JoeySanJoaquin Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 First, it was a woman's picture and therefore passe, second it was a musical in an era where musicals were finished. Another film Lucy wanted to do was Hello Dolly but that bombed also, directed by Gene Kelly yet and starring a woman who was too young for the part, Streisand, whereas with this one, they said Lucy was too old for the part and they made fun of her for trying to hide her age, make up your mind jerks, my favorite part after the Mame number is the Loving You medly, especially the scene where she's dancing in that long black gown in the ballroom. You can only imagine how Lucy felt, doing a dance sequence in a big splashy musical like the ones she started in with Astaire and Rogers where she only had bit parts, well now, she WAS the STAR! Gee I never thought of it as a "woman's picture", at least not in the way I think you mean.... Listen, this is like LWL, we'll never all agree but I look at it this way: if she had not ever done either project, we wouldn't have those treasured performances and memories now to relive over and over. Could both have been better, differently, etc. etc.? Surely but that's not the cards she was dealt. But as always, she made filet mignon out of hamburger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annaleigh Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 First, it was a woman's picture and therefore passe, second it was a musical in an era where musicals were finished. Another film Lucy wanted to do was Hello Dolly but that bombed also, directed by Gene Kelly yet and starring a woman who was too young for the part, Streisand, whereas with this one, they said Lucy was too old for the part and they made fun of her for trying to hide her age, make up your mind jerks, my favorite part after the Mame number is the Loving You medly, especially the scene where she's dancing in that long black gown in the ballroom. You can only imagine how Lucy felt, doing a dance sequence in a big splashy musical like the ones she started in with Astaire and Rogers where she only had bit parts, well now, she WAS the STAR! Well yes all valid points but Lucy wanted that movie to be a success because she was so proud of it. No matter how much it flopped, Lucy still did great. She looks the most gorgeous in that number. I love that white flowy gown she wears dancing by the fountain. Plus who doesn't just love the character Mame? No matter who plays it, such a wonderful character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Oh, come on! Onna White could get you in shape and when Beau said "You know why, Claude? 'Cause you've done more for the north than anyone since Robert Goulet", you'd rise to the occasion. You my man, are unbelievably hilarious at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 ("Who makes the bored webmaster turn purple and then mutter 'oh, my God'?") Oh i'm sure i've raised his blood pressure a few times, but he's done it to me also, LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Not to quibble but Lucy was a mere 61, not 62, during the filming of "Mame" which was done from January to June in 1973. Considering Lucy's healing leg, her conquering the Mame choreography is even more impressive. Especially the last stanza of the song with the high kicking---landing with so much pressure on that leg. I dun't thin a year makes that much difference at THAT age, but that MAME number with the high kicking is my absolute favorite part of the whole movie. Now most of you are watching it on regular size tvs, imagine what it was like on a giant screen at the theater when it first came out! Mesmerizing. Goose bump inducing. Thrilling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Gee I never thought of it as a "woman's picture", at least not in the way I think you mean.... Listen, this is like LWL, we'll never all agree but I look at it this way: if she had not ever done either project, we wouldn't have those treasured performances and memories now to relive over and over. Could both have been better, differently, etc. etc.? Surely but that's not the cards she was dealt. But as always, she made filet mignon out of hamburger! TRUE! But Lucy herself called it a woman's picture on that Phil Donahue interview and many times in print also. A movie about an eccentric aunt who shows her little nephew the world but finds romance in between, yup, that ain't no action movie. LOL! And yes, it would have been a hit if she hadn't broken her leg which delayed the picture and therefore losing her WOMAN's director in the process, the GREAT George Cukor, she couldn't very well fire Bea Arthur's hubby from the job although i'm sure she wanted to after seeing how badly he was directing the film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Well yes all valid points but Lucy wanted that movie to be a success because she was so proud of it. No matter how much it flopped, Lucy still did great. She looks the most gorgeous in that number. I love that white flowy gown she wears dancing by the fountain. Plus who doesn't just love the character Mame? By the way, it never flopped, it made it's money back with sales later on on tv and dvd and so on. Howard the duck was a bomb, Heaven's Gate was a disaster, Mame just didn't become another monster hit for her the way Yours mine and ours was, but it never lost money or ruined Warner's bottom line. You know how studio accounting goes, to them, Gone with the Wind still has not recouped it's cost, LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annaleigh Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 By the way, it never flopped, it made it's money back with sales later on on tv and dvd and so on. Howard the duck was a bomb, Heaven's Gate was a disaster, Mame just didn't becme another monster hit for her the way Yours mine and ours was, but it never lost money or ruined Warner's bottom line. You know how studio accounting goes, to them, Gone with the Wind still has not recouped it's cost, LOL! Yes. Big money did come from the picture. But it was a flop to critics. If I was around then I would've wrote a few choice words to those critics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucyilove Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I respect Bea's opinion on that but I can't say I agree with her. Lucy played serious roles too in movies, I don't see why she thought she was "terribly miscast." That's some BS. Well, I don't respect her opinion or her for that matter. Why put all the blame on Lucy when her husband was a bad director and Bea herself was not ideal casting for a movie musical. You can get away with a honk of a voice on Broadway if you've got personality but not on film so Lucy was certainly no more miscast than her. