The Sound of Music is coming home

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:23:15 GMT, Deep Foiled Malls
wrote:

So what was the call for that? You want me to quit reading your post?
I was talking civilly, and you pull this crap.

Oooh, sensitive viking!!!

Oh, cut it out, DFM. There hadn't been any call for insults.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:44:56 -0500, Viking
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:16:32 -0600, wrote:

Whaaaa? Who told you that Disney had anything to do with
the Sound of Music?

As has been pointed out, it didn't. Even more remarkable, then, that
SOM and Mary Poppins, both with the same star, came out in the same
anti-father vein at nearly the same time.

It was an era of dumb fathers. Look at some of the American
sitcoms of that time.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:13:03 -0500, Viking wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:49:15 GMT, "Pete" wrote:

The original stage production of The Sound of Music is to be performed
for the first time in the Austrian capital, 40 years after the film was
released.

Well, although that's nice, I've personally stopped liking The Sound
of Music very much since learning (as many Austrians will tell you)
that Disney reversed what actually happened to make the father out to
be the stiff nasty one, while the true ramrod was Julie Andrews'
character (Maria?? I forget now) in real life.

I don't think Disney did the Sound of Music.

Anyway, I read a sort of autobiography written by "Maria". Neither
parent sounded like much fun for kids. The father made his kids wear
hobnailed boots to school because that was traditional footwear, they
wore wool loden capes to keep off the rain, they adhered to a very
strict folkloric lifestyle which included a lot of singing of
madrigals and religious rites at the drop of a hat. Maria, at least,
was extremely religious, but she presents the father as being equally
religious (I would say fanatically so). The family never went anywhere
without a family priest and a portable altar. I remember a phrase that
struck me; when they arrived in rural Vermont, where they decided to
settle down, they pulled out the portable altar and their domestic
priest celebrated an impromptu Mass. The author said they introduced
Jesus Christ to Vermont, or words to that effect, as if she thought
there had never been Christians, or even Catholics, there before she
arrived.

The family still has a lodge in Vermont, or at least they still did
when I was last living in the US. They say that if you stayed there,
you might get treated to a folksy madrigal sing in the evening, or
maybe a sung Mass at 5 AM.

They did a lot of
heavily anti-father movies in those days, such as Mary Poppins, which
was rewritten so that the entire point of the movie was to make the
father stop acting like a jerk and begin to acknowledge his children.

I've been boycotting Disney movies my whole life. The first one I saw
was a few years ago, maybe it was Aladdin, but it was pretty
forgettable obviously. At one time I would have left the house when
somebody brought the video in but I guess I'm mellowing with age. As a
child I saw a Disney storybook version of one of my favorite books,
Bambi by Felix Salten, and that put me off Disney for life. I also
hate the fact that everybody's image of Pooh and Christopher Robin is
the reworked Disney image. The original drawings were wonderful and
now they've been almost completely forgotten.

They're still fun movies, but it takes a lot out of them for me to
know that they were puposely rewitten from the original to make the
father out to be such a problem, in need of being taught a lesson, and
to stop having him reject his kids. That kind of anti-father agitprop
I don't need or support--been far too much of it in the media.

I think that a lot of entertainment in the 1950s made the father out
to be an ineffectual idiot rather than a heavy. The mother was always
proven right in the end.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:40:14 +0100, B wrote:

Barbara:

Thanks for your thoughtful post, some interesting discussion
there. I had been going on what Austrians, maybe a dozen over the
years, had told me....

I think that a lot of entertainment in the 1950s made the father out
to be an ineffectual idiot rather than a heavy. The mother was always
proven right in the end.

*sigh* You're right there. And with notable exceptions, it's only
gotten worse these days, especially on TV. But all that's off topic
for this group, I know, so don't plan to discuss it much here!

Viking wrote:

Well, although that's nice, I've personally stopped liking The Sound
of Music very much since learning (as many Austrians will tell you)
that Disney reversed what actually happened to make the father out to
be the stiff nasty one, while the true ramrod was Julie Andrews'
character (Maria?? I forget now) in real life.

What did Disney have to do with it? (Did he even make the
movie version?) By "original" the OP was speaking of the
STAGE play by Rodgers and Hammerstein, which differed from
the movie in many respects.

They did a lot of
heavily anti-father movies in those days, such as Mary Poppins, which
was rewritten so that the entire point of the movie was to make the
father stop acting like a jerk and begin to acknowledge his children.

If you read the series of books which inspired the Mary
Poppins movie, you'd realize it was not the movie studio who
made the father out to be a "jerk". (Wonderful books, BTW -
far more enjoyable than the movie, IMO - and like the best
of British children's stories, they never "talk down" to the
kids, so one can even enjoy them as an adult.)

Hatunen wrote:


It was an era of dumb fathers. Look at some of the American
sitcoms of that time.

They're any better now? (And now we have "reality" TV
replacing anything even halfway worth watching!)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:43:22 -0500, Viking wrote:

Yebbut "the original stage production" has nothing to do with Disney.
Although since the film doesn't either (it was 20th Century Fox),

That's interesting to know.

It's what it says on the DVD cover in big letters.
--
Tim C.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:51:21 -0500, Viking wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:47:39 +0100, Magda
wrote:

... Whaaaa? Who told you that Disney had anything to do with
... the Sound of Music?

Never mind - you don't want to drink what he has been drinking !

Diet orange soda, actually. You afraid of that?

I am now.
--
Tim C.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:40:14 +0100, B Vaughan wrote:

The first one [Disney film] I saw
was a few years ago, maybe it was Aladdin, but it was pretty
forgettable obviously.

Well, they're for kids really, aren't they.
--
Tim C.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:39:55 -0500, Viking wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:23:15 GMT, Deep Foiled Malls
wrote:

So what was the call for that? You want me to quit reading your post?
I was talking civilly, and you pull this crap.

Oooh, sensitive viking!!!

Oh, cut it out, DFM. There hadn't been any call for insults.

Don't let it bother you so much. You're supposed to be a viking! ;o)
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--