SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

aramis-112-804880 "Man of La Mancha" is the story of the boring classic DON QUIXOTE, heavily truncated. It take place in two venues. First, in a dungeon where QUIXOTE author Miguel Cervantes is immured with a bunch of criminals and oddballs; and then on the Spanish plains in Don Quixote's adventures. Peter O'Toole plays both the author and his creation."Man of La Mancha" the movie (as opposed to the original musical, which I have not seen) has a lot going for it.First of all, it has a phenomenal cast. Supporting stars Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren are solid standby Harry Andrews, and the rising talents of Brian Blessed, Ian Richardson and John Castle.Loren, approaching 40, is mostly deglamorized, but nevertheless shows ample amounts of the impressive decolletage with which the Lord has blessed her (though Brian Blessed seems to want to rival her in the chest department). Loren may occasionally go over the top (in her acting, not her poitrine, which jiggles a lot but stays put) resembling Ginger Grant of "Gilligan's Island" in their episode "The Producer"; but she makes up for her overacting at the genuinely affecting climax.O'Toole reminds us what a gifted actor he really was with his cunning portrayal of Cervantes. He leaves all his screaming bits to Don Quixote, in his fits of madness.The movie runs the gamut of emotions from a droll humor (Don Quixote's battle with the windmill is genuinely amusing, though not funny) to heart-string plucking end.The real problem with this movie is, it's based on a stage musical. That means it has songs. A few are good, some aren't; but "Man of La Mancha" produced one great song of its era, "The Impossible Dream," a ballad claimed as an anthem by folks of all political stripes.O'Toole's voice was not up to this level of singing so his warbling was dubbed by someone who unfortunately sounds too much like him (the voice might have matched O'Toole's talking voice, but what that song requires is the talent of an Ed Ames). Loren and James Coco bray along as best they can, and it's not good enough to be laughable.When you have a movie musical and the best singing is performed by a trio of Ian Richardson, Rosalie Crutchley and 1960s sexpot Julie Gregg, you know you're in trouble. (Richardson actually has quite a good voice; he'll never sing at the Met but he's a pleasant comic tenor).It's the songs that sink "Man of La Mancha." The best movie musicals, like Academy Award winners "The Sound of Music," "My Fair Lady," and "Oliver!" have one great, toe-tapping tune after another. This movie has a sprinkling of good songs, one great song, and a lot of tedium in between. Apparently one early director hired, and fired, for "Man of La Mancha" wanted to eliminate most of the songs altogether. Good idea.Movie musicals were on their way out by 1972, so "Man of La Mancha" was something of a dinosaur even when it filled the screens with Loren's chest. I'm sorry to say it hasn't improved with age like a good wine or a good cheese. But the acting is mostly above par, if the singing isn't.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU The film is of course a pure creation and it is built on three layers, all of them fictitious, more or less, but always a little or a lot according to what you know or think of Cervantes and Don Quixote. First Cervantes, then Alonso Quijano and finally Don Quixote. The first one is the author. The second one is the real identity of the character. The third one is his imaginary identity in his knight errant fantasy and delusion.The film centers on Cervantes, a playwright and actor who performs in the market place. His plays are satirical and hence attack directly or indirectly the all-powerful church in Spain. It is true Cervantes was excommunicated by the inquisition, but here he is arrested, imprisoned in an underground dungeon and finally summoned for his trial and we will never know the end of it, though we know he was not executed, far from it.Then the film puts him on trial in the vast dungeon where he is imprisoned by the people in the dungeon, under the authority of the one who was appointed governor of this underground society by the inhabitants of this netherland. To defend himself he gets the right to perform his Don Quixote story, whose manuscript got nearly burnt. He uses his props and masks and all the people in the dungeon take part. It is thus a description of the life in such a prison and of a play that is acted in good faith and with fun by the prisoners as an entertainment. Think or dream of an entertainment in such a miserable environment where you do not see the light of day and where anyone can be summoned for trial, which means questioning (I guess this is a nice word for torturing) and then sentencing and executing.If the play is performed in the prison, the camera takes us in real outside décor and setting and we get the Don Quixote story in the real imaginary world of Cervantes. And we get everything, the giant windmills, the horse Rocinante, the whore Dulcinea, and many other niceties of that kind draped in some fantasy or delusion by Don Quixote. That world is cruel, cruel with women first of all, cruel with people who are not "normal" then, those who seem to be slightly "crazy" or "corrugated" if not plainly "deranged suckers." Violence is the basic condiment of this life and for women it is rape, which is not rape really in those days, just using the woman the way she is supposed to exist for. Willing or not is not a question in those days and