MAME

[Neil]

Continuing through my boxes of Lucy clippings, I came across all the Mame reviews I collected.

Local papers were for the most part pretty positive; or at least positive-ISH.  Seattle headline "Lucille Ball Isn't Mame" sub-headline: "But She is Funny!".  Sub-sub "And Bea Arthur is even funnier".    People today seem to delight quoting the most savage reviews.  Milton Krims in Saturday Evening Post, a magazine with a still-large circulation, was thrilled with the movie and Lucy in particular.  Having seen many Mames,(play and musical) he proclaims Lucy the best ever. His review, if ever mentioned, is dismissed as "a breathless paean".    

[HarryCarter]

I certainly hope Lucy saw this review from The Chicago Defender!

 

[Neil]

Oh, can't they leave poor "Mame" alone??

In "Center Square: Paul Lynde" biography,  Paul tells of advice Lucy gave him when he was starting his show.  For some reason, the author feels the need to add "Lynde should have been more dubious because at the time Ball thought she was perfectly suited to play the lead in the disastrous musical Mame."

[Neil]

I wonder if Mame could even be done today.  

"You've done more for the south since anybody since Robert E Lee"

"Mother of Jefferson Davis!  She's passin' the FOX!"

"This time the south will rise again..MAME" 

And of course the charm of plantations is now OUT. 

[Irene Kampen Tripp]

They will find things wrong with everything these days.

[Mister Hepburn]

On 10/26/2020 at 9:14 PM, HarryCarter said:

I certainly hope Lucy saw this review from The Chicago Defender!

 

Anyone know what “Los Angeles department store” was used for filming? I always assumed those scenes were done on a sound stage.

I appreciated this reviewer’s comments about Lucy’s singing and specifically that it’s her interpretations which make her so special for the role. As much as I do like Lansbury, I never got the warmth and heart from her recording.

[teenageluminary]

 

Just like the recent discussions of LWL, Mame's reputation is far more disastrous than the product itself.

I recently saw Mame again as well, and I agree with you. The film itself is entertaining, and Lucy's acting is fine. The soft-focus lighting was very noticeable, but I didn't have a problem with it. 

I know Bea Arthur did several interviews after the fact where she stated that she didn't want to do the film (and that she only did it as a favor to her husband because he was directing,) but I thought she gave one of the best performances in the movie. 

Although this sounds obvious, I think the biggest problem with Mame is that it's a musical, and Lucy was simply not a singer. She was also not very good at "speak-singing," either. This time around, I actually fast-forwarded through some of Lucy's solos because her singing voice, at times, was incredibly grating to listen to. (And I say this as someone who *loves* Lucy.) To be honest, I wouldn't have minded if someone like Carole Cook or Lisa Kirk had dubbed Lucy's vocals for this film - I think it would have made the overall experience more enjoyable. 

[Mister Hepburn]

1 hour ago, teenageluminary said:

 To be honest, I wouldn't have minded if someone like Carole Cook or Lisa Kirk had dubbed Lucy's vocals for this film - I think it would have made the overall experience more enjoyable. 

Carole would have been an amazing choice, I think she knew Lucy well enough to sing it “as Lucy.”

[Mot Morenzi]

I think either Carole or Lisa would’ve made fine dubbing choices. Having heard Lisa’s work on Gypsy, I’d suspect the transition between her voice and Lucy’s would’ve been nearly seamless. Lucy tries her hardest, and I know Jerry Herman grew very fond of her because of how hard she worked, but she’s clearly a bit out of her element. However, I concur that she made some fine acting choices, and the supporting cast was great.
 

I think my biggest issue with the film is how it was directed and edited. I suspect Gene Saks was thinking too much like a stage director; he left too many gaps for laughter and applause, which kills the flow if you’re watching the film alone or with an unresponsive audience. This threw off the pacing. As Neil’s custom edit showed, the film easily could’ve been tightened up with a few minor snips here and there. 
 

Had Lucy not broken her leg and the film had proceeded with George Cukor, I think the overall product would’ve had more polish, but it certainly has a lot going for it as it is. 

[Neil]

I was reluctant to buy the book "We Can Be Who We Are: Movie Musicals From the 70s" by Lee Gambin because I thought I'd be in for the same Mame-bashing that's been going on since 1974.  But I was pleasantly surprised that the 15 pages devoted to Mame were quite positive.  "Lucille Ball gives a passionate, nuanced and honest performance".  He also defends the soft focus shots as a throwback to Hollywood's golden years when everyone's close-ups were fuzzed-up---even Shirley Temple.  Included are two long commentaries about their experiences: from Bruce Davidson and Joyce Van Patten.   Author has some minor carping.  Describes the staging of "Loving You" as "hurried....with its clumsy zoom ins and outs, reeking of 1970s sensibilities".  Not quite sure what he means by that.  Bruce misstates "Bea Arthur was a sweetheart.  You know Madeline Kahn was supposed to play Bea's part..."   

I collected a lot of local newspapers that reviewed Mame and while there were few "raves", most were pretty good.  At least better than legend would have it.  The worst review came from Time Magazine.  That and other horrendous reviews from national publications are the ones that always get quoted in books when it comes to the topic of Mame.   I'm passed the point of being able to be objective about the movie, but the passage of time has been kind to it.  I know young people, unfamiliar with Roz's "Auntie Mame" movie that love it. 

Including the index, the book is 789 pages long!