My question can't be answered because you people simply DON'T UNDERSTAND the question being asked. It's almost a 2-page thread and you still don't seem to grasp what I'm asking. Feel free the keep giving lectures of the history of the production, meaning of the story, etc. My question has nothing to do with that. I'm simply pointing out that the film, as it is presented, creates a clashing of realities that most other film musicals don't have. Your complete lack of comprehension can be summed up with what you wrote here:
You might as well be asking "Why doesn't Bernardo forget about the Sharks and dance on Broadway? Look at how good he is!" You appear to be confusing the characters onscreen with the actors who are portraying them; it's kinda touching, but it's incredibly naive.
Viewers would never ask that about Bernardo because the story of "West Side Story" has NOTHING TO DO WITH MUSIC, DUH. I already mentioned this in my previous post, so apparently your inability to comprehend me may simply be a lack of simple reading comprehension on your part. Hey kettle, the pot just called you black, LOL!
The creators of these two shows simply felt their respective stories could be related in musical terms; that the characters and situations had the kind of passion and conflict that would translate well to musical theater (Hill's fast-talking sales pitches were ideally suited to song, and the physicality of New York street gangs inspired some of Jerome Robbins' best choreography). But they expected audiences to know what they were watching wasn't happening LITERALLY; Meredith Willson didn't think audiences actually believed traveling salesmen in 1912 broke into song when their trains left the station. This is just one of the aspects of a musical's "heightened reality" - characters suddenly bursting into song; it goes along with hearing full orchestral accompaniment when someone is singing alone on a mountain, or somebody spontaneously executing a complicated dance routine when they're walking home in the rain. But a movie musical's dialogue provides the audience with valuable information about the characters they're watching, and nothing that Harold Hill says or does is inconsistent with the way his character has been established in the script. If Hill told one of the kids he was playing an F when he should be playing an F# - well, that would have been inconsistent and illogical. However, nothing like that ever happens.
Again, what you said above really isn't the issue at hand and you once again play dodge ball with me. So let me ask you point blank: would the superb dancing and singing of Hill make it MORE or LESS believable visually and aurally to the viewers that he is supposed to be ignoramus in many aspects of music?? Now am I right in saying it's actually LESS? I don't care what the script says he is supposed to be. But VISUALLY and AURALLY, his singing and dancing CLASHES with the idea that he is decidedly not a musical expert.
Oh, wow - you really don't know anything about musicals, do you? The Sound Of Music isn't about Julie Andrews; it's about Maria von Trapp & the von Trapp Family Singers. And yes, the children were supposed to sing as well as Maria; that's why the filmmakers had to overdub the voices of the child actors they hired so they would sound as good as the children they were portraying.
The children were BEGINNERS and the start, and that was why they should not sing as well as Maria, duh. What powerful illegal substance are you inhaling to make you having to have the most obvious pointed out to you, AGAIN? Even with the dubbing, the children's singing was nowhere near Julie Andrew's level. The point remains that the filmmakers DID NOT hire spectacular singers for dubbing the kids to keep the reality of what the viewers see and hear from clashing with the reality of the story. Ask yourself this: in "My Fair Lady", why was Audrey Hepburn dubbed by Marni Nixon's great voice in most of the film, and yet for "Just You Wait" Hepburn sang with her own voice? When Eliza was trying to be a "lady", she sang with a great voice, but when she was her own unladylike self, you hear her true voice. This is what I've been trying show NUMBNUTS LIKE YOU: that filmmakers would sometimes try to prevent the clashing of two realities to make the film more believable to viewers.
reply
share
murph24
12 years ago
I don't care what the script says he is supposed to be.
And that's what makes your questions ridiculous. Because if you'd actually paid attention to the script, you wouldn't be asking them. Pay attention to the script. The script matters. The premise is found in the script.
DUH. LOL!
Therefore they found mediocre child singers
It was NEVER the aim of Robert Wise, Ernest Lehman and Saul Chaplin to find "mediocre child singers" for The Sound Of Music - if that's what they'd wanted, they wouldn't have bothered with overdubbing their voices. Throughout auditions, they were primarily interested in how the kids played their scenes and delivered their lines; how they handled themselves, how "real' they were and how strong their screen presence was. They weren't concerned about singing voices, because they knew they could use voice doubles later on.
Facts be known, they would have been thrilled to come across children who not only had the qualities they were looking for but also sang like Julie Andrews; it would have meant LESS overdubbing to worry about. But they didn't, so overdubbing became essential. Why? Because even when they were starting out (even in that symbolic hillside "Do Re Mi" sequence), the von Trapp children had good voices - voices that were just as good as Maria's.
reply
share
cwy2009
12 years ago
And that's what makes your questions ridiculous. Because if you'd actually paid attention to the script, you wouldn't be asking them. Pay attention to the script. The script matters. The premise is found in the script.
DUH. LOL!
Once again, you don't really get my point, which is not about the story, but the PRESENTATION IN THE FILM. Go back to film school and learn that in films, the script doesn't matter nearly as much as what is actually put on screen. Film is a visual medium. It is about what it SHOWS. Incidentally, the issue at hand happens to be the PRESENTATION of Hill's singing and dancing, which I find to be clashing with what he is supposed to be.
It was NEVER the aim of Robert Wise, Ernest Lehman and Saul Chaplin to find "mediocre child singers" for The Sound Of Music - if that's what they'd wanted, they wouldn't have bothered with overdubbing their voices. Throughout auditions, they were primarily interested in how the kids played their scenes and delivered their lines; how they handled themselves, how "real' they were and how strong their screen presence was. They weren't concerned about singing voices, because they knew they could use voice doubles later on.
Facts be known, they would have been thrilled to come across children who not only had the qualities they were looking for but also sang like Julie Andrews; it would have meant LESS overdubbing to worry about. But they didn't, so overdubbing became essential. Why? Because even when they were starting out (even in that symbolic hillside "Do Re Mi" sequence), the von Trapp children had good voices - voices that were just as good as Maria's.
You omit the key fact that the dubbing was done with the kids' OWN VOICES. If I'm not mistaken, only Christopher Plummer was dubbed with someone else's voice (to Plummer's chagrin). So what's your point really? None, right? My point remains that the kids just weren't the best singers; anyone can hear it for themselves. What are you inhaling now to make you think in "Do Re Mi" the kids sang as well as Andrews?? Anyone with a functioning ear can tell they most decidedly did not.
In Woody Allen's "Everyone Says I Love You", which is a display of mediocre singing if there ever was one, Woody actually asked Goldie Hawn, a fine singer, to sing below her ability in order for her character to be more believable. So you see, filmmakers DO sometimes want to do the exact thing I've been mentioning: prevent the clashing of realities between the music and the story. Maybe in "The Sound of Music" they never explicity asked for it, but maybe they did (you'd never know), or maybe it was such obvious thing that they never had to say it. So you understand now?
reply
share
murph24
12 years ago
Once again, you don't really get my point,
No, we get your point. The problem is, your point is ridiculous. And your point is ridiculous because (as you've already admitted) you don't care about the script and haven't paid attention to it. You're the one who needs to go back to film school - or ANY kind of school that will teach you to study a script before you start discussing it.
You omit the key fact that the dubbing was done with the kids' OWN VOICES. If I'm not mistaken, only Christopher Plummer was dubbed with someone else's voice (to Plummer's chagrin)
WRONG! You're as mistaken about this as you've been about everything else. Where did you get the idea the overdubbing was done with the kids' own voices? Or did you just make that up? You must have, because Music Supervisor Irwin Kostal had to use seven children and five adults (Charlene Carr's sister Darleen Farnon was one of them) to fill in the children's voices so they would sound stronger, fuller and richer. And it wasn't just Christopher Plummer who was dubbed; Peggy Wood was also dubbed.
And why do you keep talking about Julie Andrews as though she were a character in the film? Julie Andrews played Maria von Trapp. I never said the children sounded as good as Julie Andrews; I said the von Trapp children, even when they were starting out, sounded as good as Maria. And that's why their voices had to be overdubbed for the film. It was essential they had a Maria who sounded like she could sing professionally, and with Julie Andrews playing her, that wasn't a problem. And once the children's voices had been overdubbed and sweetened, they also sounded like they could sing professionally. If you think they sounded "mediocre," then fine; that's your opinion. But stop writing nonsense about the filmmakers wanting to make sure the kids sounded "mediocre" - that was NEVER a criteria in the casting of the von Trapp children. Where did you get such an idea? When did Robert Wise even suggest that he was looking for children with "mediocre" voices?
reply
share
cwy2009
12 years ago
No, we get your point. The problem is, your point is ridiculous. And your point is ridiculous because (as you've already admitted) you don't care about the script and haven't paid attention to it. You're the one who needs to go back to film school - or ANY kind of school that will teach you to study a script before you start discussing it.
You sound like you're about to cry, you know that? LOL. GO BACK TO FILM SCHOOL, BUDDY. In stage plays or TV dramas, maybe a script takes on much greater importance. But film is primarily a visual medium, freshman. A script is like raw meat that can be cut, diced, and cooked beyond recognition by the filmmakers. In fact, a film doesn't even need to have a script. Some directors don't use scripts at all, don't you know? In fact, some films don't even need cameras. E.g. some of Stan Brokhage's films were made by hand-scratching images directly on to film frames. So please don't make yourself look any more foolish by saying how important a script is, especially when the issue at hand has NOTHING to do with the script. So the script says Harold Hill can dance but can't read music, SO WHAT? The issue at hand, to repeat it the 50th time to a slow person like you, is that the film's presentation of the musical numbers CLASHES with the idea that he is decidedly not a musical expert.
WRONG! You're as mistaken about this as you've been about everything else. Where did you get the idea the overdubbing was done with the kids' own voices? Or did you just make that up? You must have, because Music Supervisor Irwin Kostal had to use seven children and five adults (Charlene Carr's sister Darleen Farnon was one of them) to fill in the children's voices so they would sound stronger, fuller and richer. And it wasn't just Christopher Plummer who was dubbed; Peggy Wood was also dubbed.
And why do you keep talking about Julie Andrews as though she were a character in the film? Julie Andrews played Maria von Trapp. I never said the children sounded as good as Julie Andrews; I said the von Trapp children, even when they were starting out, sounded as good as Maria. And that's why their voices had to be overdubbed for the film. It was essential they had a Maria who sounded like she could sing professionally, and with Julie Andrews playing her, that wasn't a problem. And once the children's voices had been overdubbed and sweetened, they also sounded like they could sing professionally. If you think they sounded "mediocre," then fine; that's your opinion. But stop writing nonsense about the filmmakers wanting to make sure the kids sounded "mediocre" - that was NEVER a criteria in the casting of the von Trapp children. Where did you get such an idea? When did Robert Wise even suggest that he was looking for children with "mediocre" voices?
And here you are moving the goalpost again like you have done so many times already. When you can't argue a point, you just sidestep it, grab on a SIDE argument and hold on to it for dear life, LOL! So again let me ask you point blank: Were the kids' singing abilities (even with the dubbing) anywhere close to Maria's/Andrew's? NO, RIGHT?? This is not just my opinion; as I said, ANYONE with a functioning ear can hear it. Maria is the teacher and she is SUPPOSED to sing better than the children. and this is why the singing does not clash with the story. And of course, the point about "Everyone Says I Love You" and "My Fair Lady", I hear nothing but cricket sounds from you. When it comes to the making of the films and other background info, you have shown good knowledge. But when it comes to what MATTERS here, presenting arguments that ACTUALLY pertains to the issues at hand, then YOU ARE A COMPLETE JOKE.
reply
share
murph24
12 years ago
Please stick to the topic. We're discussing a specific character in a specific film - one in which the script is very important.
Harold Hill's character is defined in the script of The Music Man, and it says nothing that remotely resembles your claim that Hill's "singing and dancing sort of negates his supposed inability to sing and dance, and thus creates an illogical situation." The script never says Hill can't sing and dance; it makes it very clear he can dance - he just can't read music or lead a band. And there's nothing "illogical" about someone being able to dance but not being able to read music or lead a band; there are literally millions of people in the world like that.
As for The Sound Of Music, you were wrong again with your claim that Robert Wise and his team looked for children with "mediocre" voices. During their casting sessions, voices were never an issue. Why? Because Wise knew he could overdub the children's voices with professional singers later on (which he did). In real life the von Trapp children never sounded "mediocre," nor did they sound "mediocre" in either the screen or Broadway adaptations of Maria von Trapp's life. You're the first one I've come across who's referred to their singing as "mediocre" - and if that's how you felt, then that's how you felt. But you're absolutely wrong to claim that director Robert Wise looked for children with "mediocre" voices.
And in real life, the childrens' voice were just as good as Maria's - even when they started out. Years later, when the children wanted to leave the act and pursue their own interests, Maria was upset. Why? Because the act couldn't continue without them; Maria wasn't a solo entertainer. You keep mentioning Julie Andrews, but she had no part in The Sound Of Music when it first opened on Broadway, and had no part in it when it was revived years later - nor did she ever form a singing group with her stepchildren. For the umpteenth time, I'm not talking about Julie Andrews; I'm talking about Maria von Trapp - the woman and the character. As for the stage & screen adaptations of her life, Maria sounded like she could perform professionally the moment she sang her first note; the same was true of the children. This is obviously another instance where you haven't paid attention to the script. The children clearly state they don't know any songs, but the script never says anything about them having "mediocre" voices. In fact, once they've learned the songs Maria has taught them, Max wants to put them in the festival - the children, not Maria. And this wouldn't have happened if they had "mediocre" voices.
You're the one who's moving the goalpost here, and it's because you can't substaniate the claims you've made. You claimed Hill had a "supposed inability to sing and dance," and you were wrong. You claimed the filmmakers who created The Sound Of Music looked for children with "mediocre" voices, and you were wrong. You were wrong about Christopher Plummer being the only cast member who needed a voice double, and you were wrong about how the children's voices were overdubbed. And you haven't been able to provide one shred of evidence (either from the script of The Music Man or the documented casting sessions for The Sound Of Music) to support any of the claims you've made.
You're batting a thousand, though; you've been wrong about everything.
reply
share
Rosebud_in_Flames
12 years ago
Maria sounded like she could perform professionally the moment she sang her first note
Well, then, it would be illogical to think that she couldn't also play the piccolo, saxophone, and violin...simultaneously, even!
reply
share
murph24
12 years ago
She's a music man!
She's a what?
She's a what?
She's a music man and she sells clarinets to the kids in the town with the big trombones and the rat-a-tat drums, big brass bass, big brass bass, and the piccolo, the piccolo with uniforms, too with a shiny gold braid on the coat and a big red stripe runnin' . . .The Lady sells bands, Boys bands. I don't know how she does it, but she lives like a queen and she dirndls and she strudels and she twirls and trills and when the gal dances, certainly boys, what else? The pine cone pays her!
reply
share
Rosebud_in_Flames
12 years ago
Very clever! This made me smile. (I just hope there are enough curtains in River City to outfit the whole band...)
reply
share
phantom2-2
12 years ago
perhaps if harold hill was selling a chorus or dance troupe to the good folks of river city, your point would make sense.
but your premise that since harold hill can sing and dance he can therefore teach children trumpet, trombone, tuba and big bass drum is just silly.
reply
share
Rosebud_in_Flames
12 years ago
would the superb dancing and singing of Hill make it MORE or LESS believable visually and aurally to the viewers that he is supposed to be ignoramus in many aspects of music?? Now am I right in saying it's actually LESS? ...VISUALLY and AURALLY, his singing and dancing CLASHES with the idea that he is decidedly not a musical expert.
