What did you think of South Pacific?

You might find Rick Ayer’s comments regarding South Pacific, posted to The Huffington Post, insightful:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers-/emsouth-pacificem—-musi_b_99550.html

I generally enjoyed the whole thing though there was a bit too much repetition in the songs.

I thought that the acting was very good, particularly the actor playing Luther Billis. It was enjoyable that most of the play was based around the stories in the novel that were, in my opinion, the more interesting ones, but it was also fun that there were smaller references throughout the play to some of the other chapters.

I’m not a big fan of musicals, but South Pacific is of the better ones I have seen. The play was long, but I thoroughly enjoyed it from the beginning to the end.

Although the book was a bit boring at times, the musical version of South Pacific was captivating. I loved the music and storyline and I was very excited to see the play was not about the whole book and just a few love stories. About the repetition of “Some Enchanted Evening”, I still enjoyed it because I felt the actor who played Emile had a beautiful voice.

Stingy bastard!

As a musical theatre kid, South Pacific is a classic and to be able to see it on stage was such wonderful experience. I thought Kelli O’Hara was fantastic (just as she was in “Light in the Piazza”). So was the actor who played Billis. The set was amazing, as is the entire Vivian Beaumont Theatre. The pit was a particularly nostalgic treat and when the stage rolled back to reveal the entire pit, I’ll admit I got goosebumps. The entire performance was thoroughly enjoyable but I realize for those who don’t necessarily like musical theatre how it could’ve gotten repetitive and boring. But it’s Rodgers and Hammerstein! So it’s classic and you have to appreciate it.

Not being a musical theatre kid, I have only seen two other musicals. South Pacific was definitely the best of the the three

Despite the fact that I’m not a huge musical/theatre buff, I found South Pacific very interesting and enjoyable. The relationship between Emile De Becque and Nellie Forbush was illuminated well on the stage. The song, “Some Enchanted Evening”, was very catchy and in fact I have jokingly serenaded a few of my peers with it.

I really enjoyed hearing “Some Enchanted Evening.” I really liked the part “Once you have found her, never let her go.” The play was very captivating and poignant that I did not want it to end. I did not feel that I was seating there for three hours. I had a great time.

What I enjoyed most about South Pacific is that it took the best two stories out of the book and brought it to life in a very lively way. South Pacific was funny when it needed to be, and provided the right amount of tension at the right moments. The songs were very catchy and were stuck in my head for the whole weekend and I had a hard time getting this musical off of my mind for a while.

I thought the play was timeless. From the set, costumes, and especially the music, the performance left me with a nostalgic feeling in the end. Although the book jumped from story to story, I enjoyed how the play focused on Nellie and Emile’s experiences that more people can relate to.

I’m going to have to be the voice of dissent here and say that while South Pacific had its enjoyable parts, it struck me as a bit generic and shallow. I’ll grant that, yes, the play is a product of its time. However, I don’t believe that the Rodgers and Hammerstein label excuses the South Pacific from falling flat on most fronts.

First off, I found the play to be extremely light on some of the most basic and key dramatic elements. The plot was not only slow-moving - it seemed to contain very little substance. Most of the performance was stocked with musical filler scenes rather than richer gazes at the characters’ motivations and backgrounds. For example, I would have preferred a more complex look at the origins of Nellie’s (/society’s) racial prejudice, rather than another hackneyed song-and-dance ensemble. Furthermore, many of the scenes came across as repetitive, especially the exchanges between de Becque and Nellie. I also felt a general lack of weight in any of the conflicts. Nellie overcame her mixed feelings throughout the play pretty inexplicably - mainly just with doves and roses overtures from de Becque. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that “love overcomes all” was a pretty stale theme, even in 1949. The adversity toward the end, with the impending gloom of a dangerous mission, came off as rushed. It would have been more compelling to see war and death as an ominous cloud hanging over the entire play rather than as a few brief scenes near the finale. I also had a large problem with the musical numbers stalling the plot progression instead of building it. Almost every song seemed a simple, lyrical restatement of what was readily obvious. “Some Enchanted Evening,” for instance, was probably one of the most dull and unoriginal love ballads I’ve ever heard, delving very plainly into de Becque’s very conspicuous affection for Nellie - and it was repeated for about five times! The song closest to reaching any thematic or plot significance was Sgt. Cable’s “You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught,” and even that number was an oversimplified look at racism. Mainly the musical performances served the purpose of wearing me out, with the exception of the lively songs including Billis and the Marines. Last, but not least, I found the ending to be painfully gift-wrapped for mass audiences. Lt. Cable’s death came off as a lackluster afterthought for dramatic effect and de Becque’s sudden return at the end was far too “happily ever after” for me.

