Jump to content

Mame (1966 Play)


Recommended Posts

 

This interview Angela says Lucy was considered for the play. I didn't know that. I wish she could have done it on Broadway because in 1966 I love hearing her sing on The Lucy Show and her voice hadn't deepen like 1974. I did like her singing in the movie because she puts her emotions into it. What do you think of Angela's play? I never saw it but I do have the record and I admit she sings beautifully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This interview Angela says Lucy was considered for the play. I didn't know that. I wish she could have done it on Broadway because in 1966 I love hearing her sing on The Lucy Show and her voice hadn't deepen like 1974. I did like her singing in the movie because she puts her emotions into it. What do you think of Angela's play? I never saw it but I do have the record and I admit she sings beautifully.

I forget to say I saw Angela's Mame clips on Youtube and I enjoy them except for the fox hunt number. That was Lucy's number; she had such grace and it was filmed in a beautiful natural setting. If Lucy didn't break her leg, won't it be great if she did "That's How Young I Feel." She was a great dancer and I picture her doing well with Angela's moves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I saw Angela play the role in the Broadway revival in the 80s. There was really no comparison. While Lucy could certainly go toe-to-toe with Lansbury as an actress and maybe even dancer, she was not Lansbury's equal when it came to singing. While Lucy could certainly carry a tune, her voice was shot by the time she made this film. Plus, the script was reworked to put "Lucy" comedy bits into it, which hurt the movie. Producers felt the need to give the audience "Lucy" rather than "Mame," and that sunk the film. Lucy was a terrific actress, and the project should have allowed her to do her thing and not resort to sit-com comedy. While the movie is enjoyed by Lucy fans, musical theater pundits despise it, as do critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Angela play the role in the Broadway revival in the 80s. There was really no comparison. While Lucy could certainly go toe-to-toe with Lansbury as an actress and maybe even dancer, she was not Lansbury's equal when it came to singing. While Lucy could certainly carry a tune, her voice was shot by the time she made this film. Plus, the script was reworked to put "Lucy" comedy bits into it, which hurt the movie. Producers felt the need to give the audience "Lucy" rather than "Mame," and that sunk the film. Lucy was a terrific actress, and the project should have allowed her to do her thing and not resort to sit-com comedy. While the movie is enjoyed by Lucy fans, musical theater pundits despise it, as do critics.

Theater pundits do not like film versions PERIOD and it sure wasn't unanimous with the critics, many LOVED the film. Musicals were unfortunately out of vogue by then, i mean did any of them like Hello Dolly with the world's greatest singer STREISAND only five years before? No and it bombed. It took decades for a successful musical to hit again, with Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theater pundits do not like film versions PERIOD and it sure wasn't unanimous with the critics, many LOVED the film. Musicals were unfortunately out of vogue by then, i mean did any of them like Hello Dolly with the world's greatest singer STREISAND only five years before? No and it bombed. It took decades for a successful musical to hit again, with Chicago.

 

