Sunday Matinee: Oscar Special… “The Sound of Music”
by Larry O'Connor
This week’s Sunday Matinee is dedicated to Hollywood.
Because it’s Oscar Sunday and the whole world is focused on the Kodak Theatre and the red carpet parade about to happen, it seems fitting that Broadway throws Hollywood a bone today. Also, considering every other Broadway show these days seems to be a staged version of a popular movie, (“Shrek”, “Wedding Singer”… Really?) it seems appropriate to shine a little light on a Broadway Musical that has been adapted to film.
My opinion is that in most cases, Broadway musicals are rarely improved by their film adaptations. Even the good film versions of musicals are still not as theatrically thrilling or as emotionally impactful as the experience of seeing these shows live. “Chicago”, “Hairspray” and “Phantom of the Opera” are all very recent examples of fine film adaptations. But I contend that even in the case of ”Chicago”, an Oscar winner, the theatre version was superior.
However, there are a few exceptions and in one extraordinary case, the film version is so superior than the stage version, that it is almost painful to sit through the original theatrical piece. That exception is “The Sound of Music”.
The film version of “The Sound of Music” is superior to the original play in every way. In fact, lately many local amateur productions of the stage version of “The Sound of Music” have even adopted some of the changes made for the film and implemented them on stage.
Since I come from the theatre perspective, it’s difficult for me to fully analyze what makes a film great, but I will point out the major differences between the original stage version and the brilliant movie.
Locations, locations, locations.
The biggest difference, and in many ways the most significant, is that through the film version we are actually transported to the beautiful locations discussed in the show. We actually SEE Maria singing at the top of her lungs on a beautiful mountain on the Vienna/Swiss border. We follow the children through the streets of Vienna as they learn to sing. We are caught in a high-speed chase as the family flees the Nazis in the dark of night. Austria is one of the characters in “The Sound of Music” and when you have to sit and watch a stage version you really miss those beautiful scenes in the film.
Nothing, nothing, NOTHING beats this incredible opening sequence and it can ONLY be done on film:
Now THAT’S a nun I could fall in love with.
OK, I know its a bit of theatrical heresy to state my next point, but thankfully, I am still anonymous and the theatre police will not come after me and lock me up for whispering a truth that we all know but are not supposed to reveal: Mary Martin was never really that great. I know, I know, she’s a legend and she has more Tonys than a good Little Italy restaurant and she was box office gold… but, come on! Do you really believe that Captain Von Trapp would mess up a good thing with a baroness to take a chance on Sister Mary Martin? And, wasn’t she a little too old to be a young novice? I think she could have been a Mother Superior back in 1959.
Meanwhile, Julie Andrews was nothing short of perfection. Her’s is a timeless performance and she is utterly believable not only as a young, innocent nun, but also as a beautiful romantic love interest and as a mother figure to the children.
Also, Christopher Plummer is brilliant in the very thankless role of Captain Von Trapp. Again, believable as a stern but loving father, but he also makes a perfect transition to romantic love interest. A huge improvement over the original Broadway casting of folk singer Theodore Bikel.
A few of my favorite things.
When the film version of “The Sound of Music” was written, the creators made a few structural changes to the show and re-arranged a few songs. The minor adjustments they made are so incredibly logical and improve the flow of the story and the pace of the first act that it almost seems a crime that the original stage version is not officially re-written to reflect the film version’s structure. The major differences are:
- On Broadway, during the rain storm when the children all come to Maria’s room to hide from the thunder and lightening, the song Maria sings to make them feel better is “Lonely Goatherd”! Can you even imagine that song in that context now? “My Favorite Things” is the PERFECT song for that scene and how they didn’t put it there in the first place is a mystery.
- Wait, it gets stranger… in the original Broadway version, “My Favorite Things” is actually a duet between Maria and Mother Superior sung at the convent prior to Maria going to join the Von Trapp family as a governess. Mother Superior sings it to Maria to give her confidence to leave the convent.
- In the Broadway version, the characters of Max and Elsa (the baroness) are given a couple of ill-advised songs, “How Can Love Survive” and “There’s No Way to Stop It” that are wisely and thankfully excised from the film. Max and Elsa don’t need to sing, and keeping these songs from them does not diminish their characters, in fact it gives them more weight and importance by keeping them “straight”.