My other major issue was the paucity of any substantial character development. Almost every character in the play seemed two-dimensional and cartoonish. You had the humdrum stereotypes of the strong-willed and strapping man who finds his sensitive side, the exotic love interest(s), the wheeler-and-dealer, the simple girl seeking adventure, etc. Most of the characters’ interactions registered as superficial, and even silly at some times - particularly in South Pacific’s treatment of love and attraction. Take, for example, the way Sgt. Cable falls deeply in love after a rather unemotional sexual encounter with Liat - who, by the way, had about three to four lines of understandable dialogue the entire play. As if “love overcomes all” wasn’t prosaic enough, South Pacific also presents us with “love is unfathomable”. How profound. Moreover, I think it would have been more interesting to see Nellie and de Becque fall into intimacy rather than have them goo-goo for each other right off the bat.

Finally, the play’s major message of “racism is bad” felt very weak - though I suppose it was more bold in 1949. In fact, nothing in South Pacific really generated an emotional response in me, as opposed to the book, which I believe provided a much deeper study of human nature.

I will say, however, that there were many aspects of the play I found entertaining. First, Kelli O’Hara’s voice was phenomenal, especially in the way she gracefully would alter pitch on a dime. Furthermore, South Pacific was well developed in the spectacle department - notably with its set design and energetic and fun Billis and Bloody Mary scenes (though Bloody Mary did creep me out quite a bit). Right then, my rant is over.

I agree with Tyler in that the ending seemed a bit “gift wrapped” but I disagree with his assessment that the characters were undeveloped and unchanged. Nellie is simple in nature but complex as a character. Her love for Emile isn’t just the emotional “love conquers all” type of love (though it may have started out as such) or else she would have been okay with the fact that he had Polynesian children right away because she would have been willing to forego her disgust for the sake of loving Emile. So how did she get from point A where she was desperately “in love” but ran away when the time came and tested that love to point B where she is found caring for his Polynesian children even without the promise that Emile would be there? For me the moment when Nellie first starts to understand is when she hears Cable singing “You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught” and then having him refuse her help to bring him back to the hospital just accents his disgust for her because she reminds him of himself in that they both now know their prejudices are not innate but are something that can be changed but they are both not strong enough to do so at the moment. Cable’s death for Nellie acts as a catalyst for her change because it put priorities into perspective for her and she decides to care for his children as though they were her own. Though Nellie may seem simple and easily won over, her character is clearly very developed and undergoes a journey during the musical. Other characters such as Emile, Billis and Cable all have their own journeys through the play as well. They all have intentions, secrets and purpose and they all help each other, whether consciously or not, to grow as characters.
In regards to the art aspects of South Pacific, I thought the music, set, costumes and acting were all superb. As Oros mentioned before, I particularly loved how the stage would slide back and reveal the pit orchestra; having played in the pit for various school musicals that moment for me was very nostalgic. I felt that the musical numbers in the show were also very entertaining and did a good job of setting the mood, emotions and time period. During the theatre workshops we had before we went to see the show, my group was asked to think of how the song “Some Enchanted Evening” would be staged, and I kind of saw it as that scene from West Side Story where Tony and Maria are at the dance, the music is loud and bright, but then everything fades as Tony and Maria notice each other. So it surprised me when Emile sung that song with just the two of them onstage. Something else that I liked was how Nellie went from “I’m Gonna Wash that Man Right Outta My Hair” to “A Wonderful Guy” in the space of about 5 minutes. It fits her character well although some may say that this abrupt turn is just Nellie being brainlessly in love.
The set design impressed me a lot. I like how they used basically the same few objects in scenes over and over again but in different combinations to create different scenes. The parallel bamboo screens for instance made Emile’s home look cozy and decorated, but those same bamboo screens used in the office (especially with the spotlights shining behind them to cast shadows onto the map and floor) meant business and suggested danger.
Overall, I thought South Pacific was amazing, I actually felt like I was drawn into a different world and did not want to return.

