 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neo -
I've tried, Warner has the film but their (one) print is in rough condition and is the shorter 'general release' version. I can access a local collector's full-length Technicolor print, but Warner is difficult about us using it for a show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember the Theater 1812 showing, very well. It opened in March of 1968. It's a spectacular-looking film in Todd-AO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 28, 2008 - 10:27 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ron Pulliam
(Member)
|
This film is very often - and highly unfairly -- maligned.
It's a wonderful story line, beautifully photographed, impeccably (and memorably) acted by an extraordinary lineup of stars in what I believe to be the first such all-star cameo outing in which a story was actually being told.
The photography is superb and the music exquisitely memorable, exciting and one of the best all-around music listens ever put onto LP or CD!
I've read a lot of crap about this film that more often than not tells me the writer hasn't even bothered to watch the film. Sadly, one of those occasions was here at FSM in which the score from the remake was being reviewed. The review began with:
"The 1956 version of Around the World in 80 Days (which won the Oscar for Best Picture and was the second movie to be filmed in the Todd A-O format) is often considered overrated, since it was more about special effects than story. Now, almost 50 years later, lightning did not strike again."
That's it. Tell me the writer EVER saw the original. No mention of the original's main assets, of course. And totally clueless about the very excellent story arc. And...WHAT SPECIAL EFFECTS?
Even now, I am upset that something so uninformed got printed in a review here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, let it slide, Ron; the less your blood pressure rises to Vesuvius levels, the longer we'll have ya around. 
Oh, and get this, John: we probably crossed paths inside Theatre 1812 during its Philly engagement 'cause one of the disguises we've taken over the eons - a theatre usher - was what we were impersonating around that tyme in our cinematic infancy. Geez, and if THAT lil' piccadillo don't date us, nuthin' will!
Returning to The Rollickin' One's paramount pet peeves, we suspect one reason the film's so unjustly non-celebrated by those who've never condescended to actually see the dang (distinguished) opus is:
It's only supreme Special Effect is it's the type of joyous, unalloyed ALL AGES entertainment as disreputably extinct as when John, Jerry, Elmer and others would've wondered what the hell the concept of a "temp track" could conceivably mean.
Our flamin' loss, no damn question, Blue Eyes.
Interesting Historical Bondbit Department:
This film is also auspicious for being one of ace production designer
Ken Adam's earliest credits ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neo, I guess your services were no longer required, when I saw The Stewardesses in 3D at that exact same theater!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mother took my 2 older brothers and me to see AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS in a roadshow matinee in its first release. I would guess it was the fall of 1956, but I'm not sure about that. In any case, I'd have been either 6 or 7.
It was showing at the Nixon Theatre in Pittsburgh, where I later saw the '61 reissue of GONE WITH THE WIND, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, and the roadshow THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. The Nixon was an old legitimate theatre, which had been adapted for film showings as well. (Curiously, the weekend after the Kennedy assassination, we saw a touring company there of the show, CAMELOT.) It was located in an alley off one of the main avenues of Pittsburgh, somewhat apart from the area where most of the other movie theatres, all movie palaces to one extent or another, were fairly near each other.
Being originally built for stage shows, it was actually smaller than those other theatres; so to me it felt like something "less than." (As I recall, its theatre history went back to the late 19th century.) But it was pretty well refurbished by the mid-50's.
We all enjoyed the film immensely, though at the time I recognized hardly any of the celebrities. The whole film was viewed as something of an event. Exotic locations were very trendy in those days. Americans had won the war and now were throwing their weight around all over the planet. This was when the rest of the world began to use the phrase, "The Ugly American." Everybody was piling off to Europe and the Far East to See the Sights, and air travel made it all that much more accessible.
And there were lots of other films shot in exotic locations, too. All the early Cinerama films were travelogues of one sort or another, showing Americans strange and picturesque views of other cultures, with the implication that ours was the best, of course. And AROUND THE WORLD had that element, as well, even though it was a British-oriented story originally written by a Frenchman!
It was touted as Mike Todd's film first and foremost. It was all about showmanship and, essentially, chutzpah, a word I didn't understand then, but have had more experience with since. Michael Anderson, the director, was hardly ever mentioned. Everyone was talking about all the stars Todd had convinced to take tiny roles. It became a game to see who could get into the picture; apparently, once it became trendy, stars were actually asking to be in it..., and a lot of them were.
The original, hardbound souvenir book has little drawn cameos of each star, and their appearance in the film. Which didn't seem so important to 6-yr.-old me. But the audience enjoyed it all immensely, especially moments like when Sinatra at the piano turned around. You had seen a few shots of him fromt the back, but when he turned around the whole audience gasped. Curiously, the sheer number of cameos never gets in the way of the dramatic pace of the film, and still doesn't. Perhaps more credit should be given to Anderson, or the editor, for creating a smooth, very entertaining experience.
