Once More, With Feeling

Most of the reviews here focus on this highly interesting film as a sparkling comedy enlivened by the exquisite final performance of the deeply regretted Kay Kendall. There's no denying her success in lifting this film above its rather mediocre dramatic realities. Perhaps her finest moment comes while she listens to a televised interview with Yul Brynner, as her husband---a monumentally (think Mount Rushmore) egotistical orchestra conductor. Her ongoing reactions to his pompous and self-serving statements, which the audience immediately realize are so much crap, bring to mind one word: Vitameatavegemin. You know what I mean. Kendall's handling of that scene could have been hammed up to a fare-thee-well, but she handles it every bit as eloquently as the Vitameatavegemin lady handled that scene.Brynner's performance sadly suggests something of what might have been had the studios ever been able to decide what to do with him. He presented formidable obstacles to being cast in major roles, starting of course with his bare scalp, but also arising from that matchlessly deep, sonorous voice and Russian accent. He proved in "Kings of the Sun" that he was a viable action star, but even there he had to be cast as an exotic type---an Indian chief---to accommodate his appearance and speech. "Once more..." shows that he had it in him to succeed in comic roles too, but again his persona got in the way. ("The Buccaneer," made around the same time as "Once More..." also gives him a few very effective comic moments, but there again he was given a wig and cast as a French pirate in the Caribbean.) Apart from his repeated tours in "The King and I," he was repeatedly cast as Europeans, evil Nazis or Russians threatening Hungarians or other Eastern Europeans. Today he would probably have no trouble gaining access to a wider range of roles; for the 1950s and 60s, his choices were sadly limited, and his career suffered.One way the designer of this film got around Brynner's bare scalp was to meet it (pardon the expression) head-on. Every work of art in the conductor's house, whether painting or sculpture, is of Brynner's character, so the audience is constantly brought face to face with that shaved head, itself a striking departure from established convention in the 1950s. One might adopt that for one role, as Brynner himself did for "The King and I" in 1951, but until the more adventurous '60s nobody except Brynner kept it that way. (Telly Savalas first shaved for "King of Kings" in '62; the best-known of the other '60s skinheads, Shel Silverstein, adopted the tonsure only in '64 to deal with a receding hairline.) Note that throughout the picture, whenever Brynner stands in front of one of the paintings (nearly all of which show him in dramatic conducting poses), he adopts the pose shown in the painting behind him. Of course the ubiquitous display of Brynner's most recognizable feature is meant to demonstrate the conductor's immense ego even as it plays up the bald head AND at the same time, neatly diminishes its impact. Surprisingly enough, it works. It really does work.During a recent viewing of "Once more..." I suddenly (and unexpectedly) became aware of what a film like this must have seemed like to experienced eyes in the late 1950s. (I would have been 12 when I first saw it theatrically, so "experienced" didn't apply to me.) The film contains a number of surprising bits of business and sight gags that must have struck knowing viewers as quite risqué. Two examples suffice. In one scene, as Brynner and his agent are riding in the conductor's limousine, Brynner makes a suggestion to resolve a current crisis, a suggestion that strikes the agent as quite mad. The agent takes the cigarette Brynner is smoking and sniffs it to be sure it's really just tobacco. Today the implications are obvious, but I doubt that would have been the case for most people at the time this film was made and released. Later, when Kendall is doing her magnificent best to resolve a quarrel between Brynner and the principal violinist in his orchestra, the violinist admits to her that he has one weak finger on his left hand (the hand that creates the pitches on a violin's fingerboard). He holds up that particular finger to show her. You can guess which one it is. I'm sure the actor playing the violinist was cast because of the unusual length of his fingers, that one in particular. And gven that finger's implications, Kendall's restrained reaction to the sight of it is exquisitely priceless.There are other such moments, e.g., when Brynner escorts Kendall upstairs, obviously intending to engage in intimacy, and says he has "a surprise" for her; she archly asks "Is it bigger than a breadbox?" Including such fleeting but unmistakable references in what was supposedly a family film in Mamie Eisenhower's USA could not possibly have been accidental. Coded though they may have been for an audience of that time, they are unmistakably THERE and make "Once more..." an unexpected point of departure from mainstream society of the '50s to the lurking changes of the '60s. The subtlety with which these moments are embedded in the film makes them all the more enjoyable even now, at a time when we are far less sensitive to such things.For one major reason, I believe these allusions were deliberate. The cast includes the familiar presence of Gregory Ratoff as the perpetually harried agent to the gifted great. Ratoff had trod the same ground in 1950's "All About Eve," as agent to Bette Davis' temperamental Margo Channing. In "All About Eve," Ratoff's character was named Max Fabian, and in "Once More..." his first name is also Max. The name of Brynner's character in "Once More..." is Victor Fabian, however, so the agent's last name is not Fabian but Archer. I can't help concluding that Ratoff's casting was deliberate for just this reason---Ratoff's virtually identical character in both films, and the repetition of the names Fabian and Max. If the production crew on "Once More..." was this attuned to these resonances in what they were doing, they were attuned as well to other resonances, so I think they knew all about "Once More's..." subtly embedded allusions to subterranean currents that would tumultuously become so markedly less subterranean by 1970.A major plot theme is, moreover, the fact that Brynner and Kendall are not married; everybody thinks they are, but they've really been living together for 8 years. Unwed cohabitation was not unknown in 1960 but it wasn't advertised as honestly as nowadays. I think this got past the censors only because the film is not set in the pristine USA of those distant days, but in London, so it didn't have to be seen as a straightforward picture of US society. People over there did that sort of thing all the time, and Brynner is supposed to be an artsy type, and in the end they do get married. It's foreign and safe, so it's OK. None the less, so open an acknowledgment of Living In Sin must have been at least mildly surprising to US audiences of that day.To sum up, we've got 2 solid comedic performances from 2 very competent actors; highly imaginative and successful set design that contributes a great deal to the film's success; a literate script and skilled direction that point toward changes that were on the brink of transforming the world. What's not to like? Not much I can think of. Maybe those novelties, and the then-hidden realities they suggested, were what kept this little jewel from the wider recognition it deserved. I'd like to know, but probably we never will find out. So just enjoy this very special film. Enjoy it a lot.