It is unfortunate that Lucy's highest profile musical contained her worst singing on record and for this I put the blame the front door stoop (as Tennessee Ernie would say) of the film's vocal arranger, who I would like to meet someday and punch in the nose. Because even though her voice had deepened a bit even between the time they hired her ("Ukulele Talk"-time) and Mame, she sounds perfectly acceptable in "Making Whoopee" with Eddie Albert and "Bouncing Back for More" with Shirley MacLaine done AFTER Mame. People always say Lucy was not a dancer, and while she was not one per se, neither was Angela or a number of other actresses who did musicals. I find nothing wrong with Lucy's Mame dancing. What Lucy had over other non-dancer dancers is that Goldwyn Girl/Hattie Carnegie show girl posture and grace. But NOBODY, not Angela or anyone else, could do those high kicks as effortlessly as Lucy even AFTER the broken leg. Watch how high she kicks in the Mame number to the phrase "We think you're just sensational..." then watch the Angela clip on youtube. Unfortunately in the shot from the movie, Lucy's high-kicking is somewhat obscured by the chorus girls kicking along with her. But who kicks higher that these girls half her age? Angela on the other hand must do what a lot of high-kickers do: bob her head forward awkwardly to facilitate the kick, because they're not limber enough. NOT Lucy! who is older in the film version (only slightly) than Angela was in the 80s revival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that Lucy's highest profile musical contained her worst singing on record and for this I put the blame the front door stoop (as Tennessee Ernie would say) of the film's vocal arranger, who I would like to meet someday and punch in the nose. Because even though her voice had deepened a bit even between the time they hired her ("Ukulele Talk"-time) and Mame, she sounds perfectly acceptable in "Making Whoopee" with Eddie Albert and "Bouncing Back for More" with Shirley MacLaine done AFTER Mame. People always say Lucy was not a dancer, and while she was not one per se, neither was Angela or a number of other actresses who did musicals. I find nothing wrong with Lucy's Mame dancing. What Lucy had over other non-dancer dancers is that Goldwyn Girl/Hattie Carnegie show girl posture and grace. But NOBODY, not Angela or anyone else, could do those high kicks as effortlessly as Lucy even AFTER the broken leg. Watch how high she kicks in the Mame number to the phrase "We think you're just sensational..." then watch the Angela clip on youtube. Unfortunately in the shot from the movie, Lucy's high-kicking is somewhat obscured by the chorus girls kicking along with her. But who kicks higher that these girls half her age? Angela on the other hand must do what a lot of high-kickers do: bob her head forward awkwardly to facilitate the kick, because they're not limber enough. NOT Lucy! who is older in the film version (only slightly) than Angela was in the 80s revival.

I heard angie had wires hooked up to the curtain pulleys to get her leg up for the number on stage and the stagehands used to GOOSE her to get her limber in rehearsals, she was not fit to touch Lucy's burnoose when it came to dancing. AND like you said, after a bad skiing accident gave her that broken leg, she still kicked so high for an older woman. I play that damned number all the time and the part you mentionned is the one i most look forward to, Lucy was perfect in that number. As for her singing, well even Lucy herself said Mame was out drinking all night, and every night partying and carousing, would she sound like Julie Andrews? At least she made the effort to sing the songs, and not SPEAK them like Rex Harrison was doing in movies. But yes, her voice was low and deep, so low that she could actually have played the Robert Preston role, LOVING YOU . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theater pundits do not like film versions PERIOD and it sure wasn't unanimous with the critics, many LOVED the film. Musicals were unfortunately out of vogue by then, i mean did any of them like Hello Dolly with the world's greatest singer STREISAND only five years before? No and it bombed. It took decades for a successful musical to hit again, with Chicago.

 

Theater fans don't hate film adaptations of Broadway musicals - only bad movie musicals. Yes, of course, MAME had some fans but, overall, it was a critical and box-office flop. I love Lucy in anything she does, but the material wasn't right for her and she should have been dubbed (like Rosalind Russell in GYPSY).

 

HELLO DOLLY! suffered from similar problems: miscasting of the lead role, over-produced and out-of-touch with filmmgoers of the day.

 

I think if Angela Landsbury had starred in MAME, it would have been a better movie. But her name wasn't big enough for a movie marquee, and the movie might have been less successful (in ticket sales) than Lucy's.

 

Musicals had definitely fallen out of vogue by the time MAME came along. It was the wrong movie at the wrong time. And, I agree, that it wasn't until CHICAGO that the movie musical caught a successful Hollywood wave again. But GREASE was released four years after MAME and became one of the biggest box-office successes of all time. Critics liked the film too. It did start a trend of movie musicals - but none were particularly good or memorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theater fans don't hate film adaptations of Broadway musicals - only bad movie musicals. Yes, of course, MAME had some fans but, overall, it was a critical and box-office flop. I love Lucy in anything she does, but the material wasn't right for her and she should have been dubbed (like Rosalind Russell in GYPSY).

 

HELLO DOLLY! suffered from similar problems: miscasting of the lead role, over-produced and out-of-touch with filmmgoers of the day.

