The movie musical had a brief resurgence in the late 1960s due to the success of "The Sound of Music." In that film, all the right elements were there: a major star, a good story and screenplay (in fact, the screenplay was a lot better than the book written for the Broadway production), a great score, and gorgeous photography. Of course it made a fortune, saved 20th Century-Fox from ruin, and the race was on. Musicals were back 'in.' The problem was, the production units that once existed that made these musicals had long since disbanded, and it seemed like production companies had to re-learn how to make them. Even seasoned hands didn't do all that well (although Gene Kelly's "Hello Dolly" is a better film than its reputation would indicate; Streisand was still miscast). Society and music had also changed, and the old-fashioned musical often came off as a museum piece - "Finian's Rainbow" should have been filmed years before; in 1969 it came off as a relic. (Footnote: when "Hair" was finally filmed, that also came off as a souvenir from the past; what a pity it was not made when the show closed on Broadway so that it could capture the real spirit of the times). Certainly there were exceptions - "Goodbye Mr. Chips" is far better than was realized at the time, and "Star" had the misfortune of coming off as a follow-up to "The Sound of Music," even though it's aspirations were far more modest.
And so we have this perfectly professional film version of a musical that was a big hit in the sixties, with the star a Tony nominee, directed by a veteran of old Hollywood. The star is talented and charming, Julia Foster more than holds her own, Cyril Ritchard is wonderful to have. Unfortunately once you see the movie, the reasons this film is relatively little known become clear: everything is very well done, the art direction excellent, in other words the money shows. But the score is not very good, the dancing is okay, and the end result, to these eyes, is a film that I really have no interest in seeing again.
I was fourteen when this film came out, and even though I liked Tommy Steele, I didn't 'need' to see this film the way I couldn't wait to see "Patton" and "2001." Now I know why. I was saddened when it was over because all that effort just added up to nothing for me.
And so we have this perfectly professional film version of a musical that was a big hit in the sixties, with the star a Tony nominee, directed by a veteran of old Hollywood. The star is talented and charming, Julia Foster more than holds her own, Cyril Ritchard is wonderful to have. Unfortunately once you see the movie, the reasons this film is relatively little known become clear: everything is very well done, the art direction excellent, in other words the money shows. But the score is not very good, the dancing is okay, and the end result, to these eyes, is a film that I really have no interest in seeing again.
I was fourteen when this film came out, and even though I liked Tommy Steele, I didn't 'need' to see this film the way I couldn't wait to see "Patton" and "2001." Now I know why. I was saddened when it was over because all that effort just added up to nothing for me.