Escapist Entertainment, But Not Terribly Thought-Provoking

Rating: 7/10 (14 October 2007)

"The Sound of Music" was produced to entertain audiences and allow them to escape from reality for two hours. The vast majority of Broadway musicals produced in the middle of the 20th century were primarily leisure distractions. Only a handful of these offerings center around thought-provoking material, such as "Porgy and Bess", "South Pacific", "West Side Story", "The Man of La Mancha", even "My Fair Lady." But "The Sound of Music" was not designed to force radical contemplation of social issues. It was designed to make people feel happy about music, although depending solely upon the music in "The Sound of Music" to excite me about music would not really work.
The release of "The Sound of Music" was the beginning of the end of Hollywood's love affair with the so-called Broadway musical that began with the advent of sound pictures. Between 1930 and 1960, the movie musical was a mainstream genre and represented a huge amount of the output of Hollywood. But after "The Sound of Music" in 1964, the movie musical began to disappear and films would go in varied directions. Many would focus on less escapist subjects, such as politics, dysfunctional relationships, even suicide. New genres entered the mainstream, such as science fiction and the action thriller. Fewer and fewer movie musicals would be produced, and none that I can think of would have the unparalleled success of "The Sound of Music".
Most young people today are unaware that two of the biggest names in entertainment for about a third of a century were Rogers and Hammerstein who dominated musical theater in New York thereby influencing much of the output of Hollywood films shot in studios 3000 miles away from Broadway. Most if not all of the duo's musicals were green-lighted as movies. Their musicals were really fantasies with songs, light-hearted escapist fair designed to entertain, with little or no thought-provoking ideas or complex thematic writing. If you're looking for good old-fashioned entertainment, you need almost look no further. But if you want something that challenges your perspective, Rogers and Hammerstein have little to offer.
"The Sound of Music" was beloved by all who saw it when it was first released in 1965. It seemed the one movie everyone could agree they at least liked, if not loved. And it's reputation as everyone's favorite musical still persists, more or less, even today. But is it really as wonderful as everyone would have you believe? Is it worth some critical analysis? For today's younger audiences, "The Sound of Music" probably comes off rather dated. It is really a fantasy portending something deeper but doesn't quite get there, except for possibly a moment toward the end of the film. The story is an idealization of the history of the Von Trapp Family Singers and how their adopted mother, Maria, played with pleasurable innocence by the incomparable Julie Andrews, first met the children and their father. Andrews' singing voice is without question from the heavens and, along with her acting, holds the entire film together.
Andrews' character, Maria, is at the beginning an Austrian nun in love with music and not so enamored with being in a convent. She keeps singing in the prayer halls. Realizing that Maria may not be fitting into the monastic life, the Mother Superior sends her to become the governess of the children of a widower and former naval captain who runs his household like Captain Bligh on the Bounty. At first not sure how to connect with this family, the young Maria uses music to bond with the children, and help them ultimately find the love of their father, played with militaristic fervor by Christopher Plummer, who finds himself reluctantly warming to the presence of Maria. The only real edge to the movie is toward the end when the Austrian annexation with Nazi Germany is briefly explored, an aspect that could have used further development.
To enjoy this movie, you have to understand that the whole idea is escapist fantasy. The songs are sweet little corny tunes without much behind them, the likes of which would probably make Bach, Beethoven and/or Brahms cringe. They do what they are expected to do, and you might find yourself humming them afterward, but they do very little to spark the imagination.
The title song "The Sound of Music" is probably Julie Andrews' best musical moment. It's really not that substantive a song by itself, but Andrews makes it great, which shows how exceptional a performer she really is. Simultaneously, you have to credit Rogers and Hammerstein for attempting the nearly impossible: writing a song about music without it lapsing into sentimental mush. At least the corniness of the title song is kept to a minimum.
For me, the strongest songs are "Edelweiss", sung by Plummer about the flowers of Austria, and "Climb Every Mountain", sung by the Mother Superior to encourage Maria to find herself. I don't know if "Do a Deer" would really inspire young people today to explore music. The weakest number is a puppet show to the overlong "The Lonely Goatherd" which has no bearing on the story and goes on endlessly. Sort of reminds me of "Get Me to the Church on Time" from "My Fair Lady".
"The Sound of Music" is not the easiest of movies to review without offending those who have so loved it. Pauline Kael's review of this movie was incredibly scathing, claiming the movie was purposefully designed to pull your heart strings in a single direction. I think Kael's assessment is a little unfair as every viewer must decide if the film touches them or not. Is it a good movie? Yes. Is it a bit corny? Perhaps, as it sacrifices substance in favor of sentimentality. That being said, if sentimentality is what you're after, "The Sound of Music" will definitely fit the bill.