@rooprect said:

This movie is really hard to watch because every line of dialogue is sung. Even insignificant parts like the mailman's 2 words or the waiter taking an order, everything is sung with a bouncy melody. To fans of musicals this might not seem like like a big deal, but it's actually a huge stretch from your regular musical which alternates between spoken & singing. I'll put it this way: your average musical has maybe 10-12 songs separated by talking, but this movie is one long 1hr-31min song with no breaks.

In a word: opera 😬

If that didn't send you screaming then cool, read on. My tip for any brave souls who attempt watching is this: ignore the dialogue, ignore the plot, and even ignore the music if it isn't your style (sorta 60s jazz fused with pop). Instead focus on how friggin amazing the camera and staging is. Most of the scenes are done in 1 really long take without standard cuts to closeups when people are talking to each other. Instead the camera flows around the room, sometimes getting up close to the actor's face then backing off to show the other's reaction, and meanwhile the actors themselves are repositioning themselves (not dancing, there's none of that) so that we see everyone in the room. That alone is a technical marvel, along the lines of Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" or Hitchcock's "Rope" or even the recent "Birdman" which feature long single-shot takes involving a ton of choreography & camera theatrics.

Next, it's pretty obvious but I'll say it anyway: check out the amazing colors. Everything from wallpaper to costumes to street lighting is done in eye-popping candy colors. This was way before digital manipulation where the editor just cranks the saturation knob. The camera had to capture all these stunning contrasts, and that meant impeccable lighting. You hardly see a single shadow in the entire production except at night or rainy scenes; it's like a living comic book.

Oh yeah, keep in mind that this was nearly impossible to get any producer to fund. When writer/director Jacques Demy pitched the idea, he supposedly got a lot of interested responses from studios--but they all told him to nix the singing, make it a straightforward spoken drama. Some told him he'd have to shoot in b&w since color was too expensive in France at the time. And finally keep in mind that when he sat down with composer Michel Legrand, they had no clue how to approach it because it had never really been done before, at least not on this scale. It took 3 months of daily brainstorming before they came up with the opening melody.

Finally... this is the real amazing part... bear in mind that the entire soundtrack was completed first, and then the actors & camera & crew had to shoot each scene seamlessly matching up with the singing & music. In the interviews the actors talk about how challenging this was because it forced them to keep to strict time, unable to add pauses or improvisation. That plus the 1-long-take scenes turn this into a real performance spectacle.

So there ya go, I know everything I've said basically amounts to "style over substance" but wow, when the achievement is as amazing as this you gotta enjoy the show. My rating went from a 5/10 to a solid 8/10 by the time it was over. I even warmed up to the music. The main melody which pops up throughout is really haunting.

Here's one of my fav scenes, the train platform. The cinematography is incredible: Train Departure

You said 'ignore the dialogue, ignore the plot, and even ignore the music' and 'Instead focus on how friggin amazing the camera and staging is'.

Have you ever seen this film completely without sound, as if it was a silent film? I have, as I do with many others. I also just listen to the dialogue, music and the surrounding sound as if it was a radio play. It is an experience seeing a film with only the visual component (colour and B&W), only the acoustic performance, and both combined.

@wonder2wonder said:

Have you ever seen this film completely without sound, as if it was a silent film? I have, as I do with many others. I also just listen to the dialogue, music and the surrounding sound as if it was a radio play. It is an experience seeing a film with only the visual component (colour and B&W), only the acoustic performance, and both combined.

That’s an awesome idea, I might start doing that with films that are visual masterpieces. Especially with foreign language films like this, I get distracted with subtitles so it’s a great idea to watch them once for the story, then a 2nd time with subs & even the sound off.

Can you think of any films that work well that way?

@rooprect said:

@wonder2wonder said:

Have you ever seen this film completely without sound, as if it was a silent film? I have, as I do with many others. I also just listen to the dialogue, music and the surrounding sound as if it was a radio play. It is an experience seeing a film with only the visual component (colour and B&W), only the acoustic performance, and both combined.

That’s an awesome idea, I might start doing that with films that are visual masterpieces. Especially with foreign language films like this, I get distracted with subtitles so it’s a great idea to watch them once for the story, then a 2nd time with subs & even the sound off.

Can you think of any films that work well that way?

I don't know about turning the sound completely off, but this became my approach for most Hitchcock films. As a storyteller, I don't get it with him, movies like The Birds or North by Northwest, make no sense to me; others, such as Vertigo, I couldn't tell you what it was about. And, Rear Window is simple enough that its plot is essentially useless beyond just giving us a reason to once again marvel at his camera eye. Yet, all of these movies are a treat to look at.

I appreciate your (both of you, @rooprect and @wonder2wonder) being able to change how you look at a film to appreciate what it does have to offer, once you have decided the story is hardly compelling. Although not the most enjoyable way to watch a movie, this approach has helped me get something out of a few movies I'd otherwise have missed completely.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

@wonder2wonder said:

Have you ever seen this film completely without sound, as if it was a silent film? I have, as I do with many others. I also just listen to the dialogue, music and the surrounding sound as if it was a radio play. It is an experience seeing a film with only the visual component (colour and B&W), only the acoustic performance, and both combined.

That’s an awesome idea, I might start doing that with films that are visual masterpieces. Especially with foreign language films like this, I get distracted with subtitles so it’s a great idea to watch them once for the story, then a 2nd time with subs & even the sound off.

Can you think of any films that work well that way?

I don't know about turning the sound completely off, but this became my approach for most Hitchcock films. As a storyteller, I don't get it with him, movies like The Birds or North by Northwest, make no sense to me; others, such as Vertigo, I couldn't tell you what it was about. And, Rear Window is simple enough that its plot is essentially useless beyond just giving us a reason to once again marvel at his camera eye. Yet, all of these movies are a treat to look at.

I appreciate your (both of you, @rooprect and @wonder2wonder) being able to change how you look at a film to appreciate what it does have to offer, once you have decided the story is hardly compelling. Although not the most enjoyable way to watch a movie, this approach has helped me get something out of a few movies I'd otherwise have missed completely.

It's really funny you said that about Hitchcock. He himself said "If it's a good movie, the sound could go off and the audience would still have a perfectly clear idea of what was going on."

I agree that some of his movies have weak stories, and some plot points are outright silly such as the deadly whirling merry-go-round in Strangers on a Train (something maybe a coked up Stephen King might've put in Maximum Overdrive). But confound it, it works! I think it's like you said, Hitch's plots are just a framework for his camera magic. His technical innovations, elaborate camera contraptions, and use of these tools to tell a visual story beyond the plot is what makes the movies fun. I guess it's like watching a magician who saws a lady in half--we know it's a silly trick but it delights us anyway.

Thanks for the compliment! It's the biggest thrill for me to suddenly appreciate a film I once hated. I confess, the Criterion DVDs give me a lot of help with their commentaries and behind-the-scenes stuff. Not to mention how expensive they are; if I pay $20 bucks for stupid DVD I gotta get my money's worth by liking the film 🤔

@rooprect said:

...about Hitchcock. He himself said "If it's a good movie, the sound could go off and the audience would still have a perfectly clear idea of what was going on."

This says a lot! And he certainly made it work for him! I'm learning something new again, many thanks, as always.