So, nu? So, Sue Me
A while back we had a Great Musicals Debate here in which commenter Richard Saunders wrote, in response to my saying that I much prefer the original stage version of “Guys and Dolls” to the Brando/Sinatra film version:
Neo — I can’t remember a more serious disagreement I’ve ever had with you! Okay, maybe Marlon Brando might not be a great singer, but Sinatra as Nathan Detroit, Jean Simmons as Sarah, Sheldon Leonard as Big Julie, how can you beat that? And all the people who came from the show — Vivian Blaine, Stubby Kaye, B.S. Pulley, Johnny Silver, what about them? Sky’s response to Nathan in their scene in Lindy’s is a rule I’ve held to my whole adult life.
I can take the heat, so I won’t get out of the kitchen.
Of course, Sky’s response to Nathan is in the script, both the play and the film, so we can’t use that as an example to distinguish one from the other. Part of the difference between stage musicals and filmed ones is a matter of more projection and broadness—after all, you have to reach the balcony—and a film is of necessity more subtle and naturalistic. And part of the difference is that something about that proscenium arch and all those fellow audience members shifting and breathing around you reminds you that you’re in a theater and this is a stage, and there’s the excitement of a live performance that really can’t be captured on a film or video. It’s something like watching an acrobat on a high wire without a safety net. This is it, the performers stand or fall in this moment, and there’s greater risk and even danger that can lead to a heightened reaction in the audience.
That’s the general argument in favor of theater. But in particular, in the case of “Guys and Dolls,” although the movie makers had the excellent judgment to hire some of the wonderful stage play originals—the ones Richard Saunders lists—that certainly doesn’t give the movie any advantage over the play, it only means that those roles are played very very well.
Marlon Brando is only in the movie, and Richard Saunders and I seem to agree on his general deficiencies in the role. And it’s not just that although he’s a serviceable singer he’s not a good one. It’s that Sky is a big singing role as compared to, for example, that of Nathan Detroit. Sky has all the beautiful ballads, as well as the fabulous “Luck Be a Lady,” and they’re all songs that require really good singing.
Jean Simmons is okay, another thing on which we agree. She can actually sing—and, like Sky, she needs to be able to sing because her role is also a role that absolutely requires it.
And then there’s Nathan Detroit, played by Frank Sinatra in the film and Sam Levene in the play. Ah, Sinatra! Sinatra is a great singer of a particular type: smooth as silk, usually specializing in songs of heartache, although he’s also rather versatile. He’s Italian and not Jewish. But why on earth would that matter? Because Nathan Detroit, more than any other role in the play, is written with a lot of Jewishisms and/or Yiddishisms—words, gestures, accent, cadence—as an integral part the character. And it’s really not a singing role, although that’s Sinatra’s specialty.
The role’s creator Sam Levene was not a singer; he’s much worse at singing than Brando ever was. But he doesn’t even try to sing. He was adept at the Jewish vernacular that’s built into the song, and the role fit him like a glove. I had never read this part of Levene’s Wiki entry before looking it up for this post, but I’m not surprised at what it says:
Although not known as a singer, Sam Levene originated the role of Nathan Detroit in the original 1950 Broadway production and original cast recording of the musical Guys and Dolls, and later reprised the role of Nathan Detroit in 1953 in the first UK production of Guys and Dolls. His solo number, “Sue Me,” was written in one octave to compensate for his lack of vocal range. Sam Levene lost the role to Frank Sinatra in the film version. Guys & Dolls director Joseph L. Mankiewicz wanted original Broadway star Sam Levene, but producer Sam Goldwyn insisted on giving the part to Frank Sinatra. Joseph L. Mankiewicz said “if there could be one person in the world more miscast as Nathan Detroit than Frank Sinatra that would be Laurence Olivier and I am one of his greatest fans; the role had been written for Sam Levene who was divine in it”. Fordham Professor of Music Larry Stempel, author of “Showtime: A History of the Broadway Musical Theater” said if given a choice, he would cast Sam Levene, who created the role on Broadway, as the ideal Nathan Detroit instead of Nathan Lane, who played the part in the Broadway revival or Frank Sinatra, who played the part on film, stating “Musically, he may have been tone-deaf, but he inhabited Frank Loesser’s world as a character more than a caricature.”
Exactly and precisely what I think about it. Your mileage may differ, of course. That’s fine. But to me, Sinatra—despite his brave efforts—fails.
