The Fantasticks

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.

The pluses for this are terrific art and production design which is beautifully displayed by the cinematography of Fred Murphy but pretty pictures only go so far. The piece's other strong suit is a fine score with many lovely songs however they are compromised by being given to the two leads who have thin reedy voices without distinction or subtlety and the tunes suffer because of it. The score was a favorite of the young Barbra Streisand and she recorded several of the numbers, listen to her versions of Much More, Soon It's Gonna Rain and particularly I Can See It and you'll understand what has been lost in the pallid interpretations offered here. Alas it is of no help that the same romantic leads share zero chemistry on screen with McIntyre practically disappearing from the screen, so bland is his presence. The best work is turned in by Brad Sullivan and Joel Grey but their parts are small and Grey is especially wasted. Catch the live show instead.

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 was the focus puller on the film and quite frankly, if you go to most theaters today, you'll see A LOT worse. Let's take it out of the box and hear all of Harvey and Tom's great music and let's relish in the tremendous images of Fred Murphy, ASC.

So far, I have seen more than five stage productions of "the Fantasticks" including one at the Sullivan Street Playhouse back in 1962; and I am going to see another one at the Snapple Theater Center (Jerry Orbach Theater) in New York. Yes, folks, as of this date "The Fantasticks" is still playing. There was a short interim when the Sullivan Street Playhouse was torn down to make way for a high rise in 2002.

Most of the reviews of the movie are indicative of two views. If one hasn't seen "The Fantasticks" on stage or heard the original score in its entirety, the movie "ain't" that bad. However, after more than 50 years running, and after thousands of international and summer stock productions, the play has had a lot of critically biased audience when they view the film. It might have been better if the makers of the movie had just filmed a stage production. The results might have been the least expensive and longest running film ever produced.