 

I think if Angela Landsbury had starred in MAME, it would have been a better movie. But her name wasn't big enough for a movie marquee, and the movie might have been less successful (in ticket sales) than Lucy's.

 

Musicals had definitely fallen out of vogue by the time MAME came along. It was the wrong movie at the wrong time. And, I agree, that it wasn't until CHICAGO that the movie musical caught a successful Hollywood wave again. But GREASE was released four years after MAME and became one of the biggest box-office successes of all time. Critics liked the film too. It did start a trend of movie musicals - but none were particularly good or memorable.

No, the kiddie audience filled the seats for Grease, not great reviews. What Mame needed was some decent comedy bits, what with the Queen of Comedy starring and all. I think dubbing Lucy's songs would not have helped, they were just great musicals but lousy movies. The only thing great about either or both is the great musical score, well for me, Lucy IS Mame too. And the main reason i watch it over and over. If aunt Sheilah Lands buried had done it, i wouldn't even be watching it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the kiddie audience filled the seats for Grease, not great reviews. What Mame needed was some decent comedy bits, what with the Queen of Comedy starring and all. I think dubbing Lucy's songs would not have helped, they were just great musicals but lousy movies. The only thing great about either or both is the great musical score, well for me, Lucy IS Mame too. And the main reason i watch it over and over. If aunt Sheilah Lands buried had done it, i wouldn't even be watching it at all.

 

Actually, a large part of GREASE's audience were adults - baby boomers who were in their 40s who remembered the era potrayed in the film. When it made its film debut, it was the longest running Broadway musical in history. It had been seen by millions of adults. But not as many kiddes. The original Broadway musical was very raunchy and not appropriate for kids, so it didn't have a kid-friendly reputation (like ANNIE, for instance).

 

The adaptation bowdlerized the material and made it family-friendly. So lots of adult fans of the Broadway show came out to support the film - as well as Travolta and Newton-John fans, which expanded beyond just the kiddies.

 

"Rotten Tomatoes," which polls the nation's critics and scores films with a % gives GREASE an overall rating of 82% with 55 reviews. I wouldn't classify that as "not great reviews."

 

MAME inserted "Lucy" comic bits, like Mame roller skating in the department store. Those Lucy-esque beats were inorganic to the MAME musical, which contributed to the film's downfall. It should have tailored its star to the material rather than the material to the star. But because the comedy was half-assed and not a good fit, fans of Lucy didn't get "Lucy" and fans of MAME didn't get that either.

 

Sometimes the melding of one icon (Lucy) to another icon (MAME) cancels each other out. I think that's why the film was rejected overall by critics and moviegoers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, a large part of GREASE's audience were adults - baby boomers who were in their 40s who remembered the era potrayed in the film. When it made its film debut, it was the longest running Broadway musical in history. It had been seen by millions of adults. But not as many kiddes. The original Broadway musical was very raunchy and not appropriate for kids, so it didn't have a kid-friendly reputation (like ANNIE, for instance).

 

The adaptation bowdlerized the material and made it family-friendly. So lots of adult fans of the Broadway show came out to support the film - as well as Travolta and Newton-John fans, which expanded beyond just the kiddies.

 

"Rotten Tomatoes," which polls the nation's critics and scores films with a % gives GREASE an overall rating of 82% with 55 reviews. I wouldn't classify that as "not great reviews."

 

MAME inserted "Lucy" comic bits, like Mame roller skating in the department store. Those Lucy-esque beats were inorganic to the MAME musical, which contributed to the film's downfall. It should have tailored its star to the material rather than the material to the star. But because the comedy was half-assed and not a good fit, fans of Lucy didn't get "Lucy" and fans of MAME didn't get that either.

 

Sometimes the melding of one icon (Lucy) to another icon (MAME) cancels each other out. I think that's why the film was rejected overall by critics and moviegoers.

I was basing my opinion of the terrible musical GREASE on the fact that only kids want to see my copy. Aside from a couple of great musical numbers i dun't