Talk:Tommy (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The film Tommy was filmed during 1974 mainly in the Portsmouth area. A number of extras for some of the scenes were provided by students of Portsmouth Polytechnic - notably the Elton John 'Pinball Wizard' scene, and the Eric Clapton/Arthur Brown scene. The 'Pinball Wizard' scene was filmed in the King's Theatre, Southsea, and for 4 minutes of film took 2 full days of filming. Instead of being paid cash for participating in these scenes, the students were given tickets to see The Who perform in concert at Portsmouth Guildhall - the concert being only for those who were in the film.
Contents |
[edit] Bean Commercial Scene
Although I'm not certain, I believe that the "queen" in the bean commercial scene is Audra Lindley of "Three's Company" fame. She played Mrs. Roper, the landlady.
[edit] "Uncle Ernie"
"* All references to Uncle Ernie outside of "Fiddle About" are removed except for his introduction to "converts" at Tommy's Holiday Camp. "
Listening to the original album - there are no references to uncle Ernie outside of "Fiddle About" and the introduction to converts. If anyone can see how this paragraph makes sense, please explain and restore. --85.187.44.131 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, except for the line "here comes uncle Ernie / here come willing helpers [to guide you to your very own machine]". Still not enough to justify the sentence. --85.187.44.131 00:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changes by User:Dr. Ransom
While some the additions are valuable, it seems to me that in that section, User:Dr. Ransom is: 1. sometimes describing his own personal interpretations and tastes rather than generally widespread opinions (see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV); 2. sometimes stating them as facts (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV); 3. not providing any sources (critical reviews) that have claimed what he is claiming (WP:V).
Hence, if nothing of that is fixed soon, I'll partly remove and partly rewrite the Criticisms section. --85.187.44.131 09:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed. It seems more an essay of personal opinion.
[edit] Ransom's Response
I see that there have been complaints of my aditions to the Tommy (film) page, the people interpreting it as more of an opinion essay. I am here to state earnestly that my intention was only to speak for a possible population of Who fans, and was in no way attempting to write anything propogandist. If anyone has actually seen the movie for themselves, they can easily tell that there are several scenes that can quite easily appear as "shots" at the Christian faith.
If anyone will recall, there are several point in the movie where the religeous symbols of the Christian religeon where parodied by other symbols in the movie (the big "T" with a microphone head at the top looks like a cross, the posters of Tommy done in the images of artwork that original depicted the figure of Christ, ect.) If one actually reads my comentary, I do make a point to say that perhaps this may have been the DIRECT WORK OF MR. TOWNSHEND, and what, but in the end my point is that this "Theme" so called, is a quick change to the original plot of Tommy, and fans of the actual opera have the right to be upset.
In the spirit of the famous South Park episode where both George Lucas and Stephen Spielburg are intending to change "The Raiders of the Lost Ark" by digitally enchancing it, I say that changing and adding ideas or themes to a work after it is already completed in some people's point of few is considered an artistic demi-crime, and so I merely ment to point out that not only would Christian who fans be upset over this newly added religeous commentary (which I adamantly state had nothing to do with the original work) but also, Who fans in general may have reason to complain, just for the fact that their opera has had other moral themes tacked on.
I implore the protestors of my commentary NOT to edit that section down, or if they insist on it, not to change the basic message of it. Changing that piece of the article appears to be not in the sake of being completely truthful, but more for the sake of quazi-political-corectness, and the sparring of feelings that might not even be more than a few people.
-Respectfully Ransom.
-
- Thank you for a detailed and civil answer. Now, the problem is that you did speak, as you said, for a possible population of Who fans, and not for a real and verifiable one; thus, you have in fact voiced your own opinion, and that is prohibited by Wiki policies. Now, I have an idea of the attitudes of Who fans towards the movie, and it's true that many complain about the music, certain actors' singing abilites and the general cheap comic book feel, but I have never noticed anybody complain about "shots at the Christian faith". You should provide sources that prove that a significant number of Christians - or Buddhists, for Tommy does have a Buddhist-like, Hindu-like and Meher Baba-like aspects as well - have indeed been offended by the movie (in the same way as many were offended by, say, Jesus Christ Superstar).
-
- Now, as for your personal interpretation of the film, from the point of view of Wiki policies it is mostly irrelevant whether it's correct or not, but here are some points. The message of the movie may or may not be interpreted as containing a satire on organized religion as such. Whether you wish to interpret Tommy's cult as a miserable imitation of something great or as a mirror image of something miserable is a personal choice. Personally, I think that it is indeed a criticism of organized religion as authoritarian and mercantile - but this is not the same as a criticism of the Christian or any other faith. The accusations that the Church has betrayed or perverted the original teachings are as old as the Church itself, and they have traditionally been made by believers such as Christian philosopher Soeren Kierkegaard. Furthermore, if that interpretation is correct, the same applies to the album, where Tommy's church is depicted as a holiday camp managed by uncle Ernie. Yes, the "cross" in the film (in fact, the letter 'Tommy' with a flipper ball on top of it) is a Judaeo-Christian allusion, but so is the word "Messiah", which is used already in the album.