“Once More with Feeling” tries to be a comedy but fails to wring many laughs out of its thin script. Maybe it appeals more to British audiences who are more self-conscious about being “proper”? But for a modern American audience, it’s hard to work up much interest in their non-scandal of “I want a divorce but we were never really married in the first place.” If anything, this revelation should simplify their predicament, not complicate it. But I suppose a movie has to happen. (Must it?)The cast is very talented. The main point of interest watching this movie is seeing them flail around trying to make anything out of the nothing material they have. Yul Brynner is naturally charismatic and is very convincing as the egomaniac orchestra conductor. But he never manages to be charming enough to make me believe that any woman would fall for this narcissist. A strong, independent woman like Kay Kendall putting up with him for 8 years simply defies all belief.I’ve been slightly in love with Kay Kendall ever since seeing her as a comedy drunk crawling on the floor looking for her lost tea cozy in “Les Girls.” She was THE reason why I bought this film. She tries her best. For most of the movie, she’s very reserved, trying to play the long-suffering straight woman who can bring out the dry wit of the script. Then, in the last 20 minutes, once she’s realized that the script doesn’t have any wit, dry or otherwise, she turns the mugging up to maximum with more drunken antics. It’s very welcome but it’s too little too late.Gregory Ratoff rounds out the main cast as the scheming talent agent. In most movies of this era, he would be a minor supporting part. But here, he eats up a lot of screentime by being pushy and vaguely ethnic. His various elaborate oaths when he swears he’s not lying are the closest thing the script has to jokes. Ratoff delivers them, and all of his other lines, with full intensity, like he too is aware of how much nothing the script has given him.On the A/V front, the transfer of the movie looks very good considering it’s a burn-on-demand copy of an obscure catalog title from 1959. The DVD doesn’t have a main menu, which is fine. It also doesn’t have any subtitles or English captions, which is annoying but workable. All of the dialogue is pretty clear and understandable.In total, I was deeply disappointed with the waste of acting talent on display here. Kay Kendall looks stupendous in her various costumes, particularly her white gown at the end of the film. The 3 main leads all try their loudest to bring the material to life but the script was DOA before they got it. Still, it could be worse. While it’s usually not funny, it was manic enough to hold my interest for most of its 1hr40min runtime.

Great movie for nostalgic. Loved it

Last role of miss kendall, i only bought this movie for my collection with no great expectations director stanley donen made a few saloon comedys in the late fifties panned by the critics as a failure a weak vehicle for both stars kay kendall can not save this film with her sparkling performance a good actress always better than her material an elegant british rose her best work is Les girls by george cukor today miss kendall is best known as the beloved wife of rex harrison dvd transfer is very good print is renewed in 1987

I've been trying to get hold of this film for years, having retained vivid memories of it from a single viewing. This is, I believe, Kay Kendall's last film before her tragically early death, and it is a wonderful memorial to a beautiful woman and a great comedian. The scene where she drunkenly mocks her egotistical husband in front of the TV on which he is being interviewed is absolutely brilliant. I can't understand why this film isn't widely available.

Esta comedia de Stanley Donen es parte de los recuerdos del cinéfilo que escribe estas líneas, siempre recordaré cosas como el extraordinario trabajo de una burbujeante Kay Kendall y la escena en que los flautines se levantan durante la interpretación del tema de John Philips Sousa Stars And Stripes

Kay Kendall was my favourite actress