The Sound of Music Live!

[MrMiniver]

LMAO. I would LOVE to have seen that!!! Eartha Fuckin' Kitt!!! One of my most memorable moments in the theatre was hearing her purrrrrrrrrr "Welcome to Timbuktu" in that dreadful musical she did towards the end of her B'way career. Oh lordy, was it camp and awful!

 

Thanks so much for the info about the various versions of the R&H "Cinderella". Not having seen it, I thought the recent NY production was a replica of the t.v. version. The idea of Carly Rae Jepson as Cinderella and Fran Dresher as the wicked stepmother really kinda put me off wanting to see it!

 

Brian D'Arcy James is pretty good in the movie "Spotlight", even though you're not a fan. And I like the performances Borle has given on "The Good Wife". Maybe that's why you don't like them - they are better t.v./film presences than stage presences.

 

I gotta get some groceries now.

 

I was just telling someone about SPOTLIGHT. I have about 30 Oscar screeners in front of me and I'm working my way through them. I did SPOTLIGHT on Sunday night. After all the praise, my reaction was MEH. It seemed like a pale imitation of All the President's Men. And I didn't realize until it was over that that was d'Arcy James. He was good but not particularly memorable. No real star performances in that film at all. Just good ensemble work. But it felt like a very good TV movie to me. There was almost nothing cinematic about it. I kept wondering what would Hitch, Ford or Welles think about it? They'd be bored to death. As Hitch said "I have no interest in photographing films of people talking."

 

Kitt was a hoot.

[MrMiniver]

actor61, We disagree for the first time. I am 72-years old. After seeing Christian Borle in "Peter and The Starcatcher," he would have done just fine in Broadway's Golden Age. I admit that I was not old enough to have see many Golden Age shows, but I saw every show that tried out in Boston beginning in 1959.

 

You must be smoking dope or something. There is not way that Borle would have managed to get on a Broadway stage that had Preston, Mostel, Brynner, Lunt, Astaire, Raitt, Drake, Blyden, or any host of others one could name.

[+ WilliamM]

While Tony Awards do not tell the whold story, Borle has won two Tony Awards. There were both in the supporting actor category.

 

Since I am slightly older than him (MrMiniver was too young to see Merman in "Gypsy"), I hope he smoked dope or tried acid during your life. I sure did, but not in the last few days.

[MrMiniver]

While Tony Awards do not tell the whold story, Borle has won two Tony Awards. There were both in the supporting actor category.

 

Since I am slightly older than him (MrMiniver was too young to see Merman in "Gypsy"), I hope he smoked dope or tried acid during your life. I sure did, but not in the last few days.

 

He won Tonys given the crop of today's Tonys. Name a year between 1950 and 1965 when he would have won those Tonys (which as you said don't tell the whole story anyway) in place of the people who actually did back then. Compare the performances.

 

Audra McDonald has 6 Tonys. Does anyone seriously think that if she had been competing in the 40s 50s or 60s she would have won even 1 or 2?

 

Nope, it's all about the state of the competition. Borle wins by default. He's the least AWFUL.

[MrMiniver]

While Tony Awards do not tell the whold story, Borle has won two Tony Awards. There were both in the supporting actor category.

 

Since I am slightly older than him (MrMiniver was too young to see Merman in "Gypsy"), I hope he smoked dope or tried acid during your life. I sure did, but not in the last few days.

 

I wasn't too young (age wise) to see GYPSY. I saw Sound of Music. As I've explained, ad nauseum, my grandmother thought the material was not suitable.

[bostonman]

The Tony Awards are an odd thing (though I suppose really any and all of these celeb/industry awards are). It's a bit like Trump with the polls. I notice that sometimes when asked about poll numbers that aren't in his favor, he's said "I don't care about the polls / I don't look at the polls" etc. But of course when he's ahead in the polls, that's all you hear him talking about.

 

Whether the Tonys are about true excellence or just a big popularity contest (or a commercial boost for viable shows) all depends on who you want to win, I think. If one likes someone such as Borle, you're thrilled that he won, and glad to see his talent recognized. If one doesn't like the likes of Borle, his win is just a nod to his celebrity and perhaps a nod to the popularity of the show he won for - and proof that the Tonys are nothing but a popularity contest.

 

Myself, I get caught up in the excitement of the Tonys each year. But I also find I'm more and more jaded about the results each year. And just like I wrote above, I'm always happy when my favorites win, and always find myself questioning the "excellence" goal of the Tonys when the winners seem like weak choices. I guess that's human nature.

