The Sound of Music Live!

Many posters here have done an adequate job of reviewing all the facets of NBC's ambitious December 5th production of "The Sound of Music;" I'd like therefore to focus on only one. Several trade and daily newspapers have pointed out the deficiencies of Miss Underwood's acting. I cannot quibble with the fact that it was not great, but I thought her performance was magnificent for a first effort, and her pipes were perfectly up to the task.

I enjoyed this musical very much, and even found myself shedding a few tears here and there. What I think we have to understand is that it's quite likely that it could not have been staged at all without Carrie Underwood's participation. It takes that much star power to get the backing for a venture of this magnitude. If not she, then who?

So I'd beg others to give her well-earned plaudits for putting herself on the line in a LIVE performance like this. It must have been terrifying for someone who'd never done it before in her life. It would also be wise to remember that if this were a production prepared for the NY stage, it would have opened in Hartford or somewhere like that to get the kinks worked out before the curtain ever went up on Broadway. In this instance, though, there was NO way to polish it further -- i.e., THIS was opening night, and as such, I think it was a magnificent effort. For anyone who'd care to compare this to the movie version, just try to imagine how much better each and every scene could be with the benefit of the ten or twenty takes and months of editing that the Robert Wise/Julie Andrews version received.

Rather than decry Carrie Underwood's efforts, I'd like to propose that we may have been privileged to see a new stage-musical star being born. I simply cannot give her enough credit for her monumental first effort in this medium. She'll get better, and she may become great.

You GO, Carrie Underwood!

So viewers are aware, this is not a remake of the 1965 movie. This is a television production of the Broadway show.

This was old-fashioned TV. In the 1950s, much television was broadcast live, and performances of musicals were frequent. This was essentially a televised stage performance, with simple sets and no special effects. The company performed the 1959 Broadway version of "The Sound of Music," with one exception: the song "An Ordinary Couple" from the original production was removed and replaced with "Something Good," which was written for the 1965 film version.

Viewers unfamiliar with the stage version might not recognize two other songs from the Broadway show not included in the 1965 film (but included in this production), "No Way to Stop It" and "How Can Love Survive." The latter song is one of the most well-crafted lyrics of Oscar Hammerstein II.

The cast did a very good job, but there is no question that it could have been better with a prerecorded format instead of performing live for the sake of novelty.

If television broadcast more musicals in this format, it would be most welcome.

I've read most of the reviews coming out and am surprised: why, and how, do you compare a live performance on television to a carefully filmed and edited movie? I don't think you can, nor do I think it's fair. Be closer to compare this to the live Broadway production of The Sound of Music with Mary Martin, but that ran for many performances, allowing ample time to work out the rough edges.

I thought it was fantastic. I haven't seen a live production on TV like this in decades. Kudos to everyone who produced it, I thought Carrie Underwood was fantastic, if slightly out of breath early in the movie from the hectic costume changes and dance/singing routines. Mother Superior was fabulous in both acting and singing. I love the sets. I'd like to see a WHOLE lot more TV like this.

First, kudos for creating a live television presentation.

Please please please... more. I and I know many would flock to this kind of live performance.

Next, too easy to do the comparison thing. But unavoidable... so must qualify this by declaring the obvious intimacy of film versus the live TV/stage adaptation. And there it is... intimacy of film. One is hard pressed to not draw those comparisons in spite of this.

So let's... first Ms Underwood. Most excellent to give this a go. She is also not an actress. It was obvious. There is no substitute for having worked on stage, as an actress. There was a distinct lack of depth to the character. And the vocal performance that is markedly different from people with great voices as Ms Underwood has, and seasoned stage actors and actresses as for instance Ms MacDonald has. Ms Underwood hit her marks. And her voice is superb. But the performance lacked that *it* thing. If she would commit to doing more stage work, her depth would grow. As it was, it was a thin performance.

All the other performances were serviceable, and some good. Or as in Ms Audra McDonald, she was superb. Ms McDonald of course is a trained stage actress, and it screams so.

The production quality not the least of which was the musical production was top shelf. And choreography. Well done here.

There was one huge mistake that overtook the entire production however. It must be pointed out. The lack of a live audience was a huge misstep. The 1965 version had the huge advantage of the intimacy of film. In choosing to do a live TV version, what would have bridged that difference would have been to honor what live stage productions have... and that is a living breathing audience. The energy, the ambiance, everything would have been greatly influenced by this. Not having it in my opinion crippled the experience. If there is a future attempt at a live TV production of anything.... do not make this same mistake. You must must must have the energy that a live audience brings to a production. This would have without question made a significant difference in this current production. Am not sure why there was a choice NOT to have a live audience....

Still, that this happened at all is big. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeze take on another one, and another one. As the ratings would show, this art, this craft, is alive and quite well. I give mega props for taking this on and hopefully the learning experience will go into future productions...

I have to be honest here, I originally had no intention of watching this special, but when I found out it would be performed live, as they used to do in decades past, it piqued my curiosity. I also happened to turn on the TV just about the time it started, so decided to check it out.

In no way was I expecting it to compare to the 1965 film. This was obviously supposed to be more akin to the stage production. Having said that, I was far more impressed than I anticipated. The music was fantastic and I loved the live acting quality to it. I only have a couple criticisms.

I understand that Carrie Underwood was probably selected because they wanted to get a name to draw in viewers. Her singing was actually quite good, but her acting was sub-par, especially to the rest of the cast. I understand she is not an actress, so I give her kudos for putting herself on the line.

As for the rest of the cast, I was happy that they decided to use mostly unknown actors, who appeared to be trained for stage productions. It definitely added to the credibility of the show. I thought the kids were all great, except Gretel, who was definitely a star in the film version. This one did not seem especially gifted in acting or singing and even lacked charisma. I wondered if she might be the daughter of a producer or something. That was a shame because its another stand out role that suffered.

I was pretty pleased with everything else. The sets were gorgeous! The transitions were seamless. The music overall was very fun and enjoyable, hearing those great Rogers & Hammerstein songs never gets old! Was also nice that they included some songs that were not in the film version. I definitely don't feel I wasted my evening when there is so much other rubbish on TV. I hope people were open-minded and supportive, so perhaps we'll see another live musical special next year!