Okay, even though Phantom and Murph have done an excellent job of disputing this assertion, I'm going to take a stab at it myself, anyway. I disagree with Phantom and Murph that your problem is, primarily, a failure to comprehend the premise of the movie. I think it stems more from a failure to distinguish between natural talents and acquired skills. Both singing and dancing are natural talents - things that people can do without ever being taught how. While formal training may help a talented singer or dancer excel, it's not a requisite for being able to sing and dance. On the other hand, reading music and playing an instrument are acquired skills. You cannot simply pick up an instrument and begin playing it without either instruction or a great deal of trial and error. Pretty much any person over four years old can sing a recognizable version of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. Absolutely nobody who has never seen a flute before could pick one up and immediately play a recognizable version of the song. That's why Harold's "think method" is so ludicrous. Harold's singing and dancing didn't interfere, at any level, with my ability to accept that he couldn't read music or play an instrument, since he'd never learned to do so.
I also disagree with the notion that, with his apparent talents, it doesn't make sense that Harold would be a con man when he could so easily make an honest living as an entertainer. I never had the sense that Harold became a grifter because he didn't have any other options. He clearly gets a thrill out of using his wit and charm to manipulate people. The money is incidental. The satisfaction he derives from manipulating people is evident in both his conning of the townsfolk and his seduction of Marian.
reply
share
cwy2009
12 years ago
Okay, even though Phantom and Murph have done an excellent job of disputing this assertion, I'm going to take a stab at it myself, anyway. I disagree with Phantom and Murph that your problem is, primarily, a failure to comprehend the premise of the movie. I think it stems more from a failure to distinguish between natural talents and acquired skills. Both singing and dancing are natural talents - things that people can do without ever being taught how. While formal training may help a talented singer or dancer excel, it's not a requisite for being able to sing and dance. On the other hand, reading music and playing an instrument are acquired skills. You cannot simply pick up an instrument and begin playing it without either instruction or a great deal of trial and error. Pretty much any person over four years old can sing a recognizable version of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. Absolutely nobody who has never seen a flute before could pick one up and immediately play a recognizable version of the song. That's why Harold's "think method" is so ludicrous. Harold's singing and dancing didn't interfere, at any level, with my ability to accept that he couldn't read music or play an instrument, since he'd never learned to do so.
I also disagree with the notion that, with his apparent talents, it doesn't make sense that Harold would be a con man when he could so easily make an honest living as an entertainer. I never had the sense that Harold became a grifter because he didn't have any other options. He clearly gets a thrill out of using his wit and charm to manipulate people. The money is incidental. The satisfaction he derives from manipulating people is evident in both his conning of the townsfolk and his seduction of Marian.
Sigh... dancing and singing are two of the hardest professions in the world, my friend. Anyone who watches singing and dancing contests on TV would know, if they didn't already. The point is not just to sing and dance, but to sing and dance WELL, like a professional, which Harold Hill does. Also, let me ask you this: who is more likely to know how to play an instrument? Someone who knows nothing about music, or someone who knows something about music? The answer is obvious, isn't it? And THAT is my point about Harold Hill. His singing and dancing just makes it LESS believable that he can't play any instruments. Again, that's not an absolute truth, but a FAIR POINT nonetheless. I'm amazed none of you see it that way. Phantom and Murph don't know the first thing about presenting pertinent arguments as I exposed them time and time again.
reply
share
Rosebud_in_Flames
12 years ago
Phantom and Murph don't know the first thing about presenting pertinent arguments as I exposed them time and time again.
Sure, that would explain why you have so many people here agreeing with you...oh, wait...
reply
share
phantom2-2
12 years ago
can you sing? can you dance? even a little bit? even i can do that.
fine. now, teach me how to play trumpet, trombone, sousaphone, saxophone, flute, piccolo, cymbals, snare drum, bass drum and triangle, plus read music, all while doing high step, roll step, marking time, marching backward, parade marching, street marching, and field marching.
no problem right? they're almost the same thing, after all....
you are most certainly iowa stubborn to stick by your nonsensical original post (not to mention the other arguments you've put forth).
reply
share
lawson14
9 years ago
Speaking of children singing, as a teenager, Julie Andrews was able to pay her parent's mortgage by singing professionally on radio and in vaudeville.
reply
share