First let’s have the smooth-as-silk Sinatra, singing to Vivian Blaine (the originator of the stage role of Adelaide) in the film, crooning beautifully as always, but trying to find the right inflection for “So, nu?” and IMHO failing at that (making it a bland “So new?”):
Now we have the stage version (the London revival)—which of course is broader in style, because the performers have to reach the rafters (and in those days mics were rare)—with the non-singing Levine and the fabulous Blaine once again. You may think there’s too much schtick here. But to me it’s authentic shtick, and very entertaining. Note also, in contrast to the relatively immobile Sinatra, how much Levine uses physical gestures (in particular his hands), and how his attention is absolutely riveted on Blaine/Adelaide and is responsive to her. This is a couple who’ve been together a long time, having a fight:
[NOTE: Let me add that they eliminated many great songs in the movie: “A Bushel and a Peck,” “Marry the Man Today,” and “I’ve Never Been in Love Before”—as well as “Take Back Your Mink,” for which they substituted one of the few bad songs Frank Loesser ever wrote, “Pet Me Poppa.”]
Thanks, Neo. I never realized how wonderful Vivien Blaine was. Also, You can’t beat Sam Levene!!
On “nu”: https://forward.com/culture/12736/just-say-nu-01335/
I’m with you. I love the play, which is hilarious, but hate the movie—it’s as if the director insisted on draining all the fun out of it and turning it into SERIOUS ART. Brando and Sinatra don’t work at all in those roles. And dropping the songs, especially “A Bushel and a Peck,” was insane.
Wonderful post.
All things considered, I’d be willing to give Sinatra a pass on not getting “nu” right.
I have always liked “A Bushel and a Peck” but didn’t know it was dropped from this show. So, what made it popular enough to reach a podunk-town teen back in the day?
Aesopfan: I remmebr seeing it performed on musical variety TV shows as a kid.
Doris Day? Roy Rogers Show?
That performance with Levine and Blaine is wonderful. When Blaine starts singing “When I think of the times . . .” she reminds me of so many of the women of my childhood who would have this memorized set of grievances that they quite enjoyed cataloguing. And then the men would respond similarity to Levine. It was as much of a performance as this clip is.
My favorite Frank Sinatra musical was Robin and the Seven Hoods.
My favorite: “More I Cannot Wish You.” I sung this for my daughter at her wedding.
Stage show. But then I can’t stand Brando; he’s only ever interested in himself. It worked for me in The Godfather but otherwise not.
Watching Frank Sinatra sing is watching Frank Sinatra sing. I can’t get character if a big star is doing it.
I gotta go with the Sinatra version. Sue me.
Neo, you’ve only seen versions cut for time. I have a vivid video in my head of Vivian Blane singing “Take Back Your MinK” in a beautiful peach-colored dress doing that song, with several other women, including stalking off the stage at the end and then rushing back to swiftly gather up all their things, and rush off after saying to the audience, “Well—wouldn’t you??!!” in the movie. “I’ve Never Been In Love Before” is there too.
Since I had both the original album (with Alan Alda”s father as Skye, I think—I can run videos in my head but names are a big problem) and I had the movie album, I just had a problem picturing “Marry the Man Today”, so I must have heard it only on the Broadway LP.
Try to find the video of Blane’s “Take Back Your Mink”. She’s fabulous. Trust me, it’s there somewhere. And the song “marry the Man Today” would never, ever, ever, be allowed today. Feminists are KillJoys of the most malicious sort.
I have lived in Los Angeles since 1962, so I’ve had the opportunity to see literally dozens and dozens of Broadway musicals on stage over the years in various venues here, but they started basically in the 60s to go PC, and by the 1980s they were often writing new musicals or rewriting old ones to be ugly-minded and more PC, and I won’t watch those results, or buy the albums. I’ve never gone to the live theater to become angry or depressed.
By the way, I always absolutely LOVE your choice in videos. Thank you for wonderful memories and often delightful new experiences.
Neo — Fortunately, we have a CD of the original Broadway show, so I know all the omitted songs, and know question that omitting songs like “Take Back Your Mink” (probably considered too racy for a movie) and “Marry the Man Today” was a major mistake.
However, I still have to disagree with you on Sinatra. There was a long, gradual transition from the kid from Hoboken to the smooth-as-silk Sinatra.. The Rat Pack Sinatra would have fit right in with Damon Runyan’s tinhorns. I know — my Dad had a lot of friends like that: gamblers, promoters, numbers writers, insurance salesmen. Sinatra’s Nathan Detroit would have been perfectly at home. (And he would have known plenty of Yiddishisms!)
Richard Saunders:
We don’t have a hypothetical Sinatra as Nathan, who knows plenty of Yiddishisms. We have the actual Sinatra as Nathan, who absolutely doesn’t deliver. Wrong wrong wrong for the part. As Joseph L. Mankiewicz so aptly said: “if there could be one person in the world more miscast as Nathan Detroit than Frank Sinatra that would be Laurence Olivier.” I’m not sure there wouldn’t be a few people even more miscast, actually, but you get what I mean.
Obviously, we differ. I’m not going to convince you, and you’re not going to convince me. Luckily, it’s on an topic that isn’t exactly one of the burning issues of our time.
