Sound of Music + King and I

and one big difference: the King and I is good enough for the stage but stinks as a movie; whereas Sound of Music is boring on stage and magnificent on screen.

The problem with threads like this is that most people at this point never actually saw the original stage versions of either of these shows. What they see are stage revivals of musicals that are often augmented to fit what the public expects, based on the public's greater exposure to the film adaptation. "The Sound of Music" is indeed a wonderful film classic. Rodgers wrote two new songs for the film. The song "I Have Confidence" works in the film, because it accomplishes something cinematically that wouldn't have the same effect on the stage. Lo and Behold, almost every stage revival I've seen adds this song and while it may bring back lovely memories of the film, it lessens the dramatic quality of the musical play itself. It merely becomes alot of moving sets with Maria jumping around the stage. It turns it into a second rate version of the song, as Maria's travels through Salzburg could never be as effective on the stage. True, the original stage version of "The Sound of Music", received mixed to positive reviewsand most theater sophisticates in 1959 found it saccharine and sweet. Regardless, it was still a musical stage play written by pros and conceived for the stage as such. The film version was conceived as a film musical and rightfully became a true cinematic experience of blockbuster proportions. The film version is logically more visual. To impose cinematic devices in subsequent stage revivals only makes one think that the stage play holds up as a second rate version of the film. Nothing could be further from the truth. The stage play has some of the best Hammerstein lyrics ever written. "How Can Love Survive?" was a masterpiece of lyric writing For example: "When you are poor, it is toujour lamour, for lamour all the poor have leisure" is a brilliant piece of lyric writing. It belongs on the stage. There is nothing cinematic about that song that translates to film. Therefore, the film version rightfully dropped the song. A few other songs dropped for the same reason. The fact that subsequent stage versions often drop the stage songs (as the public is more familiar with the film version) again gives the impression that the stage version is a second rate version of the film. "The King and I" was a stage masterpiece when it opened, even though it was unfairly compared to the stage version of "South Pacific" at the time. Now it holds up better in many ways. The film version is both cinematic and, at the same time, is extremely faithful to the stage play. While some of my favorite songs from the stage play are cut in the film version, I think what exists is an excellent adaptation of the original material. While I've never been a fan of Deborah Kerr, I find her extremely well cast as Anna. The expectations when one sees a revival of "The King and I" are more than satisfied, since what one experiences in the stage version is very similar to the film, but those unfamiliar with the stage version are offered extra surprises such as the beautiful love song "I Have Dreamed" . In order for one to really make a distinction between a stage version and a film version, one really needs to have some perspective on how the original material was conceived and how much it was distorted after the popularity of the film versions came into play. To name one other example, I rarely see a true stage version of "Cabaret" any more. The popularity of the film is imposed on stage productions. It dumbs down the experience when performed on stage. Therefore, the theatergoer more familiar with the film gets the impression, once again, that they are experiencing a second rate version of the film, without realizing that they aren't seeing the actual elements that originally made the stage version so cutting edge and riveting to an audience when it first was performed in 1966.

Yeah I can see those similarities, especially with numbers 2, 3 and 4. And I have to disagree with troifrer about this film being a stinker; with Sound of Music being the best, The King and I is one of the better musical films based on Rodgers and Hammerstein's work, that is definitely worth seeing for the costumes, sets, marvellous music and Yul Brynner. If troifrer were talking about the animated film I would understand that, the animated version had its moments but really wasn't great at all. I do agree about The Sound of Music though, while the stage version is good especially for the music, it is a little pedestrian for my liking, while the film version is more absorbing in my opinion, then again I grew up with it and am more familiar with it. I haven't seen the stage version of King and I, so I cannot compare.





"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)