Since the original 138-minute 70mm version is unavailable (and is believed to have been lost or probably destroyed) and the existing 35mm version has not been released to the public, I can only comment on the bootleg 115-min DVD that is probably based on a 16mm copy. The DVD quality is totally unacceptable - blurry, pixelated, pinkish, mono, and I don't know how close it is to the original since it has a frame in the middle that shows the words "sound print" (?), but this is not the issue. I can accept a bad bootleg copy of an unreleased good movie, but this movie is BAD in any aspect.
Gershwin's original Opera is a masterpiece. True, it's long, but not too long - other films are much longer (remember Gone with the Wind?) and the full-version 1993 TV production does not have a dull moment in it. Cutting an almost full hour from the Opera could perhaps have been justified, but unfortunately the result is a confused "something" which is neither an Opera nor a Musical but a cacophony, as one reviewer said.
The acting in most parts is unconvincing to say the least. Some of the actors are simply not suited for their roles (Sidney Poitier as Porgy, Brock Peters as Crown, to mention a few). Others are either under-acting or, more frequently, over-acting (Sammy Davis Jr. as Sportin' Life, Dorothy Dandridge as Bess). A director could perhaps extracted some better performance from some of the actors, but unfortunately a director's hand is not evident in any part of the movie.
The singing is decent in most parts, except that there's a major discrepancy between the spoken and sung voices and language of some of the characters (especially Porgy). A closer match could have been made by more careful assignments and direction.
But the worst part by far is the cinematography and editing, or the lack of them. I've seen very many movies, and I've never seen something that bad.
The absence of a zoom lens might have been a technical limitation, although to the best of my knowledge zoom lenses for movie cameras were introduced almost 30 years before this film was made (but perhaps not for 70mm). But the lack of a zoom lens should have placed a stronger emphasis on camera placement, camera movement and editing - not the other way around.
The majority of this movie is filmed using lengthy multiple-minute shots where the camera keeps still (or pans slightly when absolutely necessary), at normal eye level, where the actors are filmed in long or three-quarter shots. Not a single close-up that I can remember (maybe I missed one or two). VERY few cuts, and quite boring ones. The whole feeling is that of a cameraman sitting in his chair in a theater and filming from there without being able to move. BORING. I can't help comparing this to Eisestein's Battleship Potemkin from 1925. Camera movements and editing have already been invented by 1959, I wish they were used in this movie.
One reservation: As I said, these comments are based on the "sound print" bootleg version which is probably the only one currently available. The original movie might have had some different editing, but this is irrelevant, something that doesn't exist can't be commented on.
If the bootleg version has even a remote resemblance to the movie, I can only congratulate the Gershween family for making sure that it disappears forever. I still gave it a vote of 2 rather than 1 because, as I said, it is based on a masterpiece.
3 out of 7 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends