gavin6942 A melancholy poet reflects on three women he loved and lost in the past: a mechanical performing doll, a Venetian courtesan, and the consumptive daughter of a celebrated composer.Although I am not an opera fan by any stretch of the imagination, I have to admire this film. The vibrant colors in a time before color was common, the makeup, costumes, camera angles and tricks to create a world of dreams. One would think this would be near the top of many classic lists, but it does not seem to be... in fact, it was not even one of the first Michael Powell films I saw. Not even close.What surprised me the most was actually not the film itself, but the fact George A. Romero praises it on the Criterion disc. That is quite a strange thing. Not that Romero is a fan of the film -- that makes some deal of sense. But the fact Criterion thought to track him down for the release? How did that come about?

clanciai This is one of those films you always return to, and should return to at least once a year, a phantasmagoria of artistic ambitions galore, a combined opera-ballet and film of highest technical standards of the time and well ahead of its time, receiving little acclaim and understanding in 1951 but the more so the more it has aged and proved its timelessness. The sumptuous settings, the dazzling fireworks of perpetual innovation and imagination, the splendid acting by above all Robert Helpmann, Leonide Massine, Ludmila Tcherina, Pamela Brown and Moira Shearer, the brilliant choreography all the way, all this and much else must make this film a peak of its kind in film history, since filmed and danced operas are not very common, and this one never loses in style or sustainment. Operas usually suffer from long transportation sequences, it's impossible to find an opera without boring ingredients, but this one, although slow at times in its subordination to the music, never loses its grip on the presentation. It would be recommended to the viewer, though, to take a break before the second act, because the imagery is so loaded with colourful feasts for the eye as well as for the ear, so it might feel a bit thick, like too sumptuous a banquet. The only possible objection I have found to venture against this film (after having seen it three times) is Robert Rounseville as Hoffmann. His voice is wonderful and couldn't be better, but the Hoffmann character was a bit less sturdy and complacent - the extremely intensive and high-strung E.T.A.Hoffmann with constantly too many professions on his hands at the same time, all creative, was a little more delicate and liable than the very sound and solid Rounseville - but this is just a detail. The film definitely deserve ten points.A curiosity: Lazzaro Spallanzani, an important part in the first act played by Leonide Massine, was like Hoffmann himself a very real character, a medical universal genius and Hoffmann's colleague, who happened to die today (11.2) in 1799.

BergBROG I actually love "Tales" more for its music than this visual version, which is, still, stunning and most effective . . . altho it is more ballet than anything else."Actually, there have been suggestions that the "Antonia" episode be moved from last to first episode sequentially in the opera..."One of the endless "discussions' musical historians have . . . it appears that that was the way Offenback originally intended it to be, altho he revised the work so many times, who knows? The Antonia segment works much better as opera, with the devastatingly beautiful finale . . . " If I am correct, the "Antonia" episode was completed by another composer..."Not true . . . " ... Offenbach having died before completing Tales of Hoffmann."Not really true . . . he just never considered it finished, the way many composers and authors view their works. " Ahhh...that hauntingly beautiful "Barcarolle"....nothing can compare to it!! "Yes there can , , , the Barcarolle was lifted, musically intact, from a much earlier (and less successful) Offenbach work . . . Doesn't render it any less beautiful.A great, great opera . . . and a fun way to introduce novices to the art.RHB

T Y This is quite flat. It's a filmed stage-opera without a prayer of captivating a non-opera-fans attention, and so it trowls on the artifice. I never see what these film-makers imagine they're offering when I see these artificial stage-set worlds, which seems to appear once every ten years (Bergman's Magic Flute, Sendak's Nutcracker, Papp's Pirates of Penzance, Zeffrelli's La Traviata, Fassbinder's Querelle) except perhaps the revenge of theater-lovers on film-goers. A film-maker not hamstrung by a libretto can assemble and build moments & pacing, freely, naturally. But a director an't do anything with pacing when hampered by an already structured libretto. ...which is why there has never been a great filmed opera. They never make the jump to film. You never see the hand of a strong director behind a film-opera.Coming from Powell and Pressburger, two men who knew what the hell they were doing with the film medium, the gap between expectation and film-flailing is even more shocking. The two wizards are yoked with the dull task of providing visuals for a bunch of lyrics that move at a snail's pace. So here comes another posturing tableaux that belies complexity or thought. Whatever is happening visually or in viewers minds is over quickly, so we wait around starved for content, while various singers make silly stage-faces, and squeeze in every note of another narratively facile/tiresome aria ...and we endure crowds unwilling to move on until they rhyme and shout another chorus of no consequence to the plot. Thought and action come to a complete standstill. And we get visuals like cake-decorating.If you go in with an open mind, 20 minutes in (as with 'The Red Shoes') it's clear there's not a chance this material is going to produce a film as deep, stimulating or engaging as Black Narcissus. 40 minutes into the pointless story of the automated Olympia I was already dreading the other two pieces in this three-act-er, and whatever linking material I'd have to endure.