Minta Marie Morze,
I stand corrected on “Take Back Your Mink.” It is indeed also in the movie, in addition to “Pet Me Poppa.”
I completely agree with you on what has happened to productions of musicals, at least for the most part. I’ve seen exceptions (I highly highly recommend the Yiddish production, with titles, of “Fiddler on the Roof,” if you’re ever in NY, for example), but for the most part recent productions are loud and soulless (and very expensive) trashings of works that used to have a completely different sensibility. It’s done partly to make them PC, and it’s partly just that people are so cynical nowadays that they bring a cynical sensibility to such things.
And don’t get me started on what’s been done to “The Mikado,” which is now considered nearly unperformable. Actually, I plan to write a post on that very topic.
great post Neo.
my only exposure to the show was in a summer camp pruduction over 40 years ago and the movie. a few years ago a site raised the issue that Nathan was Jewish. I had no idea before that.
Robert Alda was marvelous, sexy. Brando completely out of his element, demanded they use his singing voice rather than dubbing him, and comparatively fey. Sinatra has not only no Yiddishkeit, but no humility, and insisted (over Loesser’s objections) on singing his songs the way he wanted to. Vivian Blaine was the real article, onstage & on screen. sublime. Why people think that an Italian actor is easily substituted for a Jewish one I do not know. Would The Sopranos work with non-Italian players? And don’t get me started on Nathan Lane, whether as Nathan Detroit or as Max Bialystock in the stage production of The Producers. Strictly whitbread, no soul of bagel whatsoever. Mere imitation.
Betty:
Though I only heard Alda’s voice on the recording, I agree that he was the perfect Sky, gritty and sexy and wonderful.
Neo:
You’re right. I was using the term PC as a shorthand for a body of ideas and emotions that actually extend far beyond mere PC, rotten as PC is. Too many musicals, revivals of older musicals, operas, operettas, etc., especially their staging, along with most forms of art in the modern and post-modern world, are nihilistic, depressing, contemptuous, ugly-minded, sick, degrading, and so on. What they’ve done in staging most forms of live performance is stupidly sickening.
When Robert Hughes wrote and presented “The Shock of the New”, the “New” was still capable of shocking, although even then the ability for art to shock in any way was weakening and on its deathbed.
I preferred the fire, passion, and glory of Jacob Bronowski’s “Ascent of Man”, but even with that wonderful series, the ending, with Bronowski kneeling by mud outside of a Nazi death camp and lifting up a handful of mud that was intermixed with human ashes, was warning us of the path to where we stand now.
The science that Bronowski loved so much has been degraded into mock-science platforms for the Progressive quest for power and money. Art, too, is a series of platforms.
I have often wondered what Gilbert & Sullivan, Moliere, Cervantes, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, and so many others like them, would think of the Post-Modern World.
I look forward to your post on the Mikado.
Actually, Neo, I look forward to ALL your posts.
But what about casting Sinatra in the role that he really wanted – Sky? From what I heard he hated Brando for taking what he thought should have been his role.
DN3:
Sinatra would be MUCH better suited for Sky. However, he still would lack one characteristic, IMHO: he’s not handsome. Now, some may disagree with me, but I just don’t find him good-looking. I think Sky should be very physically magnetic. But I do think Sinatra would have been a zillion times better as Sky than as Nathan.
My daughter loves the movie version of the musical version of the movie “The Producers.” (Or maybe its the musical version of the movie of the musical of the movie? Or, the — never mind!!!) Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in place of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder? Seriously? Ugh! As bad as another one of Mel Brooks’ mistakes — remaking “To Be Or Not To Be.”
A couple of years ago I saw a production of “Madame Butterfly” in L.A. The singers were dressed as robots or aliens from a Star Trek (FirstGen) episode, and the whole thing was done as an homage to “Miss Saigon,” apparently not realizing that “Miss Saigon” was a remake of “Madame Butterfly.” Hence my motto, “No remakes!”
I liked Brando in GUYS AND DOLLS. He “sold” the songs, even if he weren’t a great singer, and looked like he was having a lot of fun playing the part.
Sinatra is better for the sound, better singing. Plus better “name”.
Levene is better, much better, for the drama. For the mannerisms. For the character.
“And don’t get me started on what’s been done to “The Mikado,” which is now considered nearly unperformable. Actually, I plan to write a post on that very topic.” – Neo
I’ll read the post, of course, but I plan to have a big bowl of chocolates nearby for consolation. It’s one of our family’s favorites, including the kids, from the time we recorded a televised performance a couple of decades ago.
A great production, especially Pooh Bah & Katisha. Outstanding set design, very simple but lovely, and flexible for scene-changes.
I can’t find that one on-line, but this clip from a movie called Humor Me is a hoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8rm8UhM_wY