In the sixteenth century, Miguel de Cervantes, poet, playwright, and part-time actor, has been arrested, together with his manservant, by the Spanish Inquisition. They are accused of presenting an entertainment offensive to the Inquisition. Inside the huge dungeon into which they have been cast, the other prisoners gang up on Cervantes and his manservant, and begin a mock trial, with the intention of stealing or burning his possessions. Cervantes wishes to desperately save a manuscript he carries with him and stages, with costumes, makeup, and the participation of the other prisoners, an unusual defense--the story of Don Quixote.
Similar titles
Reviews
Many decry the dubbing of voices but this is not Oklahoma or the Sound of Music. This is Don Quixote. The presentation has been changed and though shortened, the story is the same. An aged man of some means, who believes in honor, courage and love. He has lived this way in the hope others would emulate him. Near the end of his time his studies show him he will only find the life he desires in fiction. He determines to become part of that fiction, so much does reality depress him. Astride a magnificent stallion, resplendent in armor; he seeks the monsters that inhabit the universe. He must do something to make a change. To find the core of evil and destroy it, so life will be more humane for all. This is his quest. I don't think anybody can do desperate better than Peter O'Toole. I don't think I've seen Sophia Loren earthier. Their lack of singing skills should have no matter. This is a story punctuated with the emotion of song; not reliant on it. Check it out.
There isn't much I can add to the many excellent reviews on this site. I thought the acting was superb across the whole cast. The singing by O'Toole and Loren obviously wasn't what you would expect from professional singing voices, but it was much better than I would have expected, and I thought it was wonderful that these fine actors were allowed to use their own voices in the film. O'Toole was beyond excellent as both a younger and older man as was Sophia Loren who fit the part perfectly, and she was breathtaking to look at in her every scene. I read that many people believe this is greatest novel ever written. The movie gives many who wouldn't begin to tackle the huge 1000+ page volume access to this wonderful story. While several of the songs are less than memorable, each performance of "Impossible Dream" in this film is very moving and alone are worth seeing the movie. The wonderful message here about a positive, idealistic outlook to life and the power of dreams makes "Man of La Mancha" a remarkable story - and, in my humble opinion, a truly great movie.
Along with the plaudits and praise, MAN OF LA MANCHA is getting a lot of bad reviews here. The reason is clear.If you look at ANY work written for the stage that was transformed into a film, you're going to see exactly the same sort of wildly divergent opinions listed.IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES. TO THOSE WHO SAW A LIVE STAGE PERFORMANCE, NO CINEMATIC VERSION WILL EVER COMPARE FAVORABLY! At the same time... for those who never saw the work on stage, the film can and WILL stand on it's own merits.I'm of the generation that saw and emotionally connected with HAIR, and remember live performances well.HAIR was interactive. In the opening number, "Aquarius", the cast literally converged on the stage from all parts of the audience and theater.During the first act, protesters in the audience (actually cast members) disrupted the flow of the performance and interacted.In the closing number (FLESH FAILURES / LET THE SUNSHINE), the cast literally returned to it's origin, leaving the stage and mixing in with the audience.Over time, even the script itself evolved; periodically the worldwide casts received mimeographed sheets of changes to the script (sometimes, MAJOR changes to the story line).How could a movie version of HAIR ever hope to compare favorably with that? A film HAS to look inadequate by comparison, because we're looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the particular MEDIA EMPLOYED, and not the productions themselves.By comparison... the film version of HAIR looks pale and amateurish when placed beside the stage version. But in and of itself, the film isn't a bad representation of the script.Film versions of Broadway productions DO serve a valid and valuable purpose tho.Not every kid grows up in an urban area like New York City. Millions of youngsters never have the chance to attend a live symphony concert, an opera, or a Broadway play.A film or video version of a play can expose them great literature.I once saw a classroom full of high school freshmen in the north woods of extreme northern Wisconsin who were absolutely captivated and fascinated by a videotaped production of Thornton Wilder's OUR TOWN. I've seen live stage productions of it many times, and the video struck me as not nearly on a par with any of them... but these kids hadn't. The nearest theatrical company was over 300 miles away, so it was all new and unique to them.Maybe that videotape will, sometime down the road, inspire them to actually attend a live performance.MAN OF LA MANCHA has to be viewed in that same context. Take it for what it is... film making. Comparison with the Broadway stage is unfair and unproductive.
Judging from the reviews here there are obviously two camps the reviews fall into- people who saw some production of the play on Broadway(as I did) and those who have not. The people who have are admittedly a little harsh on the film- i myself would never have actually watched more than twenty minutes of it had I not been recently been laid up for a week and a half in the hospital. I watched it to try and remember what it was about the story that I loved so much when I was young impressionable boy. While the film did allow me to recall what it was that grabbed me so long ago- it has a gigantic obvious flaw. I always felt that of all the musicals that benefited from the immediacy of the theater-La Mancha was at the top of my list. It was magical and otherworldly and yet I suspended my disbelief readily and was swept away by the story and songs. The films big flaw, to me, is that it's "flat" and never really comes alive- I can live with bad-dubbed singing or miscast performers- but a flat LaMancha makes for a hard recommend. The question then becomes: Is it better for someone not to ever see it at all if this is their only alternative? Very tough call. It might be best to wait for a new production- it depends on if you're the kind of person who can have an inferior production ruin a better one that awaits down the road. The people who have never seen this done well on stage don't know what they're missing- sadly. But it's not as tragic as Camelot the film with Richard Harris as compared to Camelot on-stage with Richard Burton- when I think of it I could actually weep- there is no way to rescue the play without him. Lamancha is a play best seen in person, I think.
