Skip to main content

I know, I know, we are the chosen people. But once in a while, can’t You choose someone else?

Fiddler on the Roof
(1971)

(SPOILERS) When I say the appeal of Fiddler on the Roof is all about Topol’s performance, that’s not to suggest I might not have similarly rated Zero Mostel had I first seen him as Tevye (although I’m guessing that’s unlikely). And it’s not a slight on Joseph Stein’s adaptation of his stage play, or the clutch of great songs peppering the picture, or Norman Jewison’s unobtrusive direction and Oswald Morris’ fine earthy cinematography. But Topol makes the film, in the same way F Murray Abraham is the pulse of Amadeus.

I guess I mention Abraham because both are a case of an actor singularly identified with one role, regardless of whatever else they may have done since. And both were nominated for Best Actor Oscar for that role. Abraham, of course, won, while Gene Hackman’s Popeye Doyle in The French Connection beat Topol for (other nominees were Peter Finch, Walter Matthau and George C Scott). Further, the success of William Friedkin’s film at the awards – even though Fiddler on the Roof was the year’s biggest box office hit – reflected the changing landscape of Hollywood at that point. A few years earlier, Fiddler would surely have swept the board (a few years earlier, Oliver! pretty much did). Now, it had to make do with Best Score, Best Sound and Best Cinematography (it was nominated for eight, along with The French Connection and The Last Picture Show).

Fiddler on the Roof was up against solid competition, though. Even now, four of the Best Picture nominees stand the test of time; Nicholas and Alexandra was the expensive period bomb whose devoted publicity campaign managed to win it an undeserved nomination. The French Connection and A Clockwork Orange remain most indelible, and I’d suggest The Last Picture Show might have lost some of its lustre, but Fiddler on the Roof still stands as one of the great Hollywood musicals. And that’s despite having maybe only four standout numbers (If I Were a Rich Man, Miracle of Miracles, Matchmaker, Matchmaker and Tradition).

There’s another connection to Amadeus. While that film is about a man tragically bemoaning a God who does not respond to him personally, and who has been brought to the lowest of low states through that perceived neglect, Fiddler on the Roof concerns a man cheerfully, irrepressibly bemoaning a God who does not respond to him personally, and yet who soldiers on despite it all. Topol’s bear of a father and husband is outwardly temperamental and combustible, but has a heart of gold, one that melts when each of his daughters successively buck tradition in one way or another: arranged marriages, failing to ask his permission to marry, marrying a gentile. Even in the latter case, the worst of the worst, he’s unable to maintain an unbending line.

And Topol, then thirty-five but playing twenty years older, is so effortless in his intimacy with the viewer, it’s no chore to spend three hours with him. His misapplication of Bible verse, attempts to maintain his patriarchal authority and little chats with God are warm and witty, as are his asides of contemplation as he ponders the ins and outs of each new attack on his preserved values; one of Jewison’s few directorial flourishes is to give Topol the close up, the subject of his thoughts suddenly set in the far distance.

The intermission is notably placed at the musical’s downturn in tone, from feisty and upbeat to tragic displacement, as the pogroms turn out Tevye and his village. Jewison resists the urge to over sentimentalise this, though, and the dark wit that has laced the picture throughout is still in abundance (“Maybe that’s why we always wear our hats” ponders Tevye of their moving on). Fiddler on the Roof’s great skill is treading a line between thoughtfulness and the frivolity of the musical form.

There are elements here that are perhaps less than essential; the “dream” sequence never really takes flight, and while the Do You Love Me? track, as Tevye and Golde (Norma Crane) recognise that despite their arranged relationship they do love each other, is rather sweet, there’s a prevailing feeling that Golde is given insufficient time to underline their relationship.

But elsewhere, there are some very nice performances, not least Paul Mann as the wonderfully named Lazar Wolf (the butcher), who fails to forgive Tevye for reneging on the agreement to marry his eldest (and whom Tevye initially thinks he is talking to about selling a cow). Zvee Scooler plays the Rabbi – he’d pop up in Love and Death a couple of years later – Paul Michael Glaser is the Bolshevik suitor of Tevye’s second daughter Hodel (Michaele Marsh) and Tutte Lemkow, Old Gorky in The AvengersLegacy of Death, is the title character.

Fiddler on the Roof stands as one of the last gasps of the traditional Hollywood musical, thanks in part to a glut of ill-conceived bombs in the wake of the all-time-champ The Sound of Music. Unlike many, though, it concludes on a bitter-sweet note of perseverance in the face of an uncertain future. As such, it isn’t perhaps the anomaly it might at first appear when compared against the new Hollywood fare surrounding it. And Topol’s dancing is mighty.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?