Skip to main content

Somewhere out there is a lady who I think will never be a nun.

The Sound of Music
(1965)

(SPOILERS) One of the most successful movies ever made – and the most successful musical – The Sound of Music has earned probably quite enough unfiltered adulation over the years to drown out the dissenting voices, those that denounce it as an inveterately saccharine, hollow confection warranting no truck. It’s certainly true that there are impossibly nice and wholesome elements here, from Julie Andrews’ career-dooming stereotype governess to the seven sonorous children more than willing to dress up in old curtains and join her gallivanting troupe. Whether the consequence is something insidious in its infectious spirit is debatable, but I’ll admit that it manages to ensnare me. I don’t think I’d seen the movie in its entirety since I was a kid, and maybe that formativeness is a key brainwashing facet of its appeal, but it retains its essential lustre just the same.

Perhaps most impressive is that The Sound of Music is a three-hour musical that barely drags, and the drama of the piece propels it even when the – mostly very good, and ludicrously ear-wormy – songs aren’t front and centre. Very loosely based on Maria von Trapp’s 1949 memoir The Story of the Trapp Family Singers, the tale made it to the screen after a German film and sequel and the diversion of a planned US version into a Rogers and Hammerstein stage musical; it then found its way to Fox – who paid the equivalent of $10m for it – and quality adaptors in the form of Ernest Lehman and Robert Wise (both of whom collaborated on West Side Story). The latter was Lehman’s first choice, replacing William Wyler after doubts about his commitment surfaced.

What makes the picture interesting in part is the marriage of the shamelessly sugary with the “stark” (in family-viewing terms) spectre of fascism forever changing an idyllic way of life; the Von Trapps, and the audience, will always have those wonderful songs, but they’re brought to life on the doorstep of the devastation of their (luxuriant) way of life. Geoff Andrews in Time Out noted the lure of the material, despite its “reactionary” nature (a woman’s place being in the home, mothering etc), and suggested “the threat of Nazism is better evoked than in Cabaret”. It’s notable that, once the Captain (Christopher Plummer) and Maria (Julia Andrews) declare their feelings for each other, the world comes crashing down around them. Subsequently, there are only reprises of songs, and Wise (expertly) adopts the pacing of a suspense thriller as they are force to flee the country by way of a folk festival.

Much was said about reducing the “sweetness and sentimentality” of the stage version, from Wise and Lehman, and from Andrews too. Which didn’t prevent the brickbats, even from Plummer, who loathed the entire experience (“The Sound of Mucus”), loathed Andrews’ Miss Disney-ness (like “being hit over the head with a big Valentine’s Day card every day”) and sought comfort in the local victuals (I doubt he particularly relished having been dubbed either). His character remains the only lead not entirely unfrozen by Maria’s presence (Andrews is said to have credited his cynicism with keeping the picture – relatively – from indulging too much sentiment).

The Captain ought, by rights, to get on with the Nazis like a house on fire; he’s a humourless authoritarian rigidly disciplining his children for the benefit of the family unit (“The children don’t play, they march”). But Lehman takes care from the outset to stress that, whatever his domestic demeanour, the Captain has no sympathy with such doctrines. He wants shot of Rolfe (Daniel Truhitte), not because he’s wooing Liesl (Charmian Carr) – although that doesn’t help – but because he’s a Brownshirt. He also makes no bones about expressing his feelings to Herr Zeller (Ben Wright), leading directly to his receiving special treatment. At the conclusion, Lehman doubles down on portraying the divide as the Captain pleads with Rolfe, telling him “You’ll never be one of them” – a brown rag to a bull – and the latter reveals he has become a super Nazi when he summons his fellow Brownshirts.

It may be down to Plummer in part, but for me, the melting of the Captain’s heart is very sudden and not entirely persuasive (“You’ve brought music back into the house. I’d forgotten”). Indeed, the only conflict really arises from the brief machinations of the Baroness (Eleanor Parker), who has the good grace to admit defeat when she sees the writing on the wall. Elsewhere, the child’s eye view of the fascist threat is somewhat cloying (“Everybody’s cross these days, darling”; “Maybe the flag with the black spider on it makes people nervous”), but still infinitely preferable to the Roberto Benigni effect. The underlying message then, is surely that, if only Julie Andrews could have personally serenaded Adolf, all this might have been avoided. Which is to ignore the essential diktats of Hegelian dialectic, but this is a family musical.

In terms of the cast then, I can see how someone else might have been a better choice than Plummer (the mooted Connery could have been interesting), but he creates an undeniable tension (Pauline Kael, who I’ll come to, suggested “Even the monstrously ingenious technicians who made this movie couldn’t put together a convincing mate for Super-Goody Two-Shoes”; Plummer’s performance is “sinister, unpleasant, archly decadent”). Andrews is sickly sweet and super mumsy, more so here than in the more heightened and slightly brusquer, kindly-authoritarian realm of Mary Poppins. The actress might be likeable, but she isn’t loveable; she’s just too wholesome, sincere and lacking in the remotest trace of guile or edge. Thus, the only fair retort is the realisation that she fits the material tonally.

