Thursday, August 19, 2010

the contrarian: "South Pathetic"

OK, climbing out on a limb, I’m going to say what no one else has said. Here goes… Rodgers and Hammerstein’s “South Pacific,” despite that glorious score and racial-divide themes that are still provocative, isn’t a very good show – on film or on stage.

For the past five decades now, Joshua Logan’s 1958 film version, which Logan also staged on Broadway in 1949, has been the subject of much criticism, and I’ve participated, despite the fact that when I was young and unformed, “S.P.” was a favorite film. Until I outgrew it. I thought.

But watching the recent PBS telecast of a live performance of the acclaimed 2008 Lincoln Center revival, replete with its original stars, Kelli O'Hara and Paulo Szot, my jaw dropped and my mind opened.

After all these years of making snarky remarks about the Logan film, I suddenly realized that I have never seen a good production of the show, this one included. I’ve seen various regional productions and even remember a revival with Florence Henderson, also staged at Lincoln Center, in the 1970s, and frankly, I can’t think of any that were very good – again, despite that grand score and the racial-intolerance plot.

And, remember, with a book by Hammerstein and Logan, the show won a Pulitzer Prize. That makes it untouchable, right? No, you'd be wrong.

It’s the book – to which the ’58 film version and the unwatchable 2001 Glenn Close TV remake were so faithful – that’s bad. Filled with awful dialogue, it apparently engenders bad performances across the board. (Full Disclosure: I’ve no idea what Mary Martin and Enzio Pinza were like in the original, but nearly everyone else I’ve seen has been subpar.)

Which brings me back to Bartlett Sher’s grotesquely misconceived, self-important reinvention for the current revival, which is a much darker reading of the material – so dark that even the buffoon Luther Billis comes across as a semi-serious character. Sher’s version, like all the other “S.P.s,” is noteworthy for its bad acting - not so much O’Hara, who is fine as Nellie Forbush, but the men. All the men. Somehow, every male performance in this production is cringe-inducing and, while Szot has the requisite show-stopping voice as Emile de Becque, he is a lumpy presence and his facial contortions while singing are not pretty to experience.

“South Pacific” may have a laurelled history, but like its successor in “serious musical comedy” – that would be “West Side Story” – it is a show that remains melodically glorious but resistant to good acting.

12 comments:

Alex said...

I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I read this because I've been dumping on Logan's film (and Logan in general) for years and it never occured to me that maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't with the adaptation which, as you say was faithful, but with the source material. Some things play better on stage than on film. This one sounds like it doesn't play well in either medium for you. You might be right.

Zach said...

"South Pacific"? I'll stand in front of a packed, hostile house defending that film frame-for-frame, even though I know it's bad. I've never seen it on stage, but I would like to think that location shooting could only help the material.

John Kaiser said...

I tried watching it the other day, but couldn't stomach Szot as Emile DeBeque. Realized what the problem was when I looked him up on IBDB and IMDB, he's an opera singer. Complete different style needed for a regular musical. Just like the difference between film acting and stage acting.

Carrie said...

"SP" is one of the first films I ever saw. I was probably 2 or 3 and much to my mother's chagrin, screamed to be taken out of the theater. I saw it again about 20 years ago and was appalled by how uncinematic it was and how wooden the performances were.Despite a fondness for "I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Outta My Hair" and "Honeybun," I found it unwatchable

Its reputation as a musical rests primarily upon its progressive ideas about interracial relationship. I have heard good recordings of "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught." But as Logan frames it, it's not a plea for tolerance but a solemn sermon. The film reeks of self-importance. I never even thought it might have been the source material.

joe baltake said...

Carrie- I think that when it comes to movie versions of plays, film has a way of magnifying the flaws. What seemed fine on stage, suddenly seems grotesque on screen. Thaat's what afflicts the film of "South Pacific." Logan, unwittingly, put a magnifying glass up against what he and Hammerstein wrote and what we see isn't subtle at all. -J

Sturges said...

I love your re-naming of "South Pathetic"!

Manny said...

Don't you know that "South Pacific" is considered by many more knowledgable than you to be a classic, a treasure of the musical theater? You're wrong!

joe baltake said...

I'm well aware of how legendary "South Pacific" is and I don't pretend that my opinion is a popular one or even one held by only a few people. My point is that the 1958 film version, which has been subjected to a lot of derision, is actually a mirror image of the play, only with everything magnified by the camera. If anything is wrong with the film, then it has something to do with the source material. Again, I appreciate the musical's theme and the score, as I noted, is tremendous. But there's a stiffness and self-consciousness to the writing that not only doesn't do justice to the theme but also affects the performances. It's just my opinion.

Sheila said...

Your point about the camera magnifying both the good parts and the flaws of a play is intriguing. I could never understand why Neil Simon plays earned raves and Tonys, while the film versions - which he adapted himself - were heavily criticized. It's the same material; just a different medium.

joe baltake said...

Excellent analogy, Sheila. The films of Simon's plays are hugely faithful to their sources. At first, the films - "Barefoot in the Park" and "The Odd Couple" - earned respectable reviews, but everything that came after seemed to have the critics goaning. The stuff that the NY Times theater critic loved, its movie critic hated. Go figure.

george said...

There are some compelling ideas here. Not sure one can generalize about either show. But, I admit that I've seen few good productions of either.

Millie said...

YESSSS. Thank you.

Although, I've never seen a stage version of SP, I utterly HATE the film. I have always been a huge musical fan-- even of BAD musicals. But, this, I just couldn't handle it!

-Millie

P.S. I am now, no longer able to call it anything but "South Pathetic"...thanks! ;-D