Although I was surprised by, and struggled a little with, the length of this musical (almost 148 minutes), the unorthodox ending, the powerful musical score, and the fantastic visual appeal of the film were well worth the effort. I did not have high hopes for it, and I was very pleasantly surprised overall. I had never seen this film before, and because I had never heard the name ?Sweet Charity? bandied about in the context of ?great musicals?, I kinda figured that this MUST be for a reason, and that this therefore MUST be a bit of a dud. Not the case at all, I?m happy to report. I now realise that the term ?great musical? would normally be reserved for Hollywood ?heyday? musicals produced largely by MGM during the 40?s and 50?s. And here we have Universal?s ?Sweet Charity?, knocking on the door of the 1970?s. You can easily see that things have changed for the musical almost 30 years on ? and so it should. It?s a ?modern? piece when compared with the ?golden years? of musicals, definitely, but I think the whole story works well with a musical format. Love and other bruises ? that?s basically the theme, but it IS more complicated than it sounds.

I?ve always had a soft spot for Maclaine due to what I consider to be her great acting ability. (She?s made some poor film choices in recent years, presumably in order to pay the bills, but now she?s paying the price of ?chronic? typecasting!) As for her song ?n? dance ability, a HUGE prerequisite for this film, I?m not completely convinced. The main reason I chose to review this DVD was because I wanted to see how well she handled a musical format. Adequately, I would say, but her performance is nothing special. Still, it?s all relative, and compared to even MORE modern musicals such as the recent ?Chicago? and ?Down With Love? extravaganzas, Maclaine?s clearly got ?star? quality. It?s all a matter of taste ? as always.

The overall quality of the musical numbers is great, and there are some standout scenes; ?Big Spender? is performed early on in the film, and is sensationally done, one of the highlights for me, yet with Maclaine nowhere to be seen. LOVE the costumes, and the ?attitude? of the performers. It really set the standard for the remaining numbers. The editing of the film was also well done ? more modern techniques prevail again. Snappy would be a good way to describe the pace ? of the musical numbers especially. ?Rich Man?s Fugue? also appears early on, and is a definite satire on upper class fashions in upper class venues. It?s a perfect example of the innovative choreography and editing that defines this musical. This is clearly contrasted with the more ?gaudy? setting of the ?Fandango Ballroom? where Charity and her pals work. ?If They Could See Me Now? is another good sequence, with Maclaine going solo to convince us, and especially herself, that she?s really ?going places? in the tough city of New York. Then there?s ?Rhythm of Life?, featuring Sammy Davis Junior in a brief cameo role as ?Big Daddy?. It?s a cool hippie-fest. ?I Love to Cry at Weddings? is also a great number ? late in the film ? and Stubby Kaye is charming as the main performer in this number. Finally, ?I?m a Brass Band? is also a standout, with Maclaine giving it her all, with the outdoor setting and brass band music really ?making? the whole scene. There?s a lot to like musically ? and visually - I?ve only mentioned the sequences that I particularly liked. There is an emotional impact I haven?t touched on; I?m not talking tears into the hankie (unless you REALLY ARE a softie!) but it has enough credibility to make it watchable. It?s all about love, and the cynical side of me would normally scoff at such a wishy-washy main theme, but it?s decently handled!

In a nutshell, the story goes as follows. Charity works as a dancer-for-hire in a nondescript dancehall in 1960?s NYC. She is always looking for love, but can?t seem to pick the right man. Is she na?ve or just amazingly optimistic? You make the call. A chance encounter sees her fall in love with a dorky but genuinely ?nice? guy, and he with her. A chance to leave her sleazy dancehall days behind her looms ? but is this too good to be true? This is the $64,000 question, and you?ll have to watch this to find out the answer! It?s a well developed storyline that does not disintegrate into schmaltz. Thank goodness!

THE EXTRAS

For a film made in 1969, the extras are surprisingly good, and not overdone at around 24 minutes in total, presented in DD 2.0 stereo. Language options are many. Audio (dubbed) languages are offered in English 2.0, French 5.1, German 5.1, Italian 5.1 and Spanish 2.0. Subtitle languages are offered in a whopping 16 languages. They are: English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Hebrew, Arabic, Russian, Turkish and Greek.

