequately describes Konrad; he's whatever the situation requires him to be. This guy would romance a Scotch Tape dispenser if necessary - or maybe Quintor and Quintos...

Sometimes I think Konrad has no definite sexuality; he's a blank page waiting to be written on.

reply

I agree; he's the type of character for which the term "pansexual" would be appropriate i.e. he'd seduce anyone or anything, given the right circumstances.

reply

Not to be obnoxious, but Cabaret didn't have the same author (neither the source novel or writing, nor the Prince stage version, nor the Fosse film were done by Hugh Wheeler or Harry Kressing). If I was really obnoxious I'd mention Cabaret was filmed in Germany, this was filmed in Austria ;)

I get your point, but I enjoyed it on its own merits (of course I had virtually no expectations). I have to say the opportunistic, more or less villainous gay/bisexual character doesn't really bother me even though I'm aware that it was a movie (and literary) cliche especially back then. On its own terms the movie works, for me.

reply

The OP states that Ralph Rosenblum had to be called in to "save" the film in the editing. Rosenblum, indeed, was the editor on Something For Everyone, and he discussed the project in his book When The Shooting Stops...The Cutting Begins. Rosenblum liked the film and made a few suggestions that he felt would help Hal Prince, but the novice film director ignored his suggestions, so Rosenblum simply cut the film as instructed. However, Something For Everyone's failure at the box office surprised Rosenblum, because he still considered it a good film.

I didn't have much admiration for Hal Prince's direction of the A Little Night Music film, but I though he did a surprisingly good job on Something For Everyone.

reply

neither the source novel or writing, nor the Prince stage version, nor the Fosse film were done by Hugh Wheeler or Harry Kressing).
Hugh Wheeler did indeed have a hand in rewriting Jay Presson Allen's script for Cabaret but was billed merely as "research consultant."

In any case, I am practically alone in preferring Something for Everyone over Cabaret, in spite of the former's occasional clumsiness and heavy-handedness.

In his book, Ralph Rosenblum tends to paint himself as the savior and hero of every film he touches, and writes with disdain about the directors who don't sufficiently value his collaboration. I have trouble buying this version of the facts, especially since the only directing job of his I have seen, his 1980 television adaptation of Thurber's The Greatest Man in the World, is a woeful disaster.



"I don't seem able to strike the congenial note."

reply

Well, Konrad used everybody, in particular poor Helmuth, and may have been situationally gay to his own advantage. Helmuth IS gay, as clearly he was besotted with Konrad from frame one in this film (and Anthony Higgins's acting was sublime). So, his gay character, manipulated into a sham marriage by both love object and mother, robbed of said love object by mother and sister, was totally devoid of any nefarious secret purpose, and so was a positive gay character. Unless being naive and "tame as a kitten" as Konrad put it, could be a negative.

Am I anywhere near the imaginary cliff?

reply