Skip to main content

I’m feeling an updraft in my underpants.

Hello, Dolly!
(1969)

(SPOILERS) Well, I guess Wall•E liked it, so it must have something going for it. Although, that might be to rate Pixar’s prevailing tastes a tad too high. Hello, Dolly! has, so it says here, become one of the most enduring musical theatre hits evah in its stage form. Perhaps its appeal is all in the live experience, then, because, as a movie, it’s a bust. And not even a, bust!

The origins of Jerry Herman and Michael Stewart’s musical date back to John Oxenford’s 1835 English play A Day Well Spent, then turned into a play by Johann Nestroy and then a further play by Thornton Wilder, one he subsequently revised (after the original did diddly-squat business). Notably, Herman’s musicals have been largely resisted by Hollywood. This may have something to do with both Hello, Dolly! and Mame flopping, or it may be that, outside of a devoted and dedicated musical-theatre crowd, they’re a bit rubbish.

It’s easy to argue the tale of an eccentric middle-aged matchmaker – so not Babs’ age at the time – out to get herself hitched to not-millionaire Horace Vandergelder (you know, just like not-billionaire’s daughter Chloe Zhao), while bringing various couples together along the way, lacks that necessary distinctive flavour that prescribes a hit. But you could argue the same of many and various musicals’ elusively appealing subject matter. Certainly, I’d rather sit through this again than the bafflingly feted Funny Girl (although, if pushed not so hard, I’d sooner avoid either repeat visits).

And Hello, Dolly! wasn’t a flop. It only seems like it was, partly because its enduring rep isn’t so hot (in contrast to Funny Girl), but mainly because it cost so damn much that it nearly bankrupted Fox. Again. Since they’d been up that creek with Cleopatra’s wretched carry on less than a decade earlier. Hello, Dolly! wasn’t as expensive, but it made less dough, so the damage was proportionally greater.

Fox had bet the farm, foolishly and cluelessly, on a slew of musicals, in the hope of rekindling that The Sound of Music magic. No such luck. Doctor Dolittle (1967) was a catastrophe, with massive budget overspends on a disastrous production and mammoth amounts of merch no one wanted. It managed nine Oscar nominations, including an acrimonious Best Picture nod in a decade known for such dubious recognition of expensive follies (it won two; song and effects). Star! (1968) outright bombed, despite reteaming The Sound of Music duo of director Robert Wise and star Julie Andrews. It couldn’t even muster a Best Picture nomination (read, buy one), settling for seven noms and no wins.

Hello, Dolly! at least brought in the audiences, since – and this, again, is plausibly my blind spot with regard to Dolly and Funny Girl – Babs was a big draw, and only in her second movie at that. It was the fifth biggest movie of the US year, behind such luminaries as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider and – yes! – The Love Bug. And you can see Streisand is doing her best, attempting to drive a production that resists all her attempts to spark it into life (she later referred to accepting the role as a mistake, as she was much too young for it; Skidoo’s Carol Channing had made the lead a hit on Broadway, and I can completely see how she’d fit).

There’s a constant sense of the material marvelling in its own wit and cleverness yet failing to bring that to play energetically. This is in every sense a mechanical, calculated production, with lots of parts whirring and clicking but none of them producing a satisfying whole. Dolly’s self-belief should be much more infectious than it is, yet she seems to be operating in a vacuum. There’s zero chemistry with Walter Matthau’s Vandergelder, and if it seems like they’re acting in completely different spaces to each other, that would be because Matthau detested Streisand. Matthau’s inimitably grouchy, as you’d expect, but there’s no real pleasure from his drollery here. There’s certainly no chance you’re rooting for them to end up together. At best, you’ll shrug.

Of the rest of the cast, Louis Armstrong shares a number with Streisand, and Scatman Crothers can be briefly seen as a porter. None of the young romantics make much impression beside Michael Crawford, who previews some of his Frank Spencer mannerisms in full flourish and only later learned that director Gene Kelly had to fight to prevent his singing voice being dubbed; Matthau also reputedly stopped talking to Crawford after the latter won a bet on a horse named Dolly, so vehemently did he disdain the movie’s Dolly. Danny Lockin, who had appeared in the stage version and for whom this would be his last movie role, met an extremely unpleasant end less than a decade later.

None of the songs are very memorable. The dialogue, as mentioned, thinks a lot of itself, of the sort designed for audience participation (perhaps there should have been a canned laugh track). Ernest Lehman both furnished the screenplay and produced, and with three-for-three on the musical front (The King and I, West Side Story, The Sound of Music) he likely had good cause to feel confident in the project. Plus, the success of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, on which he first pulled double duties, may have gone to his head somewhat (subsequently, he would pull triple duties on Portnoy’s Complaint, which duly crashed and burned).

Gene Kelly likely wasn’t the ideal director either. Most of Kelly’s directorial outings had made a loss, following his early hits (On the Town and Singin’ in the Rain). He had, however, directed bedroom-farce A Guide for the Married Man with Matthau a couple of years before, which did okay. Kelly knew his way around choreography and capturing it to advantage with the camera. There’s a lovely little foot-following opening shot that suggests something more personal and intimate than the gargantuan production this will quickly become, but the big sequences escape him.

The prodiguous parade scene is emblematic of the picture’s hollow expense; the logistics may be impressive, but it adds nothing but empty dollars to Fox’s bill. I noted, however that Vandergelder may in part attribute his financial success to membership of Lodge 26, Knights of the Hudson, with whom he is marching.

Pauline Kael’s review is evidence of the Babs factor on a viewer; she readily confessed to the picture’s numerous faults but was also besotted with Streisand and worshipping at her altar, so attesting to her transformative effect on the material. I can’t see that, I’m afraid. Hello, Dolly! is far from jolly, and most definitely goes down as a grand folly.


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.

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.

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…

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.

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

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

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.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

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.