Kelli O'Hara - Some thoughts on South Pacific

[jrb]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 1:10pm

Realism vs. Escapism: The Kelli O’Hara Argument

Bush’s America sees the pendulum swinging from escapism toward realism.
Mermaids and Augusts share the road while Catered Affairs dine with the Xanadus at Sardis.

It seems as though people are divided. Same want to hold onto the fantastic aspects of yesterday’s Broadway while others are ready to move on.

Recent, unofficial reviews of South Pacific seem to be emblematic of this battle of desires - specifically, those surrounding Kelli O’Hara’s performance as Nellie Forbush – the ingénue hick whose realistic acting is thrilling/boring the BWW crowd.

Here’s my take. Feel free to take contention or support it:

South Pacific premiered in 1949 – a mere 4 years after the atom bomb brought WWII to an official end. The wounds were fresh.
Rogers and Hammerstein were being as daring as they could be considering the timeframe. They were leading the way in the pendulum’s drift toward realism by sculpting a work that commented on the recent war - but it was still that - recent. South Pacific rubbed the nation’s face in its own racism and warmongering but in a relatively delicate way. Granted, it was more daring than anything anyone had seen to date.

Mary Martin, a comedienne, brought forth a Nellie whose over-the-top energy lightened the subject matter. Her Nellie was not the Nellie of 2008 and was by no means the Nellie of Bartlett Sher.

Mr. Sher has made no apologies. His South Pacific is a more realistic look at war through Rogers’ and Hammerstein’s musical / dramatic lens.
While the original show was bold in its characterizations of war, it was still passive and flowery as compared to modern standards. It was not an accurate depiction of life in the South Pacific during WWII – though it was closer to reality than anything before it.

And while Ms. Martin’s Nellie was inspired and groundbreaking, it was not a nurse aware of the affects of war. It was not a nurse who had seen death and knew of the atrocities happening mere islands away. It was a celebration of life – a firework, an acting tour de force that inspired people – but it was still informed by the acting trends of the day. It was still vaudevillian in pace and emotional gesture.

While many may disagree with Ms. O’Hara’s depiction of Nellie, it must be noted that her characterization is far more realistic than any other we’ve seen.
When Emile points out in the first scene how Nellie’s news paper clipping from home doesn’t resemble the nurse he sees before him, she points out that she has been changed by the mud, and the heat. Thus, her entire performance is informed by the reality of the situation. She is at war – literally and at heart. She may be a hick, but anyone would be changed by her circumstance.

I guess my point is that you may not have enjoyed Ms. O’Hara’s performance based on its energy or “star quality”, but her acting was, IMHO, well-informed and captivating. While a complete departure from Martin’s dynamic celebration, it was in keeping with the tone of Mr. Sher’s dramatic, darker realization of this material. She is playing Nellie as a human being – a real live hick, not a stage hick. Once you’ve come to terms with that fact, you’re free to decide whether or not it was something you enjoyed or not, and that is obviously completely up to the individual.

[being.jeremiah]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 1:13pm

Bart Sher?

That's what he was trying to point out at the talk last Wednesday afternoon. And I think their approach is more grounded on the original writings of Rodgers and Hammerstein, and not necessarily the first Broadway production.

Thanks for the insight! Looking forward to seeing it Thursday night.

[jrb]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 1:42pm

Also worth noting that despite there having been a lot of productions of South Pacific after the original, this is the first to get the official stamp of approval from the Rogers and Hammerstein Org. They've approved this more realistic portrayal.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:38pm

I saw a preview earlier this month. I agree that Ms. O'Hara is talented and charming, and she is most respects suited to the role. My problem was that she has BIG moments in the show during which she is not performing at any different level from the smaller moments. This may in fact be more realistic - but certain songs in this show require an expansive reading. It was "I'm in Love with a Wonderful Guy" that disappointed me the most. Even a nurse worn down by the rigors of war and heat and mud needs to come across as someone wild with happiness and walking nine feet off the ground because of the way she feels about DeBecque. For me, Kelli just didn't bring it at those moments.