#1
Posted: 12/17/08 at 8:51pm
I was just reading the thread about Sandy Duncan in Peter Pan, and I was reminded of what is to me one of the great mysteries of Broadway.
I saw the Peter Pan tv special with Mary Martin several times as a child, and at least once as an adult. I've seen her in several tv appearances, and her few bit parts in Hollywood movies. I've even seen part of her performance as Annie Oakley in the version she did for television. And of course I have heard her singing on many different cast albums.
And I just don't get it. What's the big deal? Her voice is warm and distinctive, but the scoops drive me batty. And she had such a tiny voice, a voice that works on recordings, but I can't imagine how she ever managed to be heard beyond the first few rows in the days before microphones.
Her acting in the the South Pacific clips I have seen is very good indeed. On the other hand, her performance in Peter Pan was overly cutesy, in my opinion. And her looks were a distraction. Not that she was homely, but she was definitely not photogenic. Something about her nose, I think. Hollywood obviously agreed as she had no film career to speak of.
I'm guessing that whatever quality she possessed that made Broadway audiences and critics alike fall on their knees in worship of her was a quality that only came through in live performances. For whatever reason, this quality did not translate to film or television. As someone who never saw her live and has only seen her on film, I'm left scratching my head wondering what the big fuss was all about.
I'd love to hear the opinions of those who did see her perform live, as well as those who like me have only seen her on film or heard her recordings.
I saw the Peter Pan tv special with Mary Martin several times as a child, and at least once as an adult. I've seen her in several tv appearances, and her few bit parts in Hollywood movies. I've even seen part of her performance as Annie Oakley in the version she did for television. And of course I have heard her singing on many different cast albums.
And I just don't get it. What's the big deal? Her voice is warm and distinctive, but the scoops drive me batty. And she had such a tiny voice, a voice that works on recordings, but I can't imagine how she ever managed to be heard beyond the first few rows in the days before microphones.
Her acting in the the South Pacific clips I have seen is very good indeed. On the other hand, her performance in Peter Pan was overly cutesy, in my opinion. And her looks were a distraction. Not that she was homely, but she was definitely not photogenic. Something about her nose, I think. Hollywood obviously agreed as she had no film career to speak of.
I'm guessing that whatever quality she possessed that made Broadway audiences and critics alike fall on their knees in worship of her was a quality that only came through in live performances. For whatever reason, this quality did not translate to film or television. As someone who never saw her live and has only seen her on film, I'm left scratching my head wondering what the big fuss was all about.
I'd love to hear the opinions of those who did see her perform live, as well as those who like me have only seen her on film or heard her recordings.
Updated On: 12/22/08 at 08:51 PM