CriticismCriticsDVDImages

Image of the day, 11/19/10

By November 19, 2010No Comments

Muisc open

The Sound of Music, Robert Wise, 1965

Some know-somethingish drip over at Slant tried to take a con­trari­an or counter-intuitive or whatever the hell they call it “take” on the motion pic­ture from which the above screen cap­ture is derived in a review of its 45th Anniversary DVD and Blu-ray edi­tion, said take con­sist­ing of him piss­ing all over the mater­i­al, but then play­ing “dev­il’s advocate”…by allow­ing that the film ver­sion has a more tol­er­able book, as it were, than the stage one. Damn, that hardly even qual­i­fies as faint praise. His qual­i­fic­a­tion to deliv­er this ver­dict is based, I guess, on the fact that he played Friedrich for eight months when he was a kid. The cir­cum­stances of this por­tray­al are not giv­en; I sup­pose we’re to infer that the author was a child act­or of some kind, but I prefer to think he was kid­napped and forced to live the role. In any event, pri­or to reach­ing this monu­ment­al con­clu­sion, the review­er, Eric Henderson by name, really goes to town, to wit, “Light and flaky, with all the nutri­tion­al value of any food typ­ic­ally giv­en said descriptors,” “self-aware of its inher­ent stu­pid­ity,” “its white elephant”—ooh, you’ve clearly read your Manny Farber, aren’t you a smart one?—“eagerness mani­fests itself as a dir­ect riposte to art,” “over­bear­ing Broadway titans Rogers [sic] and Hammerstein’s most rudi­ment­ary song score,” okay, whoa, hold on there, Hoss. “Rudimentary?” Oh really.

This, you see, is what we in the biz call “over­reach­ing.” If the “awful” (Henderson’s word again) songs of The Sound of Music are “rudi­ment­ary,” they are rudi­ment­ary in a way that requires total mastery—both verbal and musical—to pull off. You try and write a song both as catchy and as mul­ti­form as “Do-Re-Mi” some time, using only one octave of the C scale. Also, John Coltrane did­n’t take “My Favorite Things” and use it to com­pletely trans­form mod­ern jazz pretty much overnight because he wanted to demon­strate to the squares how he could make a stick-up-its-ass show tune swing, or some such thing; he did it because, well, as he said, “This waltz is fant­ast­ic: when you play it slowly, it has an ele­ment of gos­pel that’s not at all dis­pleas­ing; when you play it quickly, it pos­sesses oth­er undeni­able qual­it­ies. It’s very inter­est­ing to dis­cov­er a ter­rain that renews itself accord­ing to the impulse you give it.” Henderson, who in a notice about a Glenn Gould doc­u­ment­ary shrugged that Gould was “a pian­ist to be reckoned with,” might be one of those fel­lows who just says “whatever” at the men­tion of Coltrane, so I don’t ima­gine this cita­tion will impress him much. But really, there’s so much that one can eas­ily get away with when drub­bing The Sound of Music; why extend one’s ambi­tions into areas where trouble may follow?

Actual fans of the film, by the way, should be informed that the new Blu-ray edi­tion really is awfully pretty in the way the film is pretty.

No Comments

  • G’wan, read Slate’s take on Watchmen (the book, that is). Then listen to the Slate Book Club dis­cus­sions of Beloved and Infinite Jest. You haven’t suffered enough today. On polit­ics, Slate is okay; on tech­no­logy, they’re decent;on cur­rent movies, Dana Stevens is actu­ally pretty good. But when they do ret­ro­spect­ives on cul­ture, it’s some of the worst cri­ti­cism ever written.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    @ TFB: Oh, I listened to that “Jest” pod­cast. Or, as I like to call it, “Katie Roiphe Tries To Piss On David Foster Wallace’s Grave, But Can’t Quite Work Up A Stream.” But the “Music” review is in Slant, not Slate, although the con­trari­an­ism they ostens­ibly have in common—not to men­tion their names—make them easy to mix up. I’m not really offen­ded by Henderson’s review—it’s really pretty expec­ted. I had been toy­ing with the idea of writ­ing a defense of the film since tak­ing a sen­ti­ment­al jour­ney with it a couple of weeks ago, but it really IS a prob­lem­at­ic piece of work, par­tic­u­larly giv­en its con­text. Henderson’s piece just gave me a handy peg, as I really do find Rodgers and Hammerstein in cer­tain respects unim­peach­able and genu­inely (often will­fully) mis­un­der­stood. Calling any of their songs “awful” is really a cat­egory error of the highest order…