[+ WilliamM]

Bostonman, Thanks for your most recent post. All your comments are thoughtful and to the point.

 

I would add one thought. The Tony Awards began in the late 1940s. Many major stars gave some their best performances before the Tony Awards. Merman is a good example. She would have won more Tony Awards

if her earlier shows had been eligible.

[+ Gar1eth]

I'm not as knowledgeable about Broadway or the old stars as many of you are. But there's a point I don't think any of you have made. Namely, acting styles change over time. I love watching Capra comedies. But that style of acting wouldn't really work in most films today. The same thing, I think, goes for Broadway. Actors like Merman, Mostel, and etc-seemed to be characters in and of themselves-at least when in the public eye. Think of Kaufman and Heart writing the character Sheridan Whiteside for Woollcott although Monty Woolley seems to have been made for that part as well. I'm not sure if today's audience brought up with the intimacy of TV would always be able to suspend belief or enjoy the large performances these entertainers specialized in.

 

Gman

[+ WilliamM]

I'm not as knowledgeable about Broadway or the old stars as many of you are. But there's a point I don't think any of you have made. Namely, acting styles change over time. I love watching Capra comedies. But that style of acting wouldn't really work in most films today. The same thing, I think, goes for Broadway. Actors like Merman, Mostel, and etc-seemed to be characters in and of themselves-at least when in the public eye. Think of Kaufman and Heart writing the character Sheridan Whiteside for Woollcott although Monty Woolley seems to have been made for that part as well. I'm not sure if today's audience brought up with the intimacy of TV would always be able to suspend belief or enjoy the large performances these entertainers specialized in.

 

I understand your point; it's a good question. You may be confusing the Merman of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World" and "Airplane" with the Merman of "Gypsy." Merman's acting style can occasionally overwhelm a film, but not a live stage performance. Just some quick thoughts very early in the morning.

[actor61]

The Tony Awards are an odd thing (though I suppose really any and all of these celeb/industry awards are). It's a bit like Trump with the polls. I notice that sometimes when asked about poll numbers that aren't in his favor, he's said "I don't care about the polls / I don't look at the polls" etc. But of course when he's ahead in the polls, that's all you hear him talking about.

 

Whether the Tonys are about true excellence or just a big popularity contest (or a commercial boost for viable shows) all depends on who you want to win, I think. If one likes someone such as Borle, you're thrilled that he won, and glad to see his talent recognized. If one doesn't like the likes of Borle, his win is just a nod to his celebrity and perhaps a nod to the popularity of the show he won for - and proof that the Tonys are nothing but a popularity contest.

 

Myself, I get caught up in the excitement of the Tonys each year. But I also find I'm more and more jaded about the results each year. And just like I wrote above, I'm always happy when my favorites win, and always find myself questioning the "excellence" goal of the Tonys when the winners seem like weak choices. I guess that's human nature.

I think your comparison of how Trump talks about polls to how actors talk about awards is brilliant. I always get a little green around the gills when I hear someone say, "It's just an honor to be nominated", just as I get a trifle nauseated when I hear Trump say, "I don't care about the polls." But then, to be honest, I get a trifle nauseated whenever he says ANYthing.

 

I agree that sometimes the awards can seem like a popularity contest. I don't disagree with Gwen Verdon or Julie Harris or Angela Lansbury having 4 and 5 awards but I'm not so sure I understand why Audra MacDonald has 6. Since I've been in the business all my life, I should probably understand the whole awards process better but it still baffles me. Mary Martin won for Best Actress in "Sound of Music" over Merman in "Gypsy". Carol Channing won for "Hello Dolly" over Streisand in "Funny Girl". Obviously, those were popularity based awards and probably given as career achievement prizes rather than the specific performances for which they were nominated. Catherine Zeta-Jones got a Tony for "A Little Night Music", Scarlett Johanssen got one for "A View From the Bridge", and Denzel Washington has one too. I saw all of those shows and thought the performances were competent but not award worthy. But they are big time movie stars, they sold a lot of tickets, and I guess that was enough to merit making acceptance speeches.

 

And if we broaden the discussion, Gwyneth Paltrow has an Oscar. That one I'll NEVER understand.

[+ WilliamM]

 

Since I've been in the business all my life, I should probably understand the whole awards process better but it still baffles me. Mary Martin won for Best Actress in "Sound of Music" over Merman in "Gypsy". Carol Channing won for "Hello Dolly" over Streisand in "Funny Girl". Obviously, those were popularity based awards and probably given as career achievement prizes rather than the specific performances for which they were nominated.

