How do we solve a problem like Maria?

By JBR

About five months ago, half my Twitter timeline exploded. Carrie Underwood was, in the opinion of my friends in the US, butchering The Sound of Music in a live broadcast on NBC. Last night my UK timeline caught up when Channel 5 screened it here.

The reaction in Blighty was generally amusing, occasionally infuriating, surprisingly ill-informed. Pretty much the same as the US then. As is usual, the knives were out - for the set; the acting; for Carrie Underwood. You name it, we hated it. Which is interesting given that most of my timeline are, unashamedly 'hashtag stagey’. Very few people commented on the cultural significance of the move or the breathtaking risk involved. Can you imagine that pitching meeting? "Hey guys, so I think we should film the stage version of The Sound of Music, just for TV and screen it live on a Thursday evening." I bet there were more than a few NBC execs touching cloth at that idea.

There was a mixture of approbation and criticism (okay, mainly criticism) levelled at the ‘celebrity’ casting of Underwood. So let’s examine that for a second. Carrie Underwood can indeed sing. The American country and western star won the fourth series of Pop Idol in the States and has a plethora of awards to her name, including six Grammy’s and sixteen Billboard Music Awards. In terms of awards that ranks her credibility as a singer considerably higher than say, Melanie Chisolm. Let’s not pretend though that she was cast for anything other than her status as a ‘star’ and her appeal to younger audiences. And let’s be thankful it wasn’t Miley Cyrus.

Let’s be generous too and say that it worked. 18.62 million viewers on a Thursday night in the USA are not to be sniffed at. But let’s also acknowledge her shortcomings. Her acting was...not great, and her vocal ability was ill-suited to the Rodgers & Hammerstein score. That’s a wonderful revelation for anyone who loves the Golden Age of musical theatre - we don’t write for the soprano voice anymore - too much modern musical theatre, for both men and women, relies on that powerful belt sound and range. It’s dramatic, sure, but winsome it ain’t. Now that Underwood has demonstrated that, perhaps we’ll start hearing that beautiful soprano quality again - wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear a musical sung with a whole range of tones and qualities enriching the score and characters, rather than that obsequious ‘bright’ Estill sound? I’m not knocking it, I love it, but I remember when an ensemble cast was made up of all ages, ranges and vocal qualities, as opposed to the youthful (particularly touring) companies we see today.

Let’s also recognise that 18.62 million viewers adds up to a lot of investment. It’s already been announced that the production company behind The Sound of Music Live have signed up for further live presentations. In what world can this be a bad thing? This is Zadan and Meron we’re talking about, the producing powerhouses behind film musicals Chicago, Hairspray, TV show Smash, the filmed remake of The Music Man, to name but a few. When they said Hollywood would never make film musicals again, Zadan and Medron stuck two fingers up and went ahead and did it. Why on earth would anyone who seriously loves musical theatre want to criticise them for this?

The argument there are other musicals that would have been better holds no water. Would a more obscure musical, without the celebrity draw of Underwood & Stephen 'True Blood' Moyer have pulled in 18.62 million viewers using Broadway stars alone? Probably, actually no, definitely not. This did, and it was so successful that Zadan and Medron now have the ability to do more.

Acknowledge too that this wasn’t a frame-by-frame remake of the original. This was the stage version. I was surprised that most people (yes, even my stagey timeline) needed this pointed out to them. "Why is she singing Lonely Goatherd there?" "What’s this new song?" they bleated. These same people claimed we didn’t need another version of The Sound of Music. Another version? Am I missing something? How many filmed versions of the stage show actually exist? Oh, that’s right, just this one. So, er, thanks again Zadan and Medron for bringing the stage version to the attention of the US and the UK, and for bringing it to the attention of people who should, frankly, know better.

I can't even begin to comprehend the technical risk either. A live broadcast? Of a musical? We can barely even get through a live stage show in the West End without some technical hitch. I wonder, too, how many actors could cope with the technical challenges of performing on a stage, but balancing the performance style for the TV camera? No mean feat. Christian Borle rocked it, others less so. But knowing the fear most of us feel when we step out on stage, and knowing the different acting skills you need to employ in those different mediums, I think they made a pretty damn good fist of it. However much we like to think there are not - there are major differences in technique for stage and screen

More importantly let us, as theatre people, accept that there is a vast majority in the UK and US who do not come to London to see shows, who do not regularly attend theatre at all. 18.62 million viewers, many coming to musical theatre for the first time, saw this. Yes, it could have been better, but would you really rather it didn’t exist at all? Theatre is finding new ways to invent itself in the digital age, and NBC took a risk that I’m still waiting for our broadcasters to do.

And it was all worth it for Audra.

@JoshRochford

#articles