The Sound of Music Live!

I have been reading the other postings with great interest and what I have taken from the collective comments is the lack of understanding that this admirable (Yes, Ms. Underwood needs more acting lessons, though her singing was a pure enjoyable Broadway belt) television broadcast is closely based on the original 1959 stage version written by Lindsey and Crouse (book) and Rodgers and Hammerstein (score) for Mary Martin, with Theodore Bikel co-starring as the Captain, a fact that all of the publicity for this TV version has stated.

One poster on this thread stated he was sorry the TV got the scenes out of order; I beg to differ. The film got the scenes out of order. It was the film version that substituted "My Favorite Things" for "The Lonely Goatherd" in the storm scene, regulating the latter song to some strange interpolated puppet sequence and depriving the Mother Abbess of her part in a duet with Maria.

This version didn't add the two songs for the Elsa and Max. It was the film version that deleted them from the score while adding "Confidence in Me", a 'travelling' song that was justified in a cinematic sense but not needed in the stage version, as the TV broadcast clearly vindicated.

In fact, speaking of the songs, I was sorry to see that one mediocre song ("Something Good") was substituted for another mediocre song ("An Ordinary Couple"). At least that deleted song had a lyric by Hammerstein; Rodgers himself wrote the lyric to "Something Good".

"The Sound of Music" isn't a great show, but it is an audience favorite. It shared the Tony Award for Best Musical with "Fiorello!" and Ms. Martin beat out the likes of Ethel Merman for Best Actress in a Musical. The TV version was an honorable attempt (and broadcast live was a great idea--anyone else notice how the train in the Baroness's dress was stepped on by another actor?). I hope network television experiments further with this idea (though keeping the commercials down might be a good idea--a bunch at the beginning, a clump in the middle, and another cluster at the end would keep the audiences involved.). So, congrats to all involved. Keep singing.

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.

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!

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...

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.