 

I did not see "Hello, Dolly," but saw the other three musicals. "The Sound of Music" was extremely popular with the public, as I believe you know. Merman gave the better performance, but I might have voted for Martin myself if I was eligible -- as a lifeime acchievement award for touring many of her shows and her impact on Broadway on TV ("Peter Pan").

[+ Gar1eth]

As a child I loved the yearly Peter Pan broadcast with Mary Martin. And I realize Peter is supposed to be androgynous as he hasn't reached puberty or grown up. But I'm tired of seeing women in the show. I'd like to see it done with a male.

 

Gman

[N13]

You must be smoking dope or something. There is not way that Borle would have managed to get on a Broadway stage that had Preston, Mostel, Brynner, Lunt, Astaire, Raitt, Drake, Blyden, or any host of others one could name.

 

I am assuming that the IMHO is silent.

[+ WilliamM]

As a child I loved the yearly Peter Pan broadcast with Mary Martin. And I realize Peter is supposed to be androgynous as he hasn't reached puberty or grown up. But I'm tired of seeing women in the show. I'd like to see it done with a male.

 

The live 1955 and live 1956 versions are finally available on DVD for the first time.

 

The version usually shown is in color and put together in a studio while Mary Martin was in "The Sound of Music" in 1960. Martin herself enjoyed performing live. To me, I prefer the live versions of '55 and '56 by far despite the black and white.

[+ Gar1eth]

As a child I loved the yearly Peter Pan broadcast with Mary Martin. And I realize Peter is supposed to be androgynous as he hasn't reached puberty or grown up. But I'm tired of seeing women in the show. I'd like to see it done with a male.

 

Gman

 

The live 1955 and live 1956 versions are finally available on DVD for the first time.

 

The version usually shown is in color and put together in a studio while Mary Martin was in "The Sound of Music" in 1960. Martin herself enjoyed performing live. To me, I prefer the live versions of '55 and '56 by far despite the black and white.

 

I'm not sure which version was being broadcast for several years in a row during the early to mid 1960's when I was a child. I was born in 1961 (my birthday is the 1st week of January if anyone wants to send me a present. Of course you don't have to, I'm just saying...:D:rolleyes:) so it might have been the color version. But we didn't get a color TV until the very late 1960's or very early 1970's.

 

Speaking of color TV I think I remember the first time I saw one. It was probably 1966 or 1967. The family had been invited over to some people's house with most likely a lot more money than my family. They had a large two storey house with an above the ground pool in the backyard. The TV or one of their TVs was in an upstairs room. We watched Batman and Robin. I remember being amazed at the age of 5 or 6 that Robin's costume was red.

 

Gman

[+ WilliamM]

Gman, Once the color version was finished and broadcast, NBC never showed the black and white version again. That's why the two early versions on DVD were a very pleasant surprise.

[actor61]

As a child I loved the yearly Peter Pan broadcast with Mary Martin. And I realize Peter is supposed to be androgynous as he hasn't reached puberty or grown up. But I'm tired of seeing women in the show. I'd like to see it done with a male.

 

Gman

I saw the Royal Shakespeare Company production of the James Barrie play in London with Mark Rylance as Peter, and Edward Petherbridge as Barrie/Narrator. (If I remember correctly, this was in the early 1980s.) What a revelation! Even then, Rylance's brilliance was very apparent. And the play became a completely different thing with a real boy playing Peter Pan.

[bostonman]

I did a production of the musical with a boyish actor in his 20's as Peter, and it was quite good. Transposing all the songs wasn't fun, but it was worth it. I know of other productions that have been done with men as Pan - I think the closest to a true "star" playing the role was B. D. Wong.

[+ WilliamM]

I saw the Royal Shakespeare Company production of the James Barrie play in London with Mark Rylance as Peter, and Edward Petherbridge as Barrie/Narrator. (If I remember correctly, this was in the early 1980s.) What a revelation! Even then, Rylance's brilliance was very apparent. And the play became a completely different thing with a real boy playing Peter Pan.

 

In reading some of the many reviews on Amazon of the recently released Mary Martin live versions from 1955 and 1956, the complaints were from people who thought they were buying the 1960 color version, which is apparently out of print.

 

However, I agree with Bostonman above. An excellent compromise is to transport the songs so that a male can play Peter.