Audiences loved it. And that music! Victor Young's theme was being played everywhere. You really couldn't get away from that lovely melody. There were dozens of recordings available, but the one everybody had was the old soundtrack lp. (In the 1950's, there were several soundtracks you'd be likely to find in almost every home: THE KING AND I, CAROUSEL, AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, and the Broadway cast of MY FAIR LADY.)
It is really a masterful piece of entertainment, a blend of exotic locales and lovely music, a sort of light comic travelogue. I don't wonder it won the Oscar; as I recall, that year its chief competition was THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and FRIENDLY PERSUASION, though I don't remember the other two competitors, maybe LUST FOR LIFE.
But AROUND THE WORLD was so lighthearted and enjoyable, everyone had a lovely time at it. The unflappable hero wins the day against tremendous odds, and finally realizes he has a heart. And those end credits said it all.
We all loved it, with my mother particularly enjoying Beatrice Lillie as a Salvation Army lass. Lillie was a crony of Noel Coward and Gertrude Lawrence, and among the witty stage luminaries of the 20's and 30's. But my mother reeled during the balloon sequence, which she said made her dizzy. We all thought that was funny.
On a big screen with stereophonic sound, it was wonderful. I saw it several more times, and in reissue, but they were a pale imitation of that rapt audience, feeling that they were all in on the joke of the use of cameos, and aweing at all the foreign vistas. And it worked. I think I have it now on DVD more for nostalgia than for any other reason.
There would be no way to reproduce the same kind of patina to such a project nowadays, when audiences are so knowing. Imagine, a long film, with a lush score, and no profanity or murders or sex scenes! No wonder no one today likes it.
But we did.
I don't even know if the Nixon is still standing. So many others of the theatres I grew up with aren't.
And, no, we never ran into each other in Philadelphia. I only saw one film there, the roadshow reissue of BEN-HUR in the summer of 1969, and I saw that twice, on the same day, first the matinee then the evening, at the Boyd Theatre, which is now also probably a memory.
But that, as they say, is another story...
P.S.: I happened to catch the finale of SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS on TCM the other night, and as the heroine leaves her building to cross Broadway, you can not only see a sign advertising the current travelogue SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD, you can also see, diagonally across the street, the facade of the old Rivoli Theatre, long since razed, where I saw the roadshow presentations of CLEOPATRA and THE SAND PEBBLES. More memories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 29, 2008 - 2:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CH-CD
(Member)
|
It is really a masterful piece of entertainment, a blend of exotic locales and lovely music, a sort of light comic travelogue. I don't wonder it won the Oscar; as I recall, that year its chief competition was THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and FRIENDLY PERSUASION, though I don't remember the other two competitors, maybe LUST FOR LIFE.
Just for the record John, the other two Best Picture nominees in '56 were: "THE KING & I" and "GIANT"......a really BIG year for BIG pictures!
I have always thought that, if Cecil B. had given
"THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" an early 1957 release instead of rushing for a late December '56 release, that movie would have won the Best Picture Oscar in '57. Oh well..!!
I too have always loved "ATWI80D". It really was a BIG event back then, which is very hard to communicate to today's audiences.
There again, we are all a bit more blase and cynical than we were then.
I think the idea of the many famous names in cameo roles originally came from the 1951 british movie - "THE MAGIC BOX".
This was the British Film Industry's contribution to that year's Festival of Britain.
It told the story of William Friese-Greene (England's pioneer in cinematography), and featured a Who's Who of British stars in walk on roles, just as in "ATWI80D".
Take a look :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043769/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I saw THE MAGIC BOX years ago, in a screening at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, commemorating something or other. Yes, it did use the idea of famous cameos. I remember in particular a character role for Olivier as an inquiring bobby.
But it doesn't by any means have the sense of fun in ATWI80D. Actually, though it's supposed to be a trbute to British culture, I believe the use of cameos in THE MAGIC BOX, as in the later, more lamentable THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, actually detracts from the film. Being essentially a drama, a lot of the audience's attention is diverted by trying to recognize the next cameo, which gives the dramatic momentum of each film a kind of stop-and-start kind of pace. The audience is forever trying to anticipate whom they'll see next, and then trying to recognize them in character. The same thing happened in the famous Paramount 1932 ALICE IN WONDERLAND; too many stars, no pacing, no drama, nothing. Consequently, THE MAGIC BOX ends up more as a curiosity, and has been more or less forgotten.
ATWI80D, however, works precisely because it never really takes itself seriously from the beginning. Let's all play this game of spot-the-stars while we look at beautiful locales and listen to music washing all over us. Nobody's life is at stake. No one's on his way to be crucified. No one's going to be a bitter failure for the rest of his life. We're all here to have a happy journey, just like the supercilious hero, and then we get a happy ending. What more could you ask for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW!...what a beautiful theatre.
