Synopsis
Adaptation of John Gay's 18th century opera, featuring Laurence Olivier as MacHeath and Hugh Griffith as the Beggar.
The Beggar's Opera
Cast
Laurence Olivier Hugh Griffith George Rose Stuart Burge Cyril Conway Gerald Lawson Dorothy Tutin George Devine Mary Clare Edward Pryor Athene Seyler Stanley Holloway Daphne Anderson Eric Pohlmann Yvonne Furneaux Kenneth Williams Sandra Dorne Laurence Naismith Max Brent Mercy Haystead Patricia Raine Jocelyn James Isabel George Helen Christie John Kidd Herbert C. Walton Eugene Leahy Edgar Norfolk Oliver Hunter Show All…
Director
Producers
Writers
Editor
Cinematography
Additional Photography
Production Design
Composer
Songs
Costume Design
Studios
Country
Language
Alternative Title
Ao Pé do Cadafalso
Releases by Date
Premiere
-
UK
London
Theatrical
24 Aug 1953
-
USANR
05 Oct 1953
-
UK
Releases by Country
UK
09 Jun 1953
- Premiere London
05 Oct 1953
- Theatrical
USA
24 Aug 1953
- TheatricalNR New York City, New York
Popular reviews
More-
John Jay's ballad opera will always be a fluid work. No two renditions contain all of the same tunes and text, nor are they ever performed the same way. I'm very underschooled on the performance history of this piece (even for an opera producer), though I've always been intrigued by the Britten 1948 version. This Brook/Olivier adaptation (postdating the more angular textures of Britten's version) is closer in color to the popular 1920 version — that is: genteel to 20th century ears, harmonically straightforward, and with a baritone Macheath — but I imagine that true enjoyment (for me) of this piece would arrive when I have a solid understanding and recall of all the modular little bits and pieces that…
-
This film by Peter Brook of John Gay's ballad opera was a critical and commercial failure, and is rarely shown these days.
It has a good enough pedigree - produced by Laurence Olivier (who also stars as Macheath) and Herbert Wilcox, and featuring Stanley Holloway, Dorothy Tutin, Hugh Griffith, Kenneth Williams (his famous speaking voice dubbed!), and Laurence Naismith.
It was filmed in colour, distributed by Warner Bros, and featured dubbed singing voices for the majority of the cast (save the fabulous comic baritone Holloway and the rather reedy voiced Olivier).
The version under review is a poorly transferred copy with variable sound, but Olivier looks marvellous in an array of colourful costumes, Holloway is fun, and…
-
Colorful and surprisingly lavish adaptation of John Gay’s signal work, originally produced by John Rich, which was so successful it was said to have made Gay rich and Rich gay. Laurence Olivier is the highwayman Macheath who helps enact an opera based on his life by the beggar Hugh Griffith in jail as he awaits execution. Olivier isn’t much of a singer but he’s no Russell Crowe and he brings some weight and dash to the proceedings even amid some of the dodgiest rear-projection shots committed to celluloid. I did rather enjoy it, even if my viewing was slightly less than complete; it’s good but it’s just not the thing to turn on at a quarter to one because Comcast has deemed your cable box obsolete and you are about to loose two years worth of DVR recordings of things you are interested in seeing but have been not in the right mood to watch yet.
-
The opening scene in the dungeon is very reminiscent of Peter Brook’s MARAT/SADE. It seems he already had a personal style developing.
Of course, this is his only musical, to my knowledge. He surely directed some on the stage, but does his somewhat macabre style fit with a lively cinematic musical? Oddly, yes.
I believe this is what you would call an operetta. Most people these days won’t tolerate the style of singing. I liked a couple songs, but I was mostly into the cinematography and production design. The costumes and sets and all that. -
when he gets confronted by four more baby mamas & he's like you know what... im ready for the rope
-
I'm such a fan of Kurt Weill's nasty little take on this classic, but good luck ever seeing the play that this film is based on. Doesn't seem to make the rounds much these days, with few companies willing to take on its scale and outdated style. Too bad because I found this to be a fascinating piece, even if it's not quite as fun as the Brecht version. This is also noteworthy for being the first film directed by Peter Brook, and what a handsome looking film it is. With hundreds of extras in most scenes, all dressed in lavish period costumes, this would look like an epic film if only it had been better preserved. The surviving prints…
-
I had a few different thoughts as during the movie that I'll get to in just a few sentences. First, however, I would like to say that I really enjoyed the movie. I thought that it was very fun, and it looked very beautiful the way TCM showed it. I feel like it was a little long in some places, but it never got dull. The only real complaint that I have is that I had to put on subtitles to fully understand what was being sung, as the singers did that operatic vibration the during every song. Speaking of singers, Laurence Olivier sung his own stuff, and he was great. I probably don't need to repeat this, but Olivier…
-
-
The Beggar’s Opera (1953) is something of a curiosity. Based on the 1728 ballad opera written by John Gay, it features the vocalizing of Laurence Olivier as the anti-hero Captain MacHeath the highwayman. Was this a vanity project to show that Sir Larry could, indeed, warble a tune? His light baritone is pleasant enough, but it contrasts rather gratingly with the singing voices of the other characters , all of which were dubbed by trained operatic singers (save that of the redoubtable Stanley Holloway). Its hard to imagine this film having had great audience appeal even in Britain, let alone in the U.S. or other foreign venues. That being said, the film is enjoyable enough, at least the first time…
-
-
fucked for my dissertation if I can barely get through the film version of the play I'm supposed to be reading
-
I had to watch this in my class. I think I’ve realized I just despise movies set in the 18th century. I’m not sure why.
the pros:
- A few funny scenes (the best is when you find out the lead character is a huge man whore)
- A few cool shots
- Some long takes (they didn’t make the scenes more interesting however, it just made me go “Wow, they haven’t cut yet. Alright.”)
- That’s it.the cons:
- About half the jokes don’t even land. The ones that do got a nice little nose exhale.
- It was so boring
- The cartoonish and melodramatic delivery and mannerisms of the actors in this.
- The unbearable singing that was over dramatic and grating to listen to. (Especially the lead character)
- The tedious pacing
- Gosh it was so boring