- The love song between the Captain and Maria on Broadway is a real clunker called “An Ordinary Couple” which sounds more like an older couple planning their retirement years rather than two star-crossed lovers throwing convention aside and following their overwhelming emotional desire for each other:
An ordinary couple
Is all we’ll ever be,
For all I want of living
Is to keep you close to me;
To laugh and weep together
While time goes on its flight,
To kiss you every morning
And to kiss you every night.We’ll meet our daily problems,
And rest when day is done,
Our arms around each other
In the fading sun.An ordinary couple,
Across the years we’ll ride,
Our arms around each other,
And our children by our side…
Our arms around each other.Zzzzzzzzzzzz….oh, I’m sorry, is the song done yet? Compare those lyrics to the ones written for the film version:
Perhaps I had a wicked childhood
Perhaps I had a miserable youth
But somewhere in my wicked, miserable past
There must have been a moment of truth
For here you are
Standing there
Loving me
Whether or not you should
So somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good
Nothing comes from nothing
Nothing ever could
So somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something goodDoesn’t that better reflect the seriousness of the romance? And the way it is filmed is romantic and kinda hot!
So this may be the only time you hear me say it, but if a stage version of “The Sound of Music” is playing near you…. ehhh…. skip it. Get the DVD of the amazing film, and make your kids watch it. The movie’s got EVERYTHING:
- GREAT songs
- GREAT cast
- Cute kids
- Beautiful scenery
- Funny nuns
- Beautiful romance
- And the bad guys are NAZIS! What more do you want??!!??
What better song for this week’s finale than: “So Long, Farewell”? ENJOY THE OSCARS!
One more encore….
OOPS! I almost forgot the trivia! I ALWAYS like to share a little trivia or an inside theatrical anecdote about the shows we discuss on Sunday Matinee. So… This week, I’ll merge the two themes: “The Sound of Music” and award shows!
1960 is still one of the most debated and talked about Tony Award seasons ever. It was chock full of competition and incredibly surprising winners.
In the Best Musical category “The Sound of Music” was up against another classic: “Gypsy”, as well as “Fiorello!”, “Once Upon a Mattress” starring Carol Burnett in here legendary Broadway debut AND “Take Me Along” starring none other than Jackie Gleason in his triumphant return to Broadway. Also starring in “Take Me Along” and nominated for Best Actor in a Musical: Robert Morse and Walter Pidgeon… also nominated for Best Actor in a Musical: Andy Griffith in “Destry Rides Again”!
There’s more… while you were in town and you wanted to see a play instead of a musical, you could have seen: Sidney Poitier in “A Raisin in the Sun” or Jason Robards, Irene Worth and Maureen Stapleton in “Toys in the Attic” or George C. Scott in “The Andersonville Trial” or how about Melvyn Douglas in “The Best Man”? Or, Geraldine Page and Rip Torn in “Sweet Bird of Youth”! Or, perhaps you couldn’t get tickets to those plays… you could settle for Anne Bancroft in “The Miracle Worker”! Meanwhile, Jane Fonda in “There Was a Little Girl”, Roddy McDowell in “The Fighting Cock” and Warren Beatty in “A Loss of Roses” round out the “youth movement” in the 1960 season.
Imagine that season: Jackie Gleason, Carol Burnett, Mary Martin, Ethel Merman, Andy Griffith, Robert Morse, Walter Pidgeon, Sidney Poitier, Jason Robards, Irene Worth, Maureen Stapleton, George C. Scott, Melvyn Douglas, Geraldine Page, Rip Torn, Anne Bancroft, Jane Fonda, Roddy McDowell and Warren Beatty… top ticket price: $5.00
So, since this is awards day, let’s reveal the winners from 1960:
Best Musical: A very rare TIE! And NOT the two shows you expect: “The Sound of Music” and….. that timeless classic, the often revived and unforgettable….. ”Fiorello!” That’s right: “Fiorello!”… NOT “Gypsy!” NOT Jule Styne and Stephen Sondheim and Arthur Laurents and Jerome Robbins creating a masterpiece of American Musical Theatre… no, instead we honored “Fiorello!”. What were they thinking (drinking)? (Makes that whole “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan” & “Life is Beautiful” almost acceptable, doesn’t it?)
Best Play: “The Miracle Worker” beating out “Toys in the Attic”, “The Best Man”, “A Raisin in the Sun” and Paddy Chayefsky’s “The Tenth Man”!
Best Actor in a Play: Melvyn Douglas over Poitier, Robards and Scott.
Best Actress in a Play: Anne Bancroft
Best Actress in a Musical: NOT Ethel Merman giving a performance anyone would give there right appendage to have witnessed. NOT Carol Burnett in a performance anyone would have given their OTHER appendage to have seen… no, the winner that year was…. Mary Martin…. seriously… Mary Martin. {sigh}
Best Actor in a Musical: The man who never won an Emmy Award for his groundbreaking work on television… Jackie Gleason. How sweet it is!