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Not all critics dislike the movie some praised Lucille's performance. She did have guts to kick her legs up so high. Her figure made her look younger than she was till the end. I find that Loving You is a nice number because it is beautifully done. The dramatic ending is so well done compared to the fast paced beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeySanJoaquin Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Well, I don't respect her opinion or her for that matter. Why put all the blame on Lucy when her husband was a bad director and Bea herself was not ideal casting for a movie musical. You can get away with a honk of a voice on Broadway if you've got personality but not on film so Lucy was certainly no more miscast than her. I take issue with that, totally disagreeing: Bea was a marvelous musical comedy performer, stage or screen and later in her career, had a very successful, well reviewed one woman Broadway show by critics and attendees alike. I think she may have had her bias toward her pal and original Mame co-star Lansbury -- and who in her place probably wouldn't have felt the same way?? -- but I think she was still fond of or at the very least, friendly and professional with Lucy. I'm betting what she was getting at was that at 61 or 62, Ball was a good 20 years too old for the part! And I can't say I totally disagree: I'm sure most of us feel that Lucy would have come across better in the film had she not broken her leg; I contend it would have been fine had she done it say, 5 or 6 years earlier, around 1968/69, between TLS and HL. Just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Yes. Big money did come from the picture. But it was a flop to critics. If I was around then I would've wrote a few choice words to those critics. Not all the critics though. Some of the reviews were quite good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I take issue with that, totally disagreeing: Bea was a marvelous musical comedy performer, stage or screen and later in her career, had a very successful, well reviewed one woman Broadway show by critics and attendees alike. I think she may have had her bias toward her pal and original Mame co-star Lansbury -- and who in her place probably wouldn't have felt the same way?? -- but I think she was still fond of or at the very least, friendly and professional with Lucy. I'm betting what she was getting at was that at 61 or 62, Ball was a good 20 years too old for the part! And I can't say I totally disagree: I'm sure most of us feel that Lucy would have come across better in the film had she not broken her leg; I contend it would have been fine had she done it say, 5 or 6 years earlier, around 1968/69, between TLS and HL. Just my opinion. I just don't know where you people get the idea that Mame should have been played by a forty year old woman, she had been around so long, drinking and carousing, travelling the world, what 40 year old has lived a life like that, and angela REALLY would have made the film FLOP big time as she was a nobody when it came to putting peoople in the seats in a movie theater. And how old was Roz Russell in the other movie version of Mame? Actually, the more i think of Dolly, the more i think Lucy would have done a better job than Streisand although she certainly could not match her voice. Shirley Booth had played the original Dolly Levi in the dramatic version of it called The Matchmaker. I just saw Lucy playing The Matchmaker on ILL tonight and she was terrific, LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 That was kind of gross, huh? Pedophile much?? The whole point of that scene was to show that attending that school were free thinkers, nudity did not matter, nothing mattered, it did not have the conotation that Penn state has today, LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 What a couple assholes. But at least it's bad movies they L O V E ! LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Don't know much about Ms. Davis; but, books indicate that Lucille favored her, as an idol, in her early film career, and before, when she was 'in training' at Rogers' Acting School. I've been thinking, maybe Ms. Davis was rude to her early on, and the reason for her saying 'Ms. Ball doesn't want me'... (later, of course, MUCH LATER, after Lucille had become a much bigger star, weighing the differences, of course, in TV, that it was Lucille's way of getting back at her, for Ms. Davis' possibly snubbing her years before. A possibility....what? what? JK I think there's loads more to the Lucy/davis relationship, problem is davis thought she was the greatest star ever and Lucy eclipsed her in many ways, marriages, money, running her own studio etc. When la davis was her usual impossible self on her last motion picture, WICKED STEPMOTHER, they quickly went to Lucy to have HER do the part, knowing they'd never have any problems on the set with Lucy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Well, I don't respect her opinion or her for that matter. Why put all the blame on Lucy when her husband was a bad director and Bea herself was not ideal casting for a movie musical. You can get away with a honk of a voice on Broadway if you've got personality but not on film so Lucy was certainly no more miscast than her. And Bea's part was such a nothing part also, no wonder she did not want to play it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Kampen Tripp Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 And Bea's part was such a nothing part also, no wonder she did not want to play it. It may have been a nothing part.. but Bea is wonderful in it.. I think they work well together.. I personally like the movie.. I just think it is poorly edited.. and poorly directed.. Lucille and Bea are not the problem at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 It may have been a nothing part.. but Bea is wonderful in it.. I think they work well together.. I personally like the movie.. I just think it is poorly edited.. and poorly directed.. Lucille and Bea are not the problem at all. Your new name has to be one of the most original i have ever heard, LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeySanJoaquin Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 It may have been a nothing part.. but Bea is wonderful in it.. I think they work well together.. I personally like the movie.. I just think it is poorly edited.. and poorly directed.. Lucille and Bea are not the problem at all. Hear, hear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mot Morenzi Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 And Bea's part was such a nothing part also, no wonder she did not want to play it. The main reason she didn't want to do it wasn't because of the part but because she felt she was betraying Angela. They'd become really close during the B'way run. Her husband was directing though and said she owed it to him to do it. Also Lucy wanted her to do it so she reluctantly went along, but she regretted it later because the film was badly shot. You can sort of tell her heart's not really in it, but she still did a fine job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 The main reason she didn't want to do it wasn't because of the part but because she felt she was betraying Angela. They'd become really close during the B'way run. Her husband was directing though and said she owed it to him to do it. Also Lucy wanted her to do it so she reluctantly went along, but she regretted it later because the film was badly shot. You can sort of tell her heart's not really in it, but she still did a fine job. Hey, you are about to HIT a thousand posts kiddo!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 The main reason she didn't want to do it wasn't because of the part but because she felt she was betraying Angela. They'd become really close during the B'way run. Her husband was directing though and said she owed it to him to do it. Also Lucy wanted her to do it so she reluctantly went along, but she regretted it later because the film was badly shot. You can sort of tell her heart's not really in it, but she still did a fine job. Wonder how much longer before she divorced Gene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeySanJoaquin Posted November 11, 2012 Report Share Posted November 11, 2012 Wonder how much longer before she divorced Gene. Soon as she saw the first cut of the movie! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Soon as she saw the first cut of the movie! No, seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.