The 1950s was the decade that reflected the greatest sense of irony in the history of movie musicals. The genre was then well past its prime, and the Studio System that made these films possible was beginning its slow but noticeable decline and ultimate fall. Yet in the midst of all this bad news, the movie musical actually reached its ultimate apex of artistic and popular accomplishment. During the 1950s, we saw what most people now regard as the greatest musical film of all time (Singin' in the Rain); the first musical to win a Best Picture Oscar (An American in Paris); one of the greatest transfers of a Broadway musical to the screen (Kiss Me Kate): some of the very finest musical films ever made by Fred Astaire (The Band Wagon, Funny Face and his last great major musical---Silk Stockings); and some fine musicals of comparable lofty accomplishment made by Gene Kelly (Brigadoon, It's Always Fair Weather and his last great major musical---Les Girls). And then there is Kismet--produced in 1955.
The accumulation of high quality talent dedicated to the project, the success realized by its Broadway and other antecedents and the significant prestige and reputation of the MGM Studio should have guaranteed that the film version of Kismet would be a fine postscript to the genre---a worthy addition to the great twilight period of the movie musical's Golden Age. Alas---this was not to be. Why? Apparently, there were a number of possible reasons.
First---perhaps foremost--the director (Vincente Minnelli) did not like the property, did not want to be associated with its filming and agreed to do so only to help facilitate his commitment to the movie project of his dreams that he was working on almost simultaneously (Lust for Life). Also, Kismet was a highly stylized (and rather dated) musical property that probably worked better in the less realistic medium of a live stage performance. In addition, Minnelli's overall disinterest in Kismet may have contributed to some rather indifferent attention to detail that detracted from the film's enjoyment by its audience. One example--Keel's vocal delivery in some scenes seems "rushed" and often was somewhat difficult to understand. Furthermore, the less expensive Eastman Color process was generally considered to be inferior to the almost universally used (by MGM) Technicolor format, and that detracted from the film's presentation. Finally, with the exception of Howard Keel and Dolores Gray, some of the assembled movie cast just seemed to miss the overall strength required to elevate the quite light fantasy nature of the material to a more memorable and timeless status.
Perhaps by 1955, it was too late to make a successful musical film version of Kismet. Maybe the audience for such totally fantasy/escapist fare was then too small to justify the high cost of its creation. It cannot be denied that the Borodin-inspired songs, lively dance numbers and gorgeous sets and costumes were thoroughly enjoyable. But the time for Hollywood to indulge in making such entertainment was now rapidly changing and coming to an end. With West Side Story that came just a few years later, Hollywood reinvented the musical film to reflect a greater sense of contemporary realism and social significance that persists to this day.
The accumulation of high quality talent dedicated to the project, the success realized by its Broadway and other antecedents and the significant prestige and reputation of the MGM Studio should have guaranteed that the film version of Kismet would be a fine postscript to the genre---a worthy addition to the great twilight period of the movie musical's Golden Age. Alas---this was not to be. Why? Apparently, there were a number of possible reasons.
First---perhaps foremost--the director (Vincente Minnelli) did not like the property, did not want to be associated with its filming and agreed to do so only to help facilitate his commitment to the movie project of his dreams that he was working on almost simultaneously (Lust for Life). Also, Kismet was a highly stylized (and rather dated) musical property that probably worked better in the less realistic medium of a live stage performance. In addition, Minnelli's overall disinterest in Kismet may have contributed to some rather indifferent attention to detail that detracted from the film's enjoyment by its audience. One example--Keel's vocal delivery in some scenes seems "rushed" and often was somewhat difficult to understand. Furthermore, the less expensive Eastman Color process was generally considered to be inferior to the almost universally used (by MGM) Technicolor format, and that detracted from the film's presentation. Finally, with the exception of Howard Keel and Dolores Gray, some of the assembled movie cast just seemed to miss the overall strength required to elevate the quite light fantasy nature of the material to a more memorable and timeless status.
Perhaps by 1955, it was too late to make a successful musical film version of Kismet. Maybe the audience for such totally fantasy/escapist fare was then too small to justify the high cost of its creation. It cannot be denied that the Borodin-inspired songs, lively dance numbers and gorgeous sets and costumes were thoroughly enjoyable. But the time for Hollywood to indulge in making such entertainment was now rapidly changing and coming to an end. With West Side Story that came just a few years later, Hollywood reinvented the musical film to reflect a greater sense of contemporary realism and social significance that persists to this day.