The Fantasticks (2000) Reviews

• More Nays than Yays

  harry-762004-04-13

  People who experienced this intimate musical off-Broadway, and in local community theater productions around the country, will rightly be disappointed and even horrified by this film effort. Gone is the magic, the delight, and the imagination of a creation designed for small spaces, interaction with audiences, scant scenery and loads of beautiful melodies and poetic charm. They've taken a concept geared for a cabaret and ballooned into a huge overblown, literate production that comes off as strange and even weird. They've juxtaposed and cut great songs, and tried to make a small ensemble effort into a large Hollywood extravaganza. I agree this is one misfire that simply should have stayed on the shelf and not released--just written off as a tax loss.

  More

• The Impossible Film

  hlightstone2001-05-05

  I think the defining moment of "The Fantasticks" is the presentation of the song, "It Depends on What You Pay." In this film, that title is the only line from the original song that makes it into the film. That's because an alternate title of the original song is "Rape," the word being defined in the musical as "abduction," not the darker meaning. That explanation, curiously, remains in the film, but the other lyrics, describing different kinds of "rapes" are excluded. The exclusion of those lyrics is not surprising--what seemed only risque in 1960 now seems not only politically incorrect but surprisingly callous and insensitive. The fact, however, that one song from a 1960 Off-Broadway musical cannot fit into a 1995 movie, doesn't necessary mean the rest of the musical can. Much of what was classic in the past no longer fits into contemporary thought. Updating, however, cannot necessarily preserve what made it into a classic in the first place, and it is not just "It Depends on What You Pay" that's been updated. Speaking of the original "Fantasticks" as a whole, the score is something I fell in love with 34 years ago. The simplicity of it--scored basically for harp and piano--was a revelation compared to overscored Broadway shows. It also accentuated the music's occasional harmonic surprises, which seem to look forward to Stephen Sondheim. More than this, the minimalist staging--no real sets or props--also was very foward-looking, and assisted in making more timeless what might now seem like a very timebound story. I think the fact the original play has run non-stop for 41 years verifies this. All this is lacking in the film. Jonathan Tunick's updated orchestrations are good, but they blunt the impact of the score. In place of a bare bones stage, we now see location shooting and a huge carnival set. Other songs are abridged, and dialogue omitted. Maybe this had to be done to adapt the musical into something that didn't seem just a filmed stage event and adapt it for modern audiences, but it isn't really "The Fantasticks" anymore, and it shows on the screen. The film comes off hopelessly hokey and contrived. Worse, it comes off as the very thing I believe I remember Luisa asks God not to make her in the play's introduction to "Just Once": ordinary. Perhaps this is a film that should never have been attempted. And perhaps someone will have the foresight to release the 1960's TV version on video soon.

  More

• Very disappointing

  redvette_ragtop2003-06-24

  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.

  More

• Disappointing

  danhicks2002-09-12

  Given the resources and talent involved, one would have hoped for much more, but the movie lacks the sparkle of even a mediocre stage production. Joel Grey as Bellamy phoned in his performance. Even making allowances for the fact that he was 63 when he made the movie, his performance was remarkably lifeless and his singing was unremarkable, even strained at times. Brad Sullivan as Hucklebee was even worse, flat performing and flat singing. Joseph McIntyre as The Boy turned in a passable performance, though he didn't really do the role justice. Jean Louisa Kelley as The Girl was perhaps the brightest spot in the lineup, delivering an adequate if not inspired performance. Jonathon Morris was sadly miscast as El Gallo. He had the agility and strength needed for such a physical role, but lacked the proper menacing look needed. His acting was, if not totally flat, at least rather plastic. And the one song he needed to really carry -- "Try to Remember" -- he didn't have the voice for. The staging was the most inspired part of the movie. Simply filming the minimalistic stage production wouldn't have worked, but the movie's set -- two homes and a carnival set in the prairie -- was sufficiently minimalistic to honor the play's concept while still bending to the requirements of the big screen. This facilitated devices that helped to flesh out some of the more ambiguous scenes in the play. The script was unfortunately a Bowdlerized version. The song substituted for "The Rape Ballet" was incredibly uninspired and inconsistent. It was almost as if the writer wanted the substitute to be bad, in retaliation for pulling the original piece. In addition to "The Rape Ballet" substitution, several other songs were changed from the original, generally not for the better, and the delightful "Plant a Radish" was omitted entirely. Perhaps the saddest change of all from the stage play was that the role of The Narrator was essentially omitted, and with it some of the most enchanting poetry in the script.

  More

• As I figured...

  bbrown26762001-10-08

  As I am reading the comments here I am finding that they are just as I has thought. Some are voraciously against this adaptation, these all seem to be those that are purists of the original stage play. Some are rabidly in love with it, these are primarily families and those that love Joey (sorry, Joe) McIntyre. But the majority, of which I include myself, simply like it. I watched this with an open mind since I love the original play and had to watch it a second time to really see how I felt about it. Some of the modifications are admittedly baffling, such as the rewrite of "Metaphor", but by no means really detract that much from the original. If there is one thing you can see from this production it is that Hollywood does not know how to deal with a musical anymore. They all panic about marketability and political correctness which can ruin a great show. That being said, I still really enjoyed this production. The addition of the Carnival allowed for a fanciful feel while still grounding the main characters in reality. The character of El Gallo is allowed more freedom to orchestrate the romance between Louisa and Matt by taking a theatre convention of the omniscient observer and applying it to a film. We in the theatre are used to seeing a character come on and off stage, setting scenes and so forth, yet it is a convention rarely used in film but can be done far more effectively since the character does not have to worry about getting set pieces on and off and can simply be a mystical figure. The performances are wonderful, though Joel Grey is woefully underused. Jean Kelly is fabulous as she always is (Uncle Buck, Mr. Holland's Opus). Joe McIntyre is not the greatest actor but his lack of skill adds to the awkwardness of Matt that is revealed once reality sets in. Jonathon Morris is a fabulous El Gallo, much more charming and witty than some of the "salesman-like" El Gallo's I have seen. All in all the things that differ from the original play do not detract from the film itself. All they do is differ from the play. Would that this filmed production were done on stage it would be a mere shadow of the original stage version, but that is why this is a movie and that is a play.

  More