-
- As for your idea that any change to a complete work is a crime per se, I think it's too radical and few people would agree with its logical implications, prohibiting all adaptations and improvements. Even many conservative Who fans prefer later performances of Tommy rather than the original album.
-
- Anyway, I'll modify the section to make it NPOV and verifiable. Feel free to restore anything that is lost, if you can back it up with sources: e.g. critic X [citation or link attached] has stated that the film is an attack on the Christian faith, or that Ann-Margret can't sing, etc..
-
- Best regards, --85.187.44.131 12:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- P.S. Please note that the "citation needed" tags that you removed were meant to indicate to you the controversial points in your contribution, i.e. the ones that need to be supported with sources if they are to stay. --85.187.44.131 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed sections
-
- Once again, these sections should be restored in some form if a critical review containing these complaints (or perhaps a fansite where they are obviously abundant) can be found.
For the most part the original ideas of Tommy's unique perception (being that Tommy can experience the world in a spiritual manner that average humans cannot with all of their senses being assaulted by other sensations) are only hinted at in the film version.
-
- Frankly, I'd say they are only hinted at in the album version, too - although, admittedly, Townshend himself has exlained that it was a very important part of his original idea.
The most subtle of complaints against the film rendition of the album are the changes made to the major theme of Tommy, which seem like blunt insults to people of the Christian faith. It is widely known that Peter Townshend's creation was really an allegory for his own personal faith, its origins being somewhat like Hindu, one of the major creeds of India, and the actual album did not make much mention of other religions (save for the song, Christmas), but in the film there is an obvious, almost spiteful view of other religions . The film seems to be making a commentary on the alleged scamming and trickery of certain churches, which have become more about money or bureaucracy than anything else. Either way, such messages were not part of the original vision of Tommy, and whether or not this was part of Townshend's creative vision, or rather of a screenplay writer or director is not known.
-
- This has already been commented upon. It's not an obvious interpretation, and I've never heard or read of such a complaint. --85.187.44.131 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ransom's Second Response
I suppose, under the circumstances, I might as well let this one go. I've at least been treated with respect at the same time I was being deposed. While I grant you the fact that my more religeously based claims where rather sketchy, and less factual, and perhaps I was mislead in my idea of who exactly the commentary was aimed at, I still stand adamantly when I say that it is alienating to the fans themselves when any great work of art is altered. I do believe it is the artists right to ruin whatever it is that he has created, but at the same time one must agree that the fans of any changed artwork are sometimes quite upset with the very idea of a change at all. To reinforce my statement, I'll end with another quote from that same episode of Southpark,
"...I mean, what would it be like if the Beatles kept going back and re-writing the White Album every few years?..."
Respectfully Ransom
- this does happen, though! paul rereleased his version of "let it be" a few years back. for a more historical example, look at the scores of changes and different editions of "leaves of grass" walt whitman churned out. some artists are notorious perfectionists and will continue to rework things many times over. but i think the central point you're overlooking here is that the old version is always still available to us. if you don't like the movie's attempt at tommy, that is fine -- the album is still there for you to enjoy. if it's the sheer concept that is bothering you, of someone wanting to change what you consider a masterpiece, then all i can do is bite my tongue and shrug. --dan 01:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pinball Wizard?
I was just watching the movie, and I remembered that the wikipedia article for the movie has Elton John as pinball wizard. My problem with this is that the movie makes it seem like Tommy is the pinball wizard, and Elton John's character is the pinball champion. I felt it important to check with the people on this page before actually doing any editing.--Kurasuke 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. Unfortunately, on the Official Soundtrack album, Elton John is credited inexplicably as "The Pinball Wizard." I have seen other casting information where he is described as "Pinball Champion" or, even less distinctly, as a "local lad." The latter two designations are at least consistent with the lyrics. Tommy is the Pinball Wizard, and Elton John's character says as much when he sings about him. Mdleonar 09:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In "Pinball Wizard", Elton John's character says (about Tommy), "He's a pinball wizard". In the song "Miracle Cure", the lyrics "Pinball Wizard in a miracle cure" seems to support this as well (I don't think the the local lad got any sort of miracle cure). 11 August 2006
- I changed "played" to "sing" etc., when referencing Elton John's part. This should solve the inconstancy. --Cody.Pope 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Questionable Comparisons to Pink Floyd's The Wall
I made a small revision because the text of the article implied that the Pink Floyd's album was dubbed unaltered over Alan Parker and Gerald Scarfe's film adaptation of the Wall. Over dubbing occured in places, but the the film soundtrack contains substantial departures from the original album. Apart from some sequence changes, several tracks were re-recorded by Bob Geldof who starred in the firm, written specifically for the film (e.g. When the Tigers Broke Free), or removed (e.g. Hey You). Mdleonar 09:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Frank Hobbs Article
Asking here since there isn't any discussion on this page, and this seems to be the only page that links to it. anyway, is there any reason why there's an article for Frank Hobbs when none of the other characters have their own? It seems random that someone would make one for Frank as opposed to, say, Tommy. Anyway, why is that article even there? --user.lain 19:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)