MovieChat Forums > Man of La Mancha (1973) Discussion > Is the play really much better than the ...

Is the play really much better than the movie?

posted 9 years ago by don-lockwood
4 replies | jump to latest

I'm watching the film for the first time now and struggling through it. On the one hand, I don't see why some critics think it's a total bomb. On the other hand, it's a tough slog. The story-within-a-story is stupid and nonsensical. Peter O'Toole, whom I normally love, is in The Ruling Class overacting mode here, bellowing every ridiculous line. And I'm finding the music really bland and unpleasant, and only part of that can be attributed to the actors, right? Obviously "The Impossible Dream" is considered the great song here, and I haven't come to it. "Dulcinea" was pleasant. John Castle is legitimately good in a role that's pretty thankless and reactionary so far, and now the always colorful Gino Conforti is adding some spark.

So I ask those of you who know the source material well, is it really any better? I think a lot of Broadway productions may be overrated and acquired tastes. For example, NINE was a mediocre film with a great cast and multiple good performances, but other than recasting Daniel Day-Lewis, I'm not sure there was much more they could have done to make that a better movie with that weak musical score and drawn-out story. Similarly, would LA MANCHA really be a classic with this music and story?

[–] whitelion43 9 years ago

I also just saw it for the first time and although I can not answer your question, I can say I agree it's mostly ok but the last like 10 minutes it knocks it out of the ball park. I do like the story within the story aspect of it the musical highlight is "Impossible dream" with the rest of the music ok but not bad a 6/10 movie

Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw

[–] don-lockwood 9 years ago

I'm not enjoying it as much as you. The production is pretty poor, though the technical credits i.e. camerawork and editing are passable. O'Toole was a magnificent actor but too hammy in this. However, he has brief, fleeting moments of understated, transcendent acting. On that note, I think Sophia Loren contributes to both some of the strongest moments and some of its weakest. The camera loves her, and she gives a very impassioned dramatic performance...but when she sings, it's wretched. On the other hand, O'Toole's dubbed singing voice isn't much better, because it sounds more like him (points for believability?) than someone who should be singing these big, operatic songs.

I searched for "I'm Only Thinking of Him" on Youtube because I thought it was a pretty bad moment in the film, and maybe I'm starting to answer my own question: a community theater production with stronger, more dynamic singers sounded better than the women in the film, especially the one who was intentionally singing poorly.

[–] whitelion43 9 years ago

you are probably right. I have seen better acting and the play may have better.. Stageing abilities too

Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw

[–] I_have_a_brain_cloud 8 years ago

Having seen the musical numerous times (long ago, original broadway cast) I can assure you--the stage play, done right, is out of this world. No slogging. One of the most mesmerizing musical and theatrical experiences of my lifetime. I eagerly anticipated the movie, but found it dull and lifeless. I'll give it another try--I haven't seen it since its original release.

I have seen the musical a couple of other times, and even with weaker productions and performances, it's a good show. With Richard Kiley and Joan Diener, it was a killer.

I'm English, and if there's anything more deplorable than our cooking, it's our lovemaking