South Pacific

Without a doubt Glenn Close an exceptional actress with many brilliant performances throughout her career is horribly miscast as "Young" Ensign Nellie Forbush. This more than anything sent this made for TV production of this classic musical and James A. Michener story right into the bilges. She resembled nothing less than a female Naval Officer who is in her mid 50's and would be more interested in romantically pursuing the other nurses than the Emile de Becque character. If you want to watch this story then the 1958 version with Mitzi Gaynor and Ray Walston is the one to go with because this one gets the Deep Six.

Well, those who wanted Rodgers & Hammerstein's SOUTH PACIFIC remade got their wish. If anyone thinks this horrible remake is better than the 1958 version really needs help. Rodgers & Hammerstein must be rolling in their graves. First off GLENN CLOSE is to old for the role of Nellie Forbush. GLENN CLOSE is to old for the part. The orchestrations can't compare to Alfred Newman's. The house dress that Glenn Close wore at the party is no match to the gown that was designed by the legendary Dorothy Jenkins for Mitzi Gaynor. The production numbers were terrible. I have seen better staged numbers in high school plays. As for the woman who played Bloody Mary; she was the worse. She couldn't act, and her trying to sing Bali Hi was painful. There is nothing to recommend this picture for. Long live the classic 1958 film version.

This version of South Pacific is not half bad....that's the good half. The other half is bad, very bad indeed.

You'll notice straight away there are actually black people in the navy and no one wears tighty-whities or midriff bearing t-shirts. Amen for that! But, hey, who had the bright idea of casting Glenn Close as a twenty-somthing? Oh yeah....GLENN CLOSE. Much too old for Nellie. I'd believe she's in her late thirties at the youngest. When she sings "Cockeyed Optimist" the pancake layers of white concealer is woefully apparent. (She and the other navy women wear these khaki slacks which are really unflattering to the hind region!) And what about the character of her love interest, Emile? This guy looks like the spazzed out postal worker who delivers my mail on a daily basis. I wouldn't believe for one minute he's wealthy or dashing!

Luther seems like a dude who just took a nasty fall out of 1984 and unwittingly stumbled into a reality show called "World War II". You almost feel sorry for him.

Most disappointing of all, however, was Bloody Mary. Everyone take cover and duck! She sounds like Roseanne Barr after an all nighter alcohol and heroin binge. Her singing voice? It's slightly better, with the attributes of a cat being painfully executed. Overall she just screams, "Am I Pacific-Islander enough? Am I offending as many people as I can?" How 'bout them lips on Cable?! There was a semidramatic close-up during the Bali Hai number where I thought those things were gonna come through the screen and smother me alive!

With that being said, let's not dwell any longer on the negative. As aforementioned, some aspects of the musical were well done. No weird purple and orange lighting, mostly good vocal performances, and better costumes made this worthwhile. Also, I noticed the musical numbers were sequenced differently (probably to make it faster paced). Even with the unfortunate absence of Stew Pot, I would watch it again!

This is what many cultured people should call "a true desecration of a classic." They ruined this musical from what it was supposed to be! Glenn Close is obviously far too old to be playing a twenty-something year old. She's a decent singer but her singing was terrible for this role. The filmmakers obviously needed to cast someone much younger who could sing. A young woman could carry this role convincingly, Glenn Close could not. Glenn Close was not at all convincing in this role because she was too old. Harry Connick Jr. was probably the best part of this whole desecration. He can carry a tune, but his singing is not the greatest.

Overall this movie was utter nonsense, and they trashed it up even! Why do filmmakers think that they can remake classics? These days filmmakers are stupid in thinking that they can modernize classics and turn them into trash in order to please the stupid people. If you are a purist for musicals, do not see this movie for your own good.

I think my favorite part was the severed heads on sticks...

There's been a lot of hoo-hah about Ms. Close's superannuated Nellie Forbush, but I think this is a relatively minor issue -- really a matter of cranky foiled expectations. Nothing demands that Nellie be 22; narrow-minded provincialism was and is not unknown in people over 40. And making Nellie and Emile a more evenly mature match adds a nice counterpoint to the youthful Cable/Liat romance.

I think the real problem lies in the decision to pour on the blood and guts.

Presented just a few years after the end of World War II, the original "South Pacific" was a far cry (most would say huge step forward) from 1920's frivolities like "No, No, Nanette" and even more immediate folksy precursors like "Oklahoma." The American theatre seemed primed for a new kind of musical realism, and "South Pacific" bravely served up real people confronting life-and-death issues, with nary a tap-dancing ingenue in sight. Nevertheless, it didn't completely abandon the old, sentimental/comical musical traditions (which, after all, had been brought to their greatest glory by Richard Rodgers and his pals), and there was -- and is -- a limit to how much gritty realism the aesthetic could sustain.

I haven't read the original Michener stories on which "South Pacific" was based, and they may very well have featured severed heads. But in the context of "Some Enchanted Evening," such imagery was anathema to Rodgers & Hammerstein, and it remains alarmingly discordant today.