I was most taken with Charmian Carr as a lad (21 playing 16), and it bears noting Plummer was too. I hadn’t realised until now that’s TV’s Spider-Man as Friedrich. Richard Haydn is likeable as the capitalist-yet-stalwart-where-it-counts Max, while Parker brings some poise to the thankless role of the third wheel (“My dear, is there anything you can’t do?”) The kids are largely anonymous, though, aside from the oldest and youngest (Kym Karath: I want to show her my finger). Their motivation is also largely a wash. “How else can we get father’s attention?” they comment of treating previous governesses terribly; no need for probing psychoanalysis there.

I mentioned the change in tone and pace of the last forty minutes, and it’s marked how the Rogers & Hammerstein numbers fizzle at this stage. Something Good (the serenade) and Climb Ev’ry Mountain (Mother abbess, Peggy Wood’s song) are nothing special, and about the only point you might find yourself looking at your watch. And yes, I could do without the “Cuckoo” start of So Long, Farewell. Both times. But there’s a reason this soundtrack outsold every Beatles album except Sergeant Pepper during the 60s (and was the bestselling UK album in 1965, 1966 and 1968).

I should also mention that the last time I sat through The Sound of Music, it would have been a pan-and-scan, and I was consequently hugely impressed by the work of Wise and cinematographer Ted D McCord (his penultimate film) on this occasion. This is surely one of the most beautifully shot musicals ever shot, the more impressive for the seamless marriage of location and sets (a rarity during this era).

Kael, as I mentioned, was decidedly not seduced. Or rather, she clearly was but resisted it with every fibre of her pen tip (or clatter of her keys). Her diatribe is very familiar in essence, one those yearning for a past period (just the way the 1960s are now similarly summoned). She opined that its success and that of the “wholesome” it epitomises “makes it even more difficult for anyone to try to do anything worth doing, anything relevant to the modern world, anything inventive or expressive”.

Now, one might apply this weary resignation to superhero movies sucking the oxygen out of the auditorium (or plandemics, other than in China, natch) but fast forward a few short years and the invasion of the New Hollywood proved her argument nonsense (“The more money these ‘wholesome’ movies make, the less wholesome will the state of American movies be”). What was actually being seen, as others have documented, was the musical’s – along with that of the period epic, although by about his point that had spluttered and collapsed, largely thanks to Cleopatra – veneration as an answer to the might of television. By 1970, that was largely over, due to several costly flops, and it would be darker-tinged versions (Cabaret, Fiddler on the Roof) that kept what tattered flag there was left flying.

Kael questioned if The Sound of Music was “a tribute to ‘freshness’ that is mechanically engineered, so shrewdly calculated that the background music rises, the already soft focus blurs and melts, and, upon the instant, you can hear all the noses blowing in the theatre?” Further still, “The worst despots in history, the most cynical purveyors of mass culture respond at this level and may feel pleased at how tender-hearted they reallyare because they do”. Kael suggested the movie could only offend those who “loathe being manipulated in this way and are aware of how cheap and ready-made are the responses we are made to feel”, those who object to being turned into “emotional and aesthetic imbeciles when we hear ourselves humming those sickly, goody-goody songs”. She’s saying she hates herself for being carried along by its good vibrations, basically.

The question that follows, then, is why The Sound of Music merits such an excoriation. It’s a musical. Of course its mechanical and engineered. A few years later, Kael could be found singing the praises of Oliver! about as saccharine and wholesome a retelling of Dickens you could imagine (it even lets off Fagin). But The Sound of Music, “the sugar-coated lie that people seem to want to eat” and its “luxurious falseness” is really to blame. Worse still (bizarrely, and bafflingly, particularly from a movie critic) it makes “honest work almost impossible” such that “people who accept this kind of movie tend to resent work”. Okay…

Still, her take on Andrews is devastatingly on point (“The perfect, perky schoolgirl, the adorable tomboy, the gawky colt. Sexless, inhumanly happy, the sparkling maid, a mind as clean and well brushed as her teeth”). If one wishes to drill down to the truth in her statements, its merely that the movie industry is always going to plough wholesale into selling whatever makes them money at whatever time. But that will be sugar-coated one moment and riddled with Bonnie and Clyde bullets the next. Yes, it will try to sell agendas (wokeness right now, for example), but unless you make that pill tasty (a spoonful of sugar) it’s going to be rejected for its unvarnished, Oscar-laden absence of public interest.

So I come away giving thumbs up to The Sound of Music. Yes, both of them. It’s an absurd fantasy, for sure, but it’s a great musical. Plausibility wise, I was more perplexed by the logistics of making and producing the Lonely Goatherd puppet show than how impossibly nice Maria is. Perhaps, like Max, the movie makes of each of us “a very charming sponge”, but it’s hardly alone in movies across all eras in that regard.




Popular posts from this blog

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was