[+ Gar1eth]

On a different subject-in Andrew Lloyd Webber's Joseph, the Narrator was originally a male. I used to have a cassette of one of the earlier recordings with a male. I've also used have several CD's of various Josephs and various Narrators. Obviously I liked some better than others. Michael Damien wasn't very good. But I think I liked the Narrator in his production. But when you know the part of the Narrator was originally made for a male, I think it becomes easier to understand why even really good female actresses usually sound as if they are straining in certain songs.

 

Gman

[bostonman]

On a different subject-in Andrew Lloyd Webber's Joseph, the Narrator was originally a male. I used to have a cassette of one of the earlier recordings with a male. I've also used have several CD's of various Josephs and various Narrators. Obviously I liked some better than others. Michael Damien wasn't very good. But I think I liked the Narrator in his production. But when you know the part of the Narrator was originally made for a male, I think it becomes easier to understand why even really good female actresses usually sound as if they are straining in certain songs.

 

Gman

 

True - and even though keys have been rethought for the female version, some sections are still hard because of the ranges of the other characters that are singing with her in certain numbers.

 

However, IMO the late great Laurie Beechman is still the greatest of the (recorded) female narrators. It's not just the voice, it's the energy and playfulness and relish she brings to the part.

 

Also, that original Broadway version of the score is still my overall favorite. It was expanded from the (very short) original just enough to make it feel like a full-length show, without all the extra, endless, needless padding that has been added to the show ever since.

[+ Gar1eth]

True - and even though keys have been rethought for the female version, some sections are still hard because of the ranges of the other characters that are singing with her in certain numbers.

 

However, IMO the late great Laurie Beechman is still the greatest of the (recorded) female narrators. It's not just the voice, it's the energy and playfulness and relish she brings to the part.

 

Also, that original Broadway version of the score is still my overall favorite. It was expanded from the (very short) original just enough to make it feel like a full-length show, without all the extra, endless, needless padding that has been added to the show ever since.

 

I've never heard that Broadway version. Please tell me 'Those Canaan Days' was shorter. I find that one of my least favorite numbers in the show.

 

I used to have at least 3 different versions on CD-starring Donny Osmond, Michael Damien, and maybe Jason Donovan. And also as I mentioned, I had had a cassette from when the narrator was still male. I think they are all gone now. And there aren't digital releases of all them either. I think I enjoyed Lindsay Hateley as the narrator. I also liked Maria Friedman in the video version.

 

Gman

[N13]

Another show where the narrator was male originally was Pippin. Ben Vereen was fantastic. I don't know what the fuss was about Patina Miller in the recent revival. She spent the whole show with her head looking down. All I wanted to do was grab her by the hair and make her stand up straight!

[+ Gar1eth]

Another show where the narrator was male originally was Pippin. Ben Vereen was fantastic. I don't know what the fuss was about Patina Miller in the recent revival. She spent the whole show with her head looking down. All I wanted to do was grab her by the hair and make her stand up straight!

 

I don't know. I unfortunately missed her. The day I saw the show in 2013 was during the week the Tony Nominations were announced. Apparently they had been giving lots of interviews and possibly singing for publicity without much vocal rest. I think the day before I saw the show Patina's voice had given out. I think maybe the understudy took over during performance (but that may not be right). In any case the Sunday or Saturday matinee I saw was with the understudy.

 

Then last time I was in NYC a year ago (most likely my last visit ever) I wanted to see The Curious Incident... Well the show was great. But the the actor who played Christopher, Alex Sharp , and who eventually won the Tony had one day off a week. It just happened to be the day I had tickets. So I saw the understudy there too. I thought he was very good (and I read up on him afterwards and found out he was gay-so I was supporting one of us). But it would have been nice to see the eventual Tony Award Winner.

 

Gman

[bostonman]

I've never heard that Broadway version. Please tell me 'Those Canaan Days' was shorter. I find that one of my least favorite numbers in the show.

 

That's too bad, lol - I'm quite fond of that number. But yes, the whole apache dance section was added to the 90's version (Osmond and beyond) - the original Broadway version used the full text but that's it - and no extra repeats.

 

One of the songs *I* am not fond of is "Every Dream Will Do" - despite Webber's facile bouncy tune, I have never been able to understand Rice's convoluted lyric here. The song simply makes no sense to me, and I think it makes for a terrible finale. (Though the endless "megamix" reprises that have been added over time are even worse, lol.) So when, in addition to its usual place at the end of the show, it was added to the beginning as extra padding, I wasn't very happy.