Typically I’m not a fan of musicals but that did not hinder my interest in this one. Similar yet different from the book, South Pacific the Musical was very captivating and interesting. Compared to the 400 pages in the book, i was very astonished how the musical was able to compile these major themes into a 3hour musical. Though it was long, I believe it hit the most important aspects of the themes prevalent in the book. Overall it was great.

Musicals are usually entertaining and rarely complex or thought provoking. So for entertainment, the play was great-Emile was an amazing actor, the music was catchy, there was comical relief, there was tragedy and yes the “happily ever after because we aren’t racist anymore” ending. If you are looking for complexity or mind altering studies of humanity I agree that you would have to search elsewhere. However, the play did an excellent job of portraying the time period. Even in an exotic place, the prejudices and culture of the United States during the 40’s appeared and were a focal point in the play. Joe Cable’s song alluded to the internal conflicts about race and prejudice that one cannot get in a musical; which is why we read the book. For a musical I think it was great. For an intimate study of racial prejudice in these individuals as reflective of the complexity in their society and time period–I wasn’t disappointing simply because I wasn’t expecting it. I loved the theater and I think the overall feelings, fashions and attitudes of that time period were captured on stage. I agree with John; one of my favorite parts was when the stage rolled back at the beginning.

I don’t believe that a play has to be sappy and superficial just because it happens to contain song and dance. And I think that it’s too easy to excuse South Pacific for being cheesy because that’s how many other musicals are. Song and dance can be a medium in itself for digging deeper into the plot or characters while also being entertaining - we shouldn’t restrict the art form by saying “books are for thought; musicals are for fun, and only fun”.

Further, yes, it captured certain visual elements of the time period well, but I felt the play catered too much to WW2-period stereotypes instead of making the characters real people, so I’ll have to disagree with Mary in the sentiment that South Pacific captured the feelings and attitudes of the time period well.

Nevertheless, I suppose I was disappointed mainly because I expected a good adaptation of the book instead of a slow-moving happyfest.

Although I was never a huge fan of musicals, I found South Pacific to be very enjoyable because of the humor that was present throughout the performance. I found Danny Burstein’s role as Luther Billis to be very funny and was the main reason I enjoyed the play so much.

“South Pacific” is an interesting musical full of fun music and an underlying, serious theme: racism. That said, the show was entertaining in the way only musicals can be. However, the characters lacked depth and the inexplicable change of heart of Nellie indicates a “quick, let’s tie this up neatly” ending. For the most part, this did not take away from the ability of most audience members to enjoy the show because it was essentially what most musicals are expected to be: lighthearted. The show walked a fine line of controversy for its generation, and it did it as well as can be expected while still remaining true to its genre of musical theater.

Yeah, I agree with most of the gigantic post a couple of people up. I liked the book as a sort of series of short-stories that ranged from light-hearted and funny to shocking and depressing. But I didn’t like the play very much. It seemed like in trying to make a bunch of almost random narratives into one cohesive, regular story, a lot of substance was lost. It felt like nothing really happened in the whole thing. Maybe that’s kind of the point and I’m just not appreciating it like I should, but in any case, I thought it was pretty boring. Also, it seems like a lot of people really like the sets etc., but they didn’t bowl me over. If the play was a color I’d say it was a sort of hospital green. Safe, and mostly inoffensive, and probably looks good on Paulo Szot (I think the name of the guy who played the main character), who reminds me of Neil Patrick Harris, who has played a doctor many times in his long and illustrious career. So in summary I enjoyed the book and wasn’t thrilled by the play.