love is nothing but sex at the request of the man and no is not a possible answer from the woman. Like it or not, that's your function. The film is not fuzzy about it.And yet that makes Don Quixote really crazy who lives in a world of chivalry that has been long gone in the sixteenth century, a world of chivalric and courteous love that has never really existed, except as a dream in the minds of some medieval poets, a world of honor, glory and enchanters, hence of some kind of magic that has never had the slightest beginning of an existence or reality. But we evade these two worlds into the real world of the fictional character Alonso Quijano who is dying. He is on his death bed totally unaware of his fantastic adventures when his servant Sancho and the inn maid from the local inn come to visit him and try to revive his delusion to lead him to a pleasurable death. And little by little his memory comes back and he dies singing the song about reaching the unreachable star, as if dying was the surest way to do so, but it sure is a pleasant way to die for Don Quixote, or is it Alonso Quijano? The last and fascinating aspect of the film I want to mention is the music and the songs. They are absolutely mesmerizing and they are worth a fortune of pleasure. We can understand why Jacques Brel recorded the score in its French adaptation. There is no difference between, that Don Quixote and so many of the characters in Jacques Brel's songs, Jacky, Jef and innumerable other Caporal Casse Pompon. It is a true testament about real true voracious life fantasized by a truly insane person who believes a world that was a dream in the Middle Ages is possible in today's global village. The film here works on that dimension so well that there is no hope of any salvation in this universe, nor in any other post mortem cosmos except dying singing about a dreamlike Never- never-land with a Captain Hook and a Tinkerbell in the childish mind of Peter Pan. "I could pretend I'm flying away."Well done but not quite for younger children.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Gavno Along with the plaudits and praise, MAN OF LA MANCHA is getting a lot of bad reviews here. The reason is clear.If you look at ANY work written for the stage that was transformed into a film, you're going to see exactly the same sort of wildly divergent opinions listed.IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES. TO THOSE WHO SAW A LIVE STAGE PERFORMANCE, NO CINEMATIC VERSION WILL EVER COMPARE FAVORABLY! At the same time... for those who never saw the work on stage, the film can and WILL stand on it's own merits.I'm of the generation that saw and emotionally connected with HAIR, and remember live performances well.HAIR was interactive. In the opening number, "Aquarius", the cast literally converged on the stage from all parts of the audience and theater.During the first act, protesters in the audience (actually cast members) disrupted the flow of the performance and interacted.In the closing number (FLESH FAILURES / LET THE SUNSHINE), the cast literally returned to it's origin, leaving the stage and mixing in with the audience.Over time, even the script itself evolved; periodically the worldwide casts received mimeographed sheets of changes to the script (sometimes, MAJOR changes to the story line).How could a movie version of HAIR ever hope to compare favorably with that? A film HAS to look inadequate by comparison, because we're looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the particular MEDIA EMPLOYED, and not the productions themselves.By comparison... the film version of HAIR looks pale and amateurish when placed beside the stage version. But in and of itself, the film isn't a bad representation of the script.Film versions of Broadway productions DO serve a valid and valuable purpose tho.Not every kid grows up in an urban area like New York City. Millions of youngsters never have the chance to attend a live symphony concert, an opera, or a Broadway play.A film or video version of a play can expose them great literature.I once saw a classroom full of high school freshmen in the north woods of extreme northern Wisconsin who were absolutely captivated and fascinated by a videotaped production of Thornton Wilder's OUR TOWN. I've seen live stage productions of it many times, and the video struck me as not nearly on a par with any of them... but these kids hadn't. The nearest theatrical company was over 300 miles away, so it was all new and unique to them.Maybe that videotape will, sometime down the road, inspire them to actually attend a live performance.MAN OF LA MANCHA has to be viewed in that same context. Take it for what it is... film making. Comparison with the Broadway stage is unfair and unproductive.

BMWGriffith The material of Man of La Mancha is so perfect, not even bland direction and poorly staged musical numbers can ruin it. It remains completely watchable and entertaining.What peeves me is much of Aldonza's songs have been cut. Sophia Loren did well with the songs and she should have been allowed to sing the entire songs.Overall, this movie musical lacks the charm and sparkle of the big musicals that preceded it. It failed to match the box office success of Fiddler on the Roof (over 80 million dollars in grosses), Hello, Dolly! (38 million) and Camelot (over 35 million).While three musicals won several Oscar nominations, Man of La Mancha won just a couple. Yet I'm glad there's a film version of Man of Lamancha and this version, while not perfect is quite acceptable and far from the disaster critics say it is.