The Sound of Music Live!

When I first saw the promos for this show, I thought sarcastically 'oh great, a country version of a classic. Just what we need.' I never particularly like the singing of Ms. Underwood, finding her voice rather harsh at times. But, as I flicked through the channels and noticed it was on (I had no intention of watching it), curiosity got the best of me and I tuned in. Well, I stayed until the end. While all of the performances were excellent, I want to give special recognition to Ms. Underwood. This was an extraordinarily brave undertaking in the face of preconceived notions, and she basically said 'in your face' people. Whatever voice training she went through worked, and the harshness and twang that accompanies some of her country stuff was virtually gone. So, congrats to all involved, and especially to Carrie Underwood. Many would never have attempted what she accomplished.

If you're going to broadcast a live production of a much-loved, iconic classic (whether it's the stage or film version of ANYTHING), you had better prepare to hit the ball out of the park… NBC didn't even buy us a ticket to the game… And, that's sad, because kids today who've never before even seen such an animal (live production broadcast), now have their bar set so very low, it's a wonder they'll ever again even bother to reinvest the grueling, 2 ½ hours it took to get-through this challenging rendition.

Here's why… Since NBC's live version of "The Sound of Music" was a rendition of the Broadway PLAY, one really cannot compare 'apples to apples', since the play has never been broadcast live before, and today's TV viewers have only seen the movie version (which one cannot compare to the play). So, to be fair, let's compare live TV of a play to live TV of a play. If you use Roger's and Hammerstein's TV production of Cinderella as a comparison (broadcast by CBS in 1965), you'll see why NBC's Sound of Music, blew-it.

You see, the TV 'suits' of the 1960's realized that, if you're going to present an iconic story, and you're going to broadcast the show live, in prime time, during the holidays, you have to bring big names with big talent. That's why "Cinderella", for instance, showcased Lesley Ann Warren, Walter Pidgeon, Celeste Holm and Pat Carroll, to name a few. Those actors could not only sing, but they could act, too (and the '65 Cinderella required a lot of both). Having the ability and talent to do both, makes a huge difference when vying for the highly critical, ever bored, TV audience of today. So, when NBC of today hired a country singer who cannot act (even slightly), and cast the rest of the production with names who aren't generally known, a flop was not expected, it was guaranteed (The exception here, of course, was the amazingly talented, Audra McDonald as the mother superior (Superior's an understatement) – what NBC SHOULD have done was broadcast 2 ½ hours of HER singing whatever she wanted).

So, to 'review' NBC'S 'Sound of Music', I can only suggest that they start over (It was THAT bad). Instead, I say, think big, as those in Hollywood should. Cast Hugh Jackman (who can sing AND act) as the Captain. Pull one of the well-known witches who played "Wicked" on Broadway as Maria (singers, dancers, actors). Throw in someone a' la Timberlake as Rolf (and make him blond, for God's sake—it's a Nazi play), and you've got yourself a show. Otherwise, you're stuck for nearly 2 ½ hours with a big-named singer who not only can't act, but can't save the cast she's burdened with carrying...Shame on NBC.

As a 40-something would-be tough guy, I like to think I'm Han Solo stuck in the 21st century so I sure as hell ain't gonna watch a girly show like The Sound of Music. After avoiding this program all these years I finally sat down and watched Carrie Underwood's version on Thursday night after seeing it advertised on my local NBC news. I figured I should make an effort to get in touch with the world of performing arts.

This presentation of The Sound of Music was wonderful. Now, I didn't know the storyline nor the original music, so for me, this was a blessing. Great singing, sets, costumes; just a fantastic production all around. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Carrie Underwood is really pretty, too.

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...

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.