I absolutely love musicals, and South Pacific may be added to my list of ultimately pleasurable theater experiences. Yes, it lacked the substance of the source material, but we’re dealing with Rodgers and Hammerstein, not Stephen Sondheim. As much as I enjoy Rodgers and Hammerstein’s productions, they are definitely on the more lighthearted side of Broadway…maybe knowing that in advance made viewing South Pacific more enjoyable.

However, I must say, the half-tempo march & reprise of “Honey Bun” to represent the march into battle seems a sad attempt at copying Les Miserables…

Regardless of the merits of South Pacific itself, the superb job done by the actors, crew, and pit (!) is indisputable. If Paulo Szot’s voice didn’t send chills up your spine, I’m not quite sure you’re human. The sets were extremely impressive, especially considering more and more musicals are moving towards more “bare bones” sets. Perhaps most important to me was the fact that the producer decided to legitimately recognize the incredible pit…I know from experience that pit musicians are often overlooked, despite the fact that so much of a show’s execution relies on them.

Generally, I found South Pacific very enjoyable.

I generally am not a theater person, but I really enjoyed South Pacific. While all the actors were very good, I loved listening to Emile De Becque sing. I also found Luther Billis’s character was hilarious extremely enjoyable to watch. I was surprised at how little of the book appeared in the musical, but I thought they definitely picked the most enjoyable parts.

Overall, I really enjoyed South Pacific.

I generally enjoy musicals, and South Pacific was no exception. Although the plot was predictable (boy meets girl, they fall in love, conflict arises, both parties realize they have made a grand mistake, they reconcile, happily ever after), that didn’t stop it from being thoroughly entertaining. The sailors’ antics and Bloody Mary’s presence provided comic relief, and I thought the sets were very well made. The costumes were also up to par; they captured the essence of ’40s fashion quite nicely. The songs were catchy as well, but I have to admit that I found the singing voice of the actor that played Emile kind of funny. It just seemed better suited to an opera. However, South Pacific was great, and certainly far more interesting than the book caused me to expect it to be.

I really enjoyed the show. The music and the set was especially engaging, I had the songs stuck in my head for days! Although quite different from the book itself, the musical kept the spirit of the story and kept the most important parts. Above all I felt that the characters were really dead on, their manner and style made the play come to life, which was truly the best part.

I’m not usually a fan of musicals but I enjoyed South Pacific thoroughly.

I thought the play was for the most part entertaining, although Lt. Joe Cable deserved more than the off stage death he recieved. I was also not particularly fond of the song “Some Enchanted Evening.” Wwhile I could appreciate the romantic notions it was built upon, the music itself was only made compelling by Nelly and Emile’s voices- not because of the actual lyrics or composure.

I really enjoyed South Pacific the musical, much more than I had enjoyed the book. What interested me was the way Nellie Forbush’s character was portrayed in the musical. The play went much more in depth with revealing her personality than the book had described. Her smitten, jubilant self was well enacted and it was enjoyable watching her and Emile’s relationship unravel. Though at times the play was repetitive and predictable, it was still a great first time Broadway show experience for me.

I found the show entertaining. I felt that the actors were all amazing singers and the songs they sang were catchy. I still can’t get the French song out of my head.

My only complaint is the storyline (or lack thereof). Since the book was a series of stories, I expected at least some sort of story for the play. Instead, there was no character depth and barely any conflict. At first, I thought the actors were simply bad actors. But then I realized that it seemed so because there was no character development for them to use.

Sheesh. Thank you, Mia.