Stage Right is on Facebook
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
18 Comments
Oh I loved this musical. Anyone remember when they would show it on ABC? One of the things we'd look forward to.
I never thought I"d be able to comment on a review of The Sound of Music! But, since I can now…I will! I agree completely with this review. To me, The Sound of Music DOES have it all. I think it is an extremely romantic and even sexy movie, with no sex scenes (thank God, Hollywood take note, we don't need to see it all to imagine it. Sometimes the imagination is more satisfying.) The conflict of devotion to God vs. following the passions of one's heart makes for an extremely interesting story line. Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer have enormous chemistry. During the whole film you just WANT them to get together so bad. I first saw The Sound of Music in 1966 when I was four years old. It made a huge impression on me then (the whole experience of the grand movie theater it was in as well as the intermission and glorious music) and it still does to this day. We have it on hi-def blue-ray dvd, we show it on the big screen and my kids now love it too. It is my favorite movie and it is one for generations. Thanks for featuring The Sound of Music today!
I still remember seeing this film at the U.S. Air Force base in Japan when it was new. I was a little kid and even then knew that I had seen a great movie. Great review.
I remember those days. What were some of the others…My Fair Lady, The Wizard of Oz. My family would get as excited for these as we would the Charlie Brown Holiday specials. Ahh childhood…
The Sound of Music is one of my favorites. I introduced it to my six year old over Christmas. She loved it! Thanks for the review Stage Right.
Don't forget Chitty Chitty Bang Bang…
Sound of Music is a great movie. One thing that bums me out about all the entertainment "news" out there, is all the stuff we NOW know. Like the fact that Christopher Plummer doesn't really like this movie. I have never been able to enjoy it as much. Same with knowing that Clark Gable had bad breath. I love, love, love Gone with the Wind, but have never been able to see Rhett and Scarlett kissing without thinking of Gable and his halitosis. Damn you, Entertainment Tonight…
An excellent review of one of my all-time favorites!!
I remember it being on NBC, and I remember the horrendous cuts (one year they cut the whole wedding), the pan and scanning of the glorious 65mm cinematography, and the commercials.
Thank goodness for DVD.
A minor point about Hairspray. I thought the original movie Hairspray was far better than the later film. The dancers were far more stylish and energetic, especially Riki Lake, who was the best. I didn't see the theatrical version so I can't compare.
I may get creamed here, but another stage musical that was greatly improved as a movie musical was Camelot for many of the same reasons that Sound of Music was better. I know, Vanessa Redgrave could not really sing, but it worked smoother that the stage production.
Bev… I won't "cream" you…. I will respectfully disagree….
But, if anyone suggests that "The Man of La Mancha" with Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren is better than the Broadway production I will CREAM them!
My high school was addicted to Sound Of Music, and I was in a production in my senior year, the lead-up to were endless rehearsals and screenings of the movie) on 16mm or then-revolutionary VHS and playing of the soundtrack record(s – both the stage and movie versions.) Which has made me, even 25 years later, thoroughly sick of SOM. Your appreciation made me actually imagine a day when I can tolerate it again.
One thing, though – "impactful" is not a word. It's a bit if effluvia from marketing speak, but not a word one uses to make a point. Sorry, but I've developed an allergic reaction to gruesome coinages like "impactful."
I saw all three versions of Hairspray, and I agree the 1988 original was better than the play and the film.
Camelot was okay, but I was disappointed that the terrorist-lover Vanessa Redgrave didn't get burned at the stake.
"My opinion is that in most cases, Broadway musicals are rarely improved by their film adaptations. Even the good film versions of musicals are still not as theatrically thrilling or as emotionally impactful as the experience of seeing these shows live."
I don't agree with this.
I don't buy the argument that live theater is better than film. In fact, I have come to believe quite the opposite. I have been to many, many plays over the years and even acted in a few of them and find theatrical acting forced and hammy. And statements like the above are just snobbery in action. It is this snobbery along with the far leftism that has disillusioned me totally with theater, especially New York theater.
The original East Coast/West Coast feud took place before Biggie and Tupac were ever born. For some reason Hollywood is expected to bend over backwards for Broadway, treat the original casts and text as irreplaceable gospel, but even in the few instances when they do it's still not enough. Ironically, there are few shows remembered by the general public that were never made into films (I don't refer to them as "film adaptations"), unless they were an Andrew Lloyd Webber show that ran two decades. To me, plays and films are apples and oranges. The creators of shows tend not to like the movie versions, even the critically and commercially successful ones, yet when they try to do it themselves they do even worse (Alan Jay Lerner tried to exercise creative control over the film of "Paint Your Wagon"; the results speak for themself).
