I fell in love with Stop the World when I saw it in the West End, starring Anthony Newley and Anna Quayle, back in 1962. It told the story, through songs, speech and mime, of a man's life in a way which has rarely been bettered. Nearly half a century on I still enjoy the songs, on a battered LP, and treasure the memory of Newley's performance.
The film in my view does not measure up to the stage production. This is partly because Tony Tanner, while very good, is simply not Anthony Newley and partly because it is a film of a stage performance which, for some reason, never really seems to work. Theatre audiences are, I suppose, geared to accept the physical limitations of the stage while cinema audiences, even if composed of the same people, are similarly programmed to expect the very different techniques of film. StW makes little attempt to use the latter, basically pointing a camera (or a number of cameras) at the stage and leaving it at that. We are therefore left in a situation which is neither one thing nor the other.
For all that it is useful to have a record of what was a classic show and the film I do find enjoyable if not itself classic. I accept that others will hold different opinions. Even when the show first appeared I heard of several people who walked out because they could not understand its premise and failed to realise that the lack of 'reality' meant that they had to use their imaginations. They are , of course, fully entitled to their views. Nevertheless I find it difficult to accept the comments of a previous reviewer whom the film apparently induced to throw up.I have sat through many films which have bored me rigid but have never as a result felt the urge to vomit. Perhaps I could suggest that he or she see a doctor without delay to assess the cause of this clear over-reaction.
The film in my view does not measure up to the stage production. This is partly because Tony Tanner, while very good, is simply not Anthony Newley and partly because it is a film of a stage performance which, for some reason, never really seems to work. Theatre audiences are, I suppose, geared to accept the physical limitations of the stage while cinema audiences, even if composed of the same people, are similarly programmed to expect the very different techniques of film. StW makes little attempt to use the latter, basically pointing a camera (or a number of cameras) at the stage and leaving it at that. We are therefore left in a situation which is neither one thing nor the other.
For all that it is useful to have a record of what was a classic show and the film I do find enjoyable if not itself classic. I accept that others will hold different opinions. Even when the show first appeared I heard of several people who walked out because they could not understand its premise and failed to realise that the lack of 'reality' meant that they had to use their imaginations. They are , of course, fully entitled to their views. Nevertheless I find it difficult to accept the comments of a previous reviewer whom the film apparently induced to throw up.I have sat through many films which have bored me rigid but have never as a result felt the urge to vomit. Perhaps I could suggest that he or she see a doctor without delay to assess the cause of this clear over-reaction.