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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much