FGS, she gave it her best! She's the right type; she has a lovely voice; she's the right age; and she will sell CDs! So she lacked a little in the acting dept. Well, Maria von Trapp was a young tomboyish gal from the country. How complicated could that character be??
The choice of Carrie Underwood was fine!
Consider also that this was a LIVE production, not re-shoots five or six times for every scene, no post-production editing. That in itself had to be nerve-racking.
Problem is, she shouldn't have been cast in this role. Her acting; well, I recall once a director using the term "performing vs acting". What she did wasn't acting, it was performing. She read the lines and got through. Her singing was reasonable.
There are just too many talents out there who were more deserving of that spot and Carrie shouldn't have gotten it just because she's a POP star with a name among the young generation.
This production will make money, but it won't be remembered as a success or a landmark.
Entertainment and politics... I see Ellsworth Toohey is winning...
You get to decide if you like a performance but I doubt that you get to decide who was more deserving.
In the kingdom of the blind, you're the village idiot.
You get to decide if you like a performance but I doubt that you get to decide who was more deserving.
Silly drama geek.
Carrie was cast because she is a POP star with a name among the young generation. If they didn't have a POP star with a name among the young generation than NBC would never ever think of airing this in the first place.
There aren't any famous singers who could fit the part and act the role and there aren't any famous actresses who could fit the part and sing the part.
It is a little ridiculous to keep crying about her wooden performance when the dialogue is embarrassingly awful and the rest of the performances reminded me of the type of acting you see from Adults cast in Saturday morning children's shows.
@MarketStMeanie - well said. That's the whole thing exactly in a nutshell. It is what it is. And a chance for the R&HO to air out an old property, wring it for renewed profits.
share[deleted]
Wow. Is all that necessary? Y don't u just move on? How did she really harm you? You chose to watch. U didn't have to, ya know.
share[deleted]
No what I am saying is that complaining about the acting in a musical which is famous for its music and being put on TV for its music starring one of the biggest stars in music is an awful lot like complaining about the acting in a pornographic film.
The acting in this is just a bridge between one musical number to the next just like the acting in a porno is a bridge between one scene and the next.
[deleted]
Yes it is.
Who watches musical theater for the nonsense between the songs?
Everyone knows that Carrie isn't an actress, brought in to sing and more importantly to bring in an audience.
But everyone also has been praising the tony winners cast along side her. I have seen much better acting on day time television, Kurt's mother for example, can act circles around this cast if there performance here is any indication of their acting abilities.
[deleted]
You don't need words without music to tell a story. Opera has been getting along just fine with only musical numbers.
But I will ask again, do you go to a musical for the speaking parts or for the music?
There is nothing stupid in saying that the acting in this was weak all around. It is actually very corny dialogue and doesn't lend itself to strong acting.
And Kurt's mother can act circles around anyone who performed in this.
[deleted]
And aside from bitchin' and kvetchin,' what other constructive route are you going to take? Or are you the 'scorched earth' type? What did you miss Thursday nite? Doing your laundry? Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I know this is long after your posts, and whatever you were responding to has been removed. Nevertheless, I must respond to this:
"The acting in this is just a bridge between one musical number to the next just like the acting in a porno is a bridge between one scene and the next."
That kind of attitude and approach is a big part of what has sullied the reputation of Rodgers & Hammerstein, and of musicals in general. Sure, you can do a very surface, corny production of most musicals from the R&H canon, and if the music, singing and dancing aspects are handled well enough, it can still yield a rather good time. BUT, that is a great disservice to these men and their collaborators, who actually were artists, and knew what they were doing. When you see a show like SOUND OF MUSIC, or SOUTH PACIFIC, or just about any of their shows (I've never seen ME & JULIET or PIPE DREAM, so can't address them) produced with real excellence, with good actors taking the characters seriously (by which I do NOT mean removing the humor, making the stage dark, or removing or adding things because someone thinks they know so much better than these masters), while also handling the comedy and musical elements with expertise, then you see how wrong an attitude that dismisses the acting is for these shows. There's actually a lot going on with most of the main characters in R&H shows, a lot of emotion, conflict, and complexity, and it takes skilled actors to get that across within the framework of a musical. When it really happens, it's glorious!
So, no, Carrie Underwood was not an example for an acting masterclass, but I agree with giving her a bit of a break. Her heart was clearly in it, she was giving it her all, and there were some moments of a kind of honesty. And, to be realistic, her box-office clout is a big part of what got this show made and on the air, and released on DVD, and I rather enjoyed it.
If they didn't have a POP star with a name among the young generation than NBC would never ever think of airing this in the first place.
There aren't any famous singers who could fit the part and act the role and there aren't any famous actresses who could fit the part and sing the part.
It is a little ridiculous to keep crying about her wooden performance when the dialogue is embarrassingly awful
and the rest of the performances reminded me of the type of acting you see from Adults cast in Saturday morning children's shows.
[deleted]
She sounded great - not operatic like Audra McDonald or Julie Andrews. But she has a nice voice and she did well. Her acting chops may not be great - but how many Broadway musicals have you been to and complained about the acting?
Sound of Music was my first Broadway show. It was years ago. We had front row seats and I could see where some of the nuns habits had been patched - but that didn't ruin the play for me. I came to hear the music.
If you couldn't get past her acting - it is really easy on a remote to change the channel.
[deleted]
[deleted]
With all the rehearsing they did, the directors/producers should have their heads examined. Carrie was NOT the right pick for the part. Sure she can sing, but with all that is required from a live production actress, she only fit one component. So many other seasoned professionals could have done such a better job. She was cast to bring the viewers - period. She is the current "it" girl. NBC got what it wanted - viewers. The viewers however did not get what they wanted. This production fell short in most every aspect.
shareI gave Carrie a break. I watched the show in hopes that I would like it. But her acting was so terrible that I couldn't enjoy the presentation at all. Even the excellent performance by Audra McDonald and good performances by some of the other cast members couldn't save this Titanic from sinking. I kept wondering when they were going to lower the lifeboats.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
[deleted]
I love it when fanboys try to defend incompetence. And as an actress,Carrie was simply incompetent. IMHO she sang the role well but singing well is only half of what is required for the lead in a musical.
As for the "how many times have you complained about the acting in a Broadway show" the answer is that any performer who was as wooden as Carrie was would be fired from a Broadway show a long time before it opened.......
I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson
[deleted]
Finally someone else agrees with me!
shareIf the character isn't complicated, then why did she do a horrid job of portraying her?
I may not be able to prove that God is real, but you cannot prove that God is imaginary.
I only got to catch glimpses when it was rebroadcast, but I really don't think it was as bad as most of the posts here. Carrie wasn't trying to match Julie Andrews and no one expected her to. The scenes I caught, she did have an emotion. Just more reserved.
This was a live televised production, which is not the same as a Broadway production. TV has to deal with stricter time limitations overall, cuts for commercials, camera blocking, etc. I think the criticism was partly to due with this production was the first one like it on TV. I can't think of a similar one besides Saturday Night Live and a few 30 minute comedy shows. Again, those productions still being different than this one. I felt her portrayal was better then that of Peter Pan this year.