  • bill says:

    I’d make some com­ment about being “indig­nant” and so forth, except I enjoyed read­ing this, and agree, and read por­tions aloud to my wife. So nev­er mind.

  • Castle Bravo says:

    I can­’t be con­trari­an, since I’ve nev­er seen the movie. I’ve nev­er been able to bring myself to.
    It always appeared to me to be the ulti­mate white fantasy movie – a beau­ti­ful, blonde-haired, blue-eyed fam­ily singing songs in a giant home amidst gor­geous sur­round­ings, etc. Something about the idea of Aryan-looking Christians flee­ing Nazis does­n’t do it for me…
    I don’t recall my fam­ily ever watch­ing it. I think Sound of Music, as well as It’s A Wonderful Life, are really these kind of behold­en treas­ures in white Christian fam­il­ies. While I was cer­tainly aware of them, they simply did­n’t exist in my child­hood. I might also add Gone With the Wind to that group – though my moth­er loved that.

  • christian says:

    Sad Admission: ADORE Robert Wise, the best stu­dio dir­ect­or of his gen­er­a­tion but still can­’t sit through THE SOUND OF MUSIC. Someday.
    I did enjoy Pauline Kael’s funny scath­ing review though. Funny how it was a badge of crit­ic­al hon­or to rip on this film back in the day…

  • Tom Russell says:

    I’ve nev­er really been a big fan of SOUND OF MUSIC, but the songs are great and Andrews is very appeal­ing (as always).
    Mr. Bravo: you should see IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, for the simple reas­on that it’s one of the greatest films ever made about a man being driv­en to sui­cide by the crush­ing weight of his famili­al oblig­a­tions. Its fant­ast­ic­al ele­ments aside, there’s noth­ing over­bear­ingly white-and-Christian about it, and it also doubles as an expertly cine­mat­ic decon­struc­tion of movie-watching on par with CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING.

  • warren oates says:

    @Tom Russell: If I ever had a rep theat­er one of my dream double bills would be IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE paired with Bresson’s L’ARGENT. A sort of everything is strangely con­nec­ted, ripple effect lit­mus test of each view­er­’s life philo­sophy. An in-spite-of-everything “yes,” versus a rad­ic­al “no.” Both films strike me as uniquely per­son­al and unflinch­ing. And on any giv­en day, neither one seems more true than the other.
    @christian: agree about Wise. I’d much rather watch one of his great noirs like ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW again. Or at least the much bet­ter music­al and film WEST SIDE STORY. No Sound of Mucus Blu for me.

  • bill says:

    If I ever had a rep theat­er one of my dream double bills would be IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE paired with Bresson’s L’ARGENT. A sort of everything is strangely con­nec­ted, ripple effect lit­mus test of each view­er­’s life philosophy.”
    I approve of this double bill. One tick­et, please.

  • Castle Bravo says:

    I’m watch­ing The Toolbox Murders on Netflix right now. It’s A Wonderful LIfe can wait.

  • Watched some of the extras on the Blu-Ray edi­tion last night–and noticed the “we’re smarter than this” par­ody of the stage ver­sion of THE SOUND OF MUSIC excerp­ted from the JULIE AND CAROL AT CARNEGIE HALL 1962 TV special.

  • Griff says:

    Well, I take your point, Glenn, but I must give the Slant review­er a little cred­it. Ernest Lehman’s screen­play is indeed a big improve­ment on the Lindsay/Crouse book for the stage play; this is sel­dom acknowledged.