Those were the days eh?
Today's Multiplexes are from a different planet !
Those photos are indicative of the first-run movie houses. But there were many neighborhood theaters that were almost as grand. Where I grew-up, I was within walking distance of: The Midway, The Iris, The Wishart, The Belgrade, The Howard and The Kent. I spent many hours of my life at these theaters, but mostly The Kent. It cost 25 cents, and on Saturdays you got two features, cartoons and between the features, the manager "Uncle Jack" would come on stage and read ticket stub numbers. If you had one of these "lucky bucks", you got a dollar. That paid for four admissions! On Sundays, you got 3 completely different features for a quarter. This was the late 50s and 60s! I saw a remarkable amount of films during my childhood. This is a really awful photo, but it is my beloved Kent, from the stage/screen area. Notice the stadium seating of the balcony, which was also accessible from the lobby. By the way, the very first time I saw Around the World in 80 Days, was at The Kent! Although in 35MM. I still loved it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Boyd still exists, and has been saved from demolition. There is now an effort underway to get funds to restore it. Sadly, The Stanley, which was even more palatial, and every other grand movie theater of Philadephia is gone!
WOW!...what a beautiful theatre.
Those were the days eh?
Today's Multiplexes are from a different planet !
yeah, but those seats sure look uncomfortable..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides, I understand that these so-called "Stadium Seating" seats, with their tall, cushioned headrests, have been known to harbor headlice. Too many people just don't wash, then rub their heads against the theatre seat.
Something to think about...
You never had that problem in the movie palaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 31, 2008 - 12:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
.....I was in school in New York and saw AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS the week it opened. One of the great memories is the opening that introduced Todd-AO: A rocket blasts off in the center of the screen and slowly the sound and image opens to encompass seemingly half the theater. Electric, awesome,jawdropping......
You're forgetting the COMPLETE opening, Overtones!
At least the roadshow version of ATWI80D begins with Melies' very early B&W silent film, A TRIP TO THE MOON, before it moves on to the mid-'50s rocket firing and the opening of the screen to Todd-AO proportions.
It's a fascinating juxtaposition not only for the change from early ideas of travel, but for the technical advancement of films as well, from jumpy B&W silents to color, sound, and massive 70mm.
I saw this film in its roadshow form when it came out in 1956 at the famed Carthay Circle theatre in Los Angeles. I believe it was in its second year of running exclusively there in its hard-ticket engagement.
I loved the film then, as I do now, though I've never felt it was one of my all-time favorites. It is sheer entertainment at its best, and when the audience still recognized the stars, it had far greater impact than it does today in 35mm retrospective showings or video.
I saw a surprisingly good, fairly unfaded, original 70mm print at a screening at the Motion Picture Academy about 15 years ago and realized, once again, how well-made the film is, considering its checkered seat-of-your-pants in-production history.
(The only flaw in projection during that Academy screening was that the young projectionist didn't seem to realize the film was shot at 30fps instead of 24fps and projected it at the slower speed momentarily. The "show business" audience corrected him very loudly and quickly and, as I recall, he had to re-start the film again to everyone's satisfaction!)
My personal biggest drawbacks with the film are the slow-moving (I thought) Cantinflas bull-fighting sequence and the Jose Greco flamenco-dancing sequence. They always seemed to go on too long for me, but I'm sure they have their admirers, too, and Todd, after all, was attempting to make his film appeal to viewers around the world, which, of course, it did.
Today's audience reaction and thoughts about the film remind me a great deal of today's reaction to De Mille's GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH. Everyone seems shocked that each won BEST PICTURE Oscars. You had to be there, I guess, to understand the tremendous impact each of these pictures had on audiences and boxoffices around the world.
THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH, despite the corny plot aspects, still reflects how average people in those days thought of the real circus, its people, and its tawdry atmosphere, even while entertaining all ages.
For those of us who loved the circus, under canvas, the film is virtually a true-documentary of the workings of the circus of that day. I recall seeing the film the same year that I saw the touring Ringling circus---and the costumes, the acts, and the music of that circus tour were identical to the film that year.
When I was in college I once had a roommate for awhile who was a real circus buff. He was part of a group---and, apparently there are many---who are circus followers and historians who know the performers, the acts, the costumes, the music, the tour dates, etc. from each year---right down to the building of tabletop circus "models"---like train modelers---depicting the tents, audiences, midway concessions, acts, in small-scale depictions.
I recall one night when I had gone out to a movie by myself, and came back late to our apartment. I heard raucous noise coming from within---a party was obviously in progress---and as I opened the door, I was confronted by about 25 little people, some of them still in partial makeup and costume, who'd been appearing with the travelling circus and had performed that night. I felt like Judy Garland in OZ, but it was a delightful and memorable evening.
Like THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH, AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS was a circus unto itself---a one-of-a-kind film entertainment which will probably never be duplicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
