Review of The Sound of Music (1965) by Adel A — 04 May 2012

Not to be mistaken for "The Sound of Silence", though probably not for lack of trying. I don't know about y'all, but this musical featuring the music of [u]Rodgers & Hammerstein[/u] coming out about a year after that song of a similar name by [u]Simon & Garfunkel[/u] is a bit too suspicious of a coincidence. It had to have been one of the most overly elaborate, ridiculously obscure pieces of subliminal messaging pertaining to rock music in the '60s, and that's really saying something, though maybe Simon & Garfunkel should have just left it up to "The Graduate" to sell records, because I'd imagine those boys paid a lot of money to get "subtle" advertizing through this film, only to distance the potential audience even further, because outside of the title and other aforementioned coincidences, I'm not really matching this film up with that song, seeing as how this film isn't nearly as deep and dark as "The Sound of Silence". Yeah, it's a close-to three hour film about several budding, life-changing relationships threatened by circumstance and the ensuing iron grip of the Nazi party; we can't afford to give that depth. Man, if it's almost three hours, it better be deep. Come on Julie Andrews, but even you had to leave after a while in "Mary Poppins", so if you're going to go all out and become a bonafide musical epic (Wow, I can't even type that without giggling, it's so silly) you better step up your entertaining game. Well, sure enough Andrews delivers, as does most of the rest of production with her, yet not quite thoroughly enough for the strengths to fully drown out the noise of the faults.

Even with its deep concepts, the film doesn't quite warrant a sweeping runtime of 174 minutes, and believe it or not, it doesn't recieve that overlong runtime simply through the many overlong musical pad-outs, for the film hits a fair deal of slow, overdrawn points that rarely, if ever bore to a terribly discomforting extent, yet still really slow down the momentum of the film and leave it to drag its feet, diluting consistent intrigue. Still, there's not quite enough intrigue to begin with, as the film is plagued by too much cheesiness, which is problematic, not just because the film's cheesy sensibilities have dated, but because they genuinely taint such a potential story. Man, if you thought "Gone With the Wind" could have done a heavier job with such really dark subject matter as the Civil War from the Confederate's standpoint, love triangles, brutal family disfunction, alchoholism and the corruption of high class, then you haven't seen a thing yet, because where something along the lines of "Gone With the Wind" had the disadvantage of being stuck in the escapist world of 1930s cinema, where the darkest thing they had was a "horror" film (*snicker*) by the name of "King Kong", this film has no excuse to touch upon some fairly deep issues within its mammoth runtime - and around the time film storytelling got to be more audacious, no less -, yet still come out way too saccharine. Now, as much as I'm making it sound as though this film fell spectacularly flat on delivering on some deep dark subject matter, the concept's darker moments are far and few between, yet do eventually come into play in a significant fashion that doesn't always fit very organically, due to the general lack of depth, which isn't to say that even the more tamed parts of the story don't get to be a bit painfully overbearing with the layed-on-too-thick cheesy dialogue, antics and humor. Seriously, this film is so safe that I think the reason why there's not a single German or Austrian accent in this Germany and Austria-set film is because they thought thin English accents would be more comforting. Okay, so I'm exaggerating on that part, but the fact of the matter is that the film is just too safe to really deliver on terribly thorough intrigue, and in a situation like that, you better deliver in most every other department. Well, while the film doesn't totally knock things out in most every other aspect, there's still enough quality and value pumped into this picture to drown out most of its missteps and leave it ultimately quite rewarding from, if nothing else, a style standpoint.

The film opens with maybe about a good minute-and-a-half of flyover shots of hills, mountains, plains and so on, yet you care not, as it's so engagingly well-shot with eye-catching sweep, complimented by lovely color that usage to full extent may vary throughout the film, yet is consistently handsome. Still, as the title will tell you, the film not engages your eyes, but also your ears, boasting a musical soundtrack of limited versatility and tightness, yet still plenty of consistently charming catchiness, with lovely musical stylings of Richard Rodgers - with whom, Oscar Hammerstein II produced memorable lyrics - marrying with spirited singing from every performer to produce unforgettably classic tunes that you'd be hard pressed to not tap your toes to, at least. Still, outside of the musical numbers, even with the slow spots, the film still entertains quite sharply, boasting a winning spirit of charm that may not always drown out the overwhelmingness of the over sweetness, nor the sense of moderate disappointment towards the squandering of potential, yet gets you by through and through, especially when it goes supplemented by our colorful cast that, like the film, may not be given enough depth to work with as it probably should, yet still wins you over, more often than not. Even the child performers transcend the norm of obnoxiously horrible child performers of the '60s and deliver on genuine charisma, as well as delightful chemistry that gives you that winning sense of both sibling shenanigans and family affection. Still, these kids need to move aside, because it's the grown-ups that really win you over, from the true-to-the-Max-Detweiler-character charming Richard Haydn, to leading man Christopher Plummer, who nails more than just that accent, even if they did give him the wrong one to do. Chris Plummer has, since and perhaps even around the time of this film, proven himself to be a powerful acting talent, something that is obviously underexplored by this film, yet he works well with what he's given to do, charismatically presenting the feel of self-discovery and relief in the Georg von Trapp character in a compellingly layered fashion that may not be layered enough to show you what Plummer can really do, yet is touched with enough material for Plummer to play up with grace. As for leading lady Julie Andrews, she's, well, playing a less magical, yet still actually sweeter version of Mary Poppins, yet still knows her way around the role, giving that presence of charisma and leadership that wins you over, yet when the human flaws within the Maria Kutschera/von Trapp character fall into place, Andrews plays up that humanity with equal assurance that helps in making her one of the most endearing aspects in this charmer.

Overall, the film runs too overlong of a length for its slow spots, as well as for its unfortunate lack of depth and extreme prominence of cheesiness that squander some potential, yet never to well the film falls beneath genuinely good, as it is carried on by a handsome style and wonderful musical numbers that break up consistent charm, supplemented by a colorful cast that boasts static charisma, as well as some unexpected moments of humanity here and there, ultimately making "The Sound of Music" a decidedly imperfect picture, yet one pumped with enough dazzle, catchiness and thorough charm to win you over, even with its missteps.

3/5 - Good.