  • The Siren says:

    What a won­der­ful way to start a morn­ing, wrest­ling with this movie once again. I once named it as a Worst Best Picture Oscar win­ner, and I hope Flickhead sees this; he chided me then for hav­ing a bad atti­tude about this movie. It made me real­ize I don’t dis­like SoM as much as I have claimed to. True, its incred­ible sun­ni­ness can get on mod­ern nerves some­thing awful. And Do Re Mi is a mas­ter­piece all right but that’s hard to remem­ber if it’s been stuck in your head for three days, which can hap­pen with even a single encounter.
    I com­plained about the kids in my little brief, but the kids aren’t the prob­lem. They’re pretty real­ist­ic, as movie kids go, mis­chiev­ous and annoy­ing enough to be inter­est­ing. The girl who plays Liesl is charm­ing. Eleanor Parker is a freak­ing delight and I really wish they had­n’t cut her song. I also like Max, the agent, and Christopher Plummer is *dead* sexy, a sort of Rochester/Mr. Darcy, only with sev­en kids. (It is sev­en, isn’t it?) Julie Andrews is doing a Mary Poppins vari­ation and in no way is that a bad thing. And I can only ima­gine how great the Alps look on DVD.
    No, my real prob­lem with this movie is, I have come to real­ize, the nuns. I just. don’t. like. nuns. in. movies. Unless they are played by Ingrid Bergman, or turn out to be a hook­er. I nev­er went to Catholic school so I don’t have the per­son­al ter­ror of nuns that some of my friends have; I swear it’s worse than clown fear for some people. But with one huge part of their lives and there­fore plot/character devel­op­ment cut off, nuns bore me as soon as they show up. I say all this strictly as my very, very per­son­al thing.
    Anyway, it is use­less to deny the pleas­ure I get out of this movie. I watch it for Plummer and Parker and make a sand­wich dur­ing “Climb Every Mountain.” Works for me.

  • Kent Jones says:

    The Sound of Music looks a gift horse in the mouth and pukes burlap-textured whole­some­ness into the cav­ity with the vig­or of a tenor.”
    “…he trans­forms the cent­ral char­ac­ter of Maria from the petu­lant child she is in the stage show into a woman strad­dling the line between girl and woman, bey­ond track­ing the years (“Sixteen Going on Seventeen”) but still young enough to under­mine author­it­ari­an figures.”
    And my favor­ite: “He was cereb­ral and, no mat­ter how much sweat poured from his brow dur­ing per­form­ances, per­formed from his mind more so than his fin­gers, which some­times seemed as though they worked out of reflex.”
    I feel like Phil Rizzuto the very first time he exclaimed Holy Cow! But maybe it’s just my mind work­ing out of reflex.

  • edo says:

    Does this aver­sion extend to films like BLACK NARCISSUS for the Siren? That would be sad…

  • Claire K. says:

    It’s inter­est­ing that you should bring up “Climb Ev’ry Mountain,” Siren…when GK and I were watch­ing this a few weeks ago, he com­men­ted dur­ing that scene that they were tak­ing the song way too fast–which is quite true, they do really speed it up for the movie. My the­ory is that’s because every­one is secretly bored by that song.
    But as I also admit­ted to Glenn, it’s abso­lutely impossible for me to get any kind of object­ive crit­ic­al dis­tance from this movie. I watched it so often and so avidly from such a very young age that it’s like try­ing to be object­ive about my own knee­cap. I will say, how­ever, a pro­pos the fab­ulous Eleanor Parker, that one thing I did­n’t fully appre­ci­ate as a kid was the Baroness’s specTACular ward­robe. The slinky red dress with match­ing bolero that she wears while get­ting dumped is to DIE, but even the less obvi­ous stuff is gorgeous–on her first vis­it home with Georg she has this snazzy little salmon-colored suit, cropped jack­et over a long silk blouse with asym­met­ric­al hem gathered a large bow at the hip. Perfect, per­fect. My point being, in addi­tion to its many oth­er charms (and Maria’s all-burlap togs aside), TSoM is a secret fash­ion movie.