From Stage to Screen: A Director?s Dilemma

9 minutes

Speaking mainly with Bob Fosse, including an audio interview with Shirley MacLaine, and some behind-the-scenes footage, the story?s transition from a Neil Simon stage play (performed on Broadway during the 1966/7 season, starring Gwen Verdon) to a Hollywood film in 1969 directed by first-time film director Bob Fosse, originally an MGM choreographer, is explored. Fosse?s now a bit of a musical legend, but perhaps mainly because of his direction of the well-known, classic Liza Minelli film, ?Cabaret?. Nonetheless, he?s got 5 Tony Awards to his name, and a bit of ?street cred?, as they say. It?s worth noting that, although not mentioned in this (or any other documentary on this DVD), Federico Fellini (legendary arthouse Italian film director) made a film in 1957 called ?Nights of Cabiria? on which, I gather, the Neil Simon play was originally based. In fact, Fellini and Ennio Flaiano wrote the screenplay for this film, so that?s a significant indication that Italians ?did it first? - if not ?better?, as the T-Shirt tells us! So there?s clearly a bit of history to this ?much told? story. The music for the Broadway play (and hence this film) was written by Cy Coleman, with lyrics by Dorothy Fields. They produced a couple of ?standards?, namely ?Big Spender?, ?Rhythm of Life? and ?If They Could See Me Now?. I guess the dilemma (as mentioned in the title of this mini-doc!) centres around the ?logistics? of getting things to translate from stage to film. For instance ? how do you arrange to get sequences filmed in high traffic/human congestion areas of New York City such as Wall Street, Times Square, Lincoln Centre, Central Park, and Yankee Stadium in 12 weeks? Not to mention up to 500 extras to manage. One excellent point that Fosse made was that, on stage, the audience will often CHOOSE which performers they focus on whilst watching the whole production, but with film, you have to CHOOSE the visuals for your audience. Not something I normally think about, but the point is valid. And he?s BEEN on both sides of the fence. YES, all this stuff is addressed (albeit on a surface level) in 9 minutes! Food for thought. It?s a great overview. SOOOO much better than the boring, uninsightful, backslapping millennium approach to the film ?mini-documentary? that is usually a production-line AD for the film you?ve probably just seen.

The Art of Exaggeration: Designs for Sweet Charity by Edith Head

7 minutes

Speaking with legendary Paramount film costume designer Edith Head, we are shown costume sketches and actual wardrobe test footage from the film. Clearly there was a great deal of thought involved in the final ?visual? package presented on-screen. In fact, many of the wardrobe tests were shot to music, to get an idea of the visual movement of the fabrics as worn by the performers. Individual hair, make-up and costuming were prepared for many of the musical numbers. Apparently the ultimate intention was to satirise the fashions of the day. The environments the main character (Charity) finds herself in lend themselves to ?hamming-it-up? glamour, and the visuals in this film take that presentation seriously, thankfully. Overall, the costumes, and ?look? of the film is wonderful. Originality was one of the goals of the wardrobe department.

Trailer: ?Sweet Charity? (1.35)

Deleted Scenes (6:44)

CONCLUSION

Legendary MGM choreographer and musical director Bob Fosse?s ?hand? in this film is one of unique style and colour ? he certainly earns his reputation. Edith Head?s costumes also hit the spot. Shirley Maclaine certainly possesses the ?star quality? necessary to pull off the lead role of Charity Hope Valentine as an optimistic dancehall worker who dreams of true love. The whole effect is very pleasing, even surprising, for any fan of musicals, young or old. Just remember that this 1969 attempt at a musical is ?different? in look, theme and approach to those from MGM?s raft of 1940?s and 50?s ?classics?. The overall effect is great; a quality example for plot, and visual and musical appeal. It would be a mistake to think that the genre died once the 60?s rolled around. Extras are brief but effective, and subtitle language options abound.