The Sound of Music

I fully agree, Bartlett Sher is the only person who can fuel new magic into R&H’s THE SOUND OF MUSIC. The musical needs a retooling instead of mounting the original work almost intact as all other productions have done.

I have always assumed it was because the movie is so loved, and there is no capturing the Alps or Julie Andrews on stage. Also, the one revival was not much of a hit.

Interestingly, I saw the a revival in December 2019 at the Asolo Theatre is Sarasota, that really got it right overall. At the time, I concluded that it would be possible for it to be a hit on Broadway. The biggest issue with the show IMO was that there were a couple of things that were done so much better in the movie. As an example, the song 'My Favorite Things' conjures up the scene in the bedroom where Maria and the von Trapp children sing the song. In the show, that song it sung by Maria and...Mother Superior??? It was nothing short of stupid, but easy to fix.

The scene at the festival was exceptionally well-staged and really was chilling; the two songs cut from the movie worked well, etc. The very last scene was staged so effectively (and simply) that you almost believed they were climbing the Alps.

Lincoln Center and Bartlett Sher sounds good to me.

I honestly think a big problem with reviving the show is that the second scene takes place in the hills. In the old days of painted backdrops and fake trees and foliage--in all sorts of shows--this wasn't a problem. But nowadays, it would look so phony and artificial as to look either second rate or camp.

But there's also the fact that most people don't actually like the stage show much. The movie improved on it in almost every way (though stage orchestrator Robert Russell Bennet--who considered it the best of the R&H shows--thought the movie totally ruined everything that was great about the work to begin with). And Broadway is so far away from the sentiments of a show like this that a revival is near impossible for anyone in the creative community to really believe in or commit to a production for any reason other than money.

I also feel it's one of those shows that's done so much regionally and in so many community theatres and high schools, that there's a huge question of whether people would really travel to New York to see it for Broadway prices when they can see it for $15 down the street. And yes, you can make that same argument for a lot of shows that have been revived (South Pacific, Carousel, Gypsy, etc.), but combined with as others have said the movie is often regarded as superior to the stage version, there just doesn't seem like there would be a ton of demand for a Broadway revival.

I love Bartlett Sher's directing usually, and I usually roll my eyes at the new productions that take classic works and make them darker and oh-so-serious, but I think this is one show where I would prefer the latter take. I don't want the whole thing to be dark or anything, but I want a director to really delve deeper into the white supremacist/Nazi-themes while ensuring there's a real sweet chemistry between Maria and the children and then Maria and Captain Von Trapp. The real Maria was pregnant when she wedded Von Trapp, so maybe they could increase the lust factor. The real Maria was also not the warm, sweet parent and was haunted by her past whereas it was Captain Von Trapp who was the nice parent, but I'm not sure if I want that explored.

joevitus said: "Jarethan said: "joevitus said: "I honestly think a big problem with reviving the show is that the second scene takes place in the hills. In the old days of painted backdrops and fake trees and foliage--in all sorts of shows--this wasn't a problem. But nowadays, it would look so phony and artificial as to look eithersecond rate or camp.

...

Great. I have not seen a productionthat managed thefeat you described.Glad that was not your experience. Still doubt many in the Broadway community have an affinity for or belief in the show and want to commit to a production, let alone one that doesn't just phone it in. But if I am proved wrong, again great. I have no grudge against the show no antagonism towards a revival. That you and five other people you known only went because you more or less had to and without any strong sense that you'd have a good time also speaks to why a revival is probably a gamble."

Your last point is valid. I think that selection of a director, and his sharing his vision, will be a starting point. It may be helped initially by the person chosen to play Maria. But, it may turn out that reviews are going to be the most important thing here. No one expected the Cabaret or Chicago revivals to become the monumental hits they became. I think it came down to the rapturous reviews they received. No, both are darker pieces that SOM, but it can be darkened a little bit in a good way, so that it it not all peaches and cream.

That said, lightening does not strike that often. There are... Cabaret and Chicago, both dark, both sophisticated, both containing lots of dancing and (in a good way) gaudy production numbers with flashy star turns. SOM is never going to have 'gaudy' production numbers with lots of dancing, is never going to be sophisticated, and the darkness is going to be limited (I think).

I do believe that a very good production of SOM can be a big hit, however.

Good points, Jarethan.

joevitus said: "I honestly think a big problem with reviving the show is that the second scene takes place in the hills. In the old days of painted backdrops and fake trees and foliage--in all sorts of shows--this wasn't a problem. But nowadays, it would look so phony and artificial as to look eithersecond rate or camp.

But there's also the fact that most people don't actually like the stage show much. The movie improved on it in almost every way (though stage orchestrator Robert Russell Bennet--who considered it the best of the R&H shows--thought the movie totally ruined everything that was great about the work to begin with). And Broadway is so far away from the sentiments of a show like this that a revival is near impossible for anyone in the creative communityto really believe in or commit to a production for any reason other than money."

Regarding your first paragraph, about the outdoor scenes looking phony or camp, I think we can look to the revivals of Oklahoma from twenty years ago or the Sher South Pacific to see that these can be done without trying to do a pictorial realism that would indeed look silly today. Both of the films took great advantage of their locations but the revivals still looked great without even trying to look realistic in any way.

Well...we actually have had two big television revivals...well, the Brit one wasn't broadcast here originally but it is now a PBS staple...

One thing that I've always felt the stage production did better than the film was the inclusion of the two songs for Elsa and Max, especially "No Way to Stop It". Both songs seems out of place, and like there is this "impending doom" with the rise of the Nazi's that makes me uncomfortable. Therefore, the stakes are higher in the latter section of the show. The Von Trapps aren't just running away because Captain Von Trapp doesn't want to fight, it's also because you can trust no one. Even those you thought you were friends with might end up on the "wrong side" of history.

I also think about that while "My Favourite Things" does make the bedroom scene stronger, to me, it almost makes it a copy of "I Whistle a Happy Tune" from The King and I, which does the bravery theme better imo. Telling a fluffy story about goats is so wacky, but it is suppose to soothe the children and take their minds off of it.

I did see the recent tour, although after it went non-Equity, and still did enjoy it. I think it was better than the Andrew Lloyd Webber produced revival that we got in Toronto in 2008 with a fantastic Captain Von Trapp in Burke Moses.

Updated On: 9/15/20 at 08:46 AM

Why doesn't Stephen Sondheim like this musical?

He says Richard Rodgers didn't write anything good after The King and I.

Do other people feel this way?