  • I.B. says:

    You sound like a Nazi Julie Andrews”. Though I prefer, from the Specials, “You’re the worst James Bond ever. You’re David Fucking Niven”.

  • Mr. Peel says:

    So…is it all right that I’m now hop­ing that The Siren writes a piece on nuns in movies who turn out to be hookers?

  • Joe A. says:

    Speaking of nun movies, I wish someone would actu­ally make “Blood Sister: One Tough Nun” using DFW’s descrip­tion as a guide.

  • Eric says:

    No, John Coltrane is, like SOUTH PACIFIC, enchanting.

  • Brian says:

    Glenn, I agree about how unim­peach­able Rogers and Hammerstein’s scores are (and Rogers with Hart, too– LOVE ME TONIGHT is fant­ast­ic)– even the sometimes-forgotten stuff like ALLEGRO has lovely moments (“The Gentleman Is A Dope” is bril­liant). That’s why I’m gen­er­ally depressed with their film trans­la­tions– as much as I adore the music in SOUTH PACIFIC and OKLAHOMA! (and as migh­tily as the cast works to put it across), they just look awful, and even THE KING AND I drags for me (even with how good Yul Brenner and Deborah Kerr are).
    So as sappy as it can be, and as much as repeated view­ings (which now stretch into double digits) some­times cause my response to be a campy one, I do really appre­ci­ate just how visu­ally styl­ish Wise’s work on THE SOUND OF MUSIC is. And (as Griff and Siren men­tion) just how much Lehman and Plummer con­trib­ute to mak­ing the whole thing work. And I find the Baroness increas­ingly sym­path­et­ic, espe­cially in that moment when she and Maria speak of Maria’s love for the Captain– she really sells it and finds this inter­est­ing fra­gil­ity in her emo­tion­al position.
    Besides, every­one knows the worst music­al to win Best Picture is eas­ily OLIVER!, which I also think is the worst win­ner in any genre. God, that film drives me nuts.

  • Dan Coyle says:

    I thought Crash was the Worst Best Picture Winner? Any film with that much Thandie Newton has to be terrible.
    As for the Sound of Music, I can nev­er hate a film with an open­ing shot as majest­ic and won­der­ful as that.

  • Asher says:

    Wow, I did­n’t real­ize that was Eleanor Parker, not hav­ing watched this movie since I was 12, at a time when I did­n’t know who Parker was. I’m a little sur­prised, as I hate, for the most part, her per­form­ances in MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM and HOME FROM THE HILL and I remem­ber her being quite alright in TSOM – a little car­toon­ishly sniffy, per­haps, but appro­pri­ately so. Maybe I just don’t like her when she’s play­ing pro­foundly neur­ot­ic wives. Other than that, I guess it is a little weird that the altern­at­ive to Nazism posed by the movie is this kind of pas­tor­al, nation­al­ist­ic, mil­it­ar­ist­ic, tow-headed, blue-eyed, edelweiss-flower power. That sounds an awful lot like Nazism! Albeit with a dif­fer­ent state flower. I guess the big dif­fer­ences are a slightly more pro­gress­ive vis­ion of gender polit­ics and that they’re peace-loving Austrians. And most import­antly, for Wise, dif­fer­ing col­or sens­ib­il­it­ies – peace-loving Austrians are really into greens and blues and Nazis like mar­tial red. It makes you won­der what Minnelli could have done with the project.

  • The Siren says:

    Edo: Oh god no, I did­n’t think of Black Narcissus because to me that’s a sex/Technicolor movie and not a nun movie at all. Of course I wor­ship it like every­one else does. It’s com­pletely the nun movie for people like me who hate nun movies.