I agree with you that the 1965 film The Sound of Music is better than the play of the same name. I bought the cast album and I think I listened to it once; "An Ordinary Couple" has to be the single most forgettable song Rodgers and Hammerstein ever wrote, even Mary Martin agreed. I read the libretto of the play and I can see why the film made the changes. The 30th Anniversary Laserdisc has a non-disc book supplement by the late screenwriter, Ernest Lehman, detailing the development from stage to screen, that has never been made available anywhere else.
"My opinion is that in most cases, Broadway musicals are rarely improved by their film adaptations. Even the good film versions of musicals are still not as theatrically thrilling or as emotionally impactful as the experience of seeing these shows live."
I don't agree with this.
I don't buy the argument that live theater is better than film. In fact, I have come to believe quite the opposite. I have been to many, many plays over the years and even acted in a few of them and find theatrical acting forced and hammy. And statements like the above are just snobbery in action. It is this snobbery along with the far leftism that has disillusioned me totally with theater, especially New York theater.
The original East Coast/West Coast feud took place before Biggie and Tupac were ever born. For some reason Hollywood is expected to bend over backwards for Broadway, treat the original casts and text as irreplaceable gospel, but even in the few instances when they do it's still not enough. Ironically, there are few shows remembered by the general public that were never made into films (I don't refer to them as "film adaptations"), unless they were an Andrew Lloyd Webber show that ran two decades. To me, plays and films are apples and oranges. The creators of shows tend not to like the movie versions, even the critically and commercially successful ones, yet when they try to do it themselves they do even worse (Alan Jay Lerner tried to exercise creative control over the film of "Paint Your Wagon"; the results speak for themself).
I agree with you that the 1965 film The Sound of Music is better than the play of the same name. I bought the cast album and I think I listened to it once; "An Ordinary Couple" has to be the single most forgettable song Rodgers and Hammerstein ever wrote, even Mary Martin agreed. I read the libretto of the play and I can see why the film made the changes. The 30th Anniversary Laserdisc has a non-disc book supplement by the late screenwriter, Ernest Lehman, detailing the development from stage to screen, that has never been made available anywhere else.
"My opinion is that in most cases, Broadway musicals are rarely improved by their film adaptations. Even the good film versions of musicals are still not as theatrically thrilling or as emotionally impactful as the experience of seeing these shows live."
I don't agree with this.
I don't buy the argument that live theater is better than film. In fact, I have come to believe quite the opposite. I have been to many, many plays over the years and even acted in a few of them and find theatrical acting forced and hammy. And statements like the above are just snobbery in action. It is this snobbery along with the far leftism that has disillusioned me totally with theater, especially New York theater.
The original East Coast/West Coast feud took place before Biggie and Tupac were ever born. For some reason Hollywood is expected to bend over backwards for Broadway, treat the original casts and text as irreplaceable gospel, but even in the few instances when they do it's still not enough. Ironically, there are few shows remembered by the general public that were never made into films (I don't refer to them as "film adaptations"), unless they were an Andrew Lloyd Webber show that ran two decades. To me, plays and films are apples and oranges. The creators of shows tend not to like the movie versions, even the critically and commercially successful ones, yet when they try to do it themselves they do even worse (Alan Jay Lerner tried to exercise creative control over the film of "Paint Your Wagon"; the results speak for themself).
I agree with you that the 1965 film The Sound of Music is better than the play of the same name. I bought the cast album and I think I listened to it once; "An Ordinary Couple" has to be the single most forgettable song Rodgers and Hammerstein ever wrote, even Mary Martin agreed. I read the libretto of the play and I can see why the film made the changes. The 30th Anniversary Laserdisc has a non-disc book supplement by the late screenwriter, Ernest Lehman, detailing the development from stage to screen, that has never been made available anywhere else.
Attmay… I didn't mean to imply that "live theatre is better than film". What I'm saying is that when a stage musical is adapted to film, most of the time the end result is not as artistically satisfying or as entertaining as the original work. No snobbery here, just an opinion.
Listen, I've worked with Broadway people and I;ve worked with hollywood people… trust me… the bigger snobs were on stage tonight at the Kodak.
The fact that the film version of a Broadway play is remembered by more people speaks more of the medium and method of delivery of the product, not the artistic merits. Obviously more people have seen the film version of something light, funny and innocuous like "Little Shop of Horrors" than the original off-Broadway production. That's just the nature of the medium. "Little Shop" played a little, 300-seat theatre in the East Village. The film was seen by more people in its first weekend than the entire ten-year run of the off-Broadway original. But that doesn't mean it was better or even more memorable.
You must be logged in to post a comment.