  • Tom Russell says:

    Brian– I’m far from an OLIVER! apo­lo­gist, but the worst music­al to win best pic­ture is CHICAGO, clearly and hands-down.

  • Mr. Ziffel says:

    Is there a nun movie oth­er than Two Mules for Sister Sara where the nun turns out to be a whore? I know my film know­ledge is lack­ing (that’s why I come here!)…but really? Y’all make it sound like it’s a cliché!

  • The Siren says:

    Mr. Ziffel, if there’s a whole genre (in non-XXX cinema, that is) of nuns who turn out to be hook­ers it’s passed me by too. That’s the only one I know either – my point was that I could only name two nun movies that did­n’t make me grit my teeth. With the addendum of Black Narcissus, which I main­tain is no more a nun movie than A Matter of Life and Death is an angel movie.

  • Asher says:

    There’s a really delight­ful little scene with a card­shark nun in this blo­g’s name­sake… punc­tu­ated by Sinatra ask­ing Dean Martin, “what do you mean, you don’t trust them sisters?”

  • Partisan says:

    Brian, Tom, I want to make clear that I am an “Oliver!” apo­lo­gist. In fact, I’m such an “Oliver!” apo­lo­gist that I’m sure Christopher Hitchens would be quite dis­gus­ted with me. I would go so far as to say that it is my eight favor­ite Best Picture. I will go even fur­ther and say that I am a “Pink Floyd: the Wall” apo­lo­gist, and prefer “Evita” to “Chicago.” I sus­pect Jim Emerson would be very dis­tressed by that.

  • The Siren says:

    Partisan needs to come sit by the Siren. Except, don’t bring “The Wall.”

  • Jaime says:

    For the record, I am a Eric P Henderson apo­lo­gist – actu­ally, more than that, I have enjoyed his cor­res­pond­ence and his writ­ing for many years. His best work has a paint­erly style, maybe some­times too rich in irony for cer­tain read­ers (not me), and he has that rare gift of de-emphasizing the “liked it” “hated it” aspect that almost every crit­ic under the sun sees as a require­ment. AND he’s a nice guy. In short, ‘e’s a mate.
    I’m not going to get all, Glenn Kenny don’t pick on my bud­dies, because that com­bines two rather rad­ic­al pre­sump­tions: (a) that you know who I run with and (b) that it should make a damn bit of dif­fer­ence. But I fig­ure, what with the dom­in­ant theme of the thread more or less being: TSOM isn’t **that** bad, I thought I might chime in for the writer of that piece, as well.

  • Brian says:

    Siren, Tom, and Partisan,
    I can­’t really explain my OLIVER! hate, except to say that I have an almost sen­su­al revul­sion to its images; I fully under­stand the beauty of some of its songs, but simply don’t like how Carol Reed filmed them, with a strange com­bin­a­tion (for me, any­way) of slick­ness and sen­ti­ment­al­ity. I had to see the film a lot as a child in school music classes, so maybe that force-feeding also con­trib­uted to my pulling back from it. All I can say is that it has this odd, almost phys­ic­al effect on me. And I want to like it, because music­als are one of my favor­ite film genres, and I like to see the form get recog­ni­tion. But some films just cre­ate that prim­al response that causes my memor­ies and responses to be inseparable.

  • Olaf says:

    Great shot – and my favour­ite example of why the film flopped (of all places) in Austria and Germany where it’s still hardly known. Let me tell you how Austrians and Germans react when see­ing this shot: “I’ve nev­er seen any birch trees grow­ing like this on the alpine moun­tains! Where is this sup­posed to be?” The same applies to the next shot of Andrews throw­ing pebbles into the brook or hear­ing her yearn for “Schnitzels with Nudels” – it’s just plain wrong: there are no brooks shaped like this in the Alps and abso­lutely no one eats Schnitzels with Nudels. (It’s either with French Fries or rice…)
    In spite of the fact (or maybe b e c a u s e) it was filmed on loc­a­tion, TSOM seems totally off – it’s totally inau­thent­ic to Austrian cul­ture. (And no – “Edelweiss” does n o t sound like any German-language folk song, Austrian or oth­er­wise.) If you want to find a German/Austrian/French equi­val­ent of total inau­thenti­city, try the Westerns shot in Jugoslavia the 1960s that are based on the pulp Western nov­els by Karl May and com­pare them to the “real thing” by Hawks, Ford, Mann, etc.
    Maybe if Wise had­n’t story­boarded all shots before trav­el­ling to Austria… That said, it’s still is an example of superb craft­man­ship and hugely enjoyable.
    And by the way: in its own way, “Oliver!” is to British cul­ture what TSOM is for American cul­ture – and dare I say that it’s just as well craf­ted. It’s just that Lionel Bart did­n’t fol­low the Rodgers & Hammerstein mod­el of writ­ing music­als. In a coun­try with a very dif­fer­ent tra­di­tion of music­al theatre he had to come up with his own take on how to write a show and so ref­ered back to his own East End Jewish back­ground and British music hall – some­thing that American chron­iclers of music­als have nev­er under­stood. And isn’t Carol Reed just as good a film maker as Robert Wise?

  • Asher says:

    And isn’t Carol Reed just as good a film maker as Robert Wise?”
    Uh, prob­ably bet­ter at his peak, but not by the time he made Oliver. In my opin­ion, as they say.

  • One can love OLIVER!, one can hate OLIVER!, but can­’t we all agree that Oliver Reed as Bill Sykes is the most per­fect piece of cast­ing ever ever ever?

  • frankbooth says:

    Is this back to being a movie blog? Cool!

  • frankbooth says:

    One won­ders how the Siren feels about SCHOOL OF THE HOLY BEAST.

  • Patrick says:

    It always appeared to me to be the ulti­mate white fantasy movie – a beau­ti­ful, blonde-haired, blue-eyed fam­ily singing songs in a giant home amidst gor­geous sur­round­ings, etc. Something about the idea of Aryan-looking Christians flee­ing Nazis does­n’t do it for me…”
    Hilarious. It’s always ok to bring race into the dis­cus­sion as long as you are talk­ing about whitey.

  • christian says:

    OLIVER! can­’t be the worst with Oliver Reed and Jack Wild…
    But DR. DOOLITTLE was cer­tainly the worst music­al Best Picture nominee…
    And why would any­one need to apo­lo­gize for THE WALL? It’s still the greatest music video ever made.

  • Brian says:

    Fuzzy, I abso­lutely agree about Oliver Reed– he’s the one part of the film I do enjoy. Brilliant cast­ing, and very fright­en­ing throughout.

  • Castle Bravo says:

    The killer in The Toolbox Murders sang some crazy reli­gious songs. But I don’t that made it a music­al, per se…

  • pvitari says:

    Call me simplist­ic (or strange), but I love The Sound of Music and I think Maria and the Captain make a hot couple. I don’t mind at all that the oppon­ents of the Nazis are also tow-headed and blue-eyed. There were Germans (and Austrians) who opposed the Nazi régime and some­times their stor­ies get lost, although there have been some films about them (The White Rose, Sophie Scholl, even Swing Kids.)
    The Sound of Music is also Jackie Chan’s favor­ite movie (or at least favor­ite Western movie). He grew up in a Chinese opera school where the teach­ers beat and abused the stu­dents, and when he saw the movie on tele­vi­sion, although he could­n’t under­stand the English lan­guage dia­logue, the music spoke to him as did the char­ac­ter of Maria, who taught the chil­dren with love and under­stand­ing rather than with beat­ings and yelling.

  • Re Asher’s post: Eleanor Parker’s per­form­ance in THE NAKED JUNGLE–where she has to con­tend with ram­pa­ging ants and Charlton Heston’s chauvinism–is note­worthy in the best way.

  • aloysius says:

    That Fuzzy Bastard – Slate.com is a com­pletely dif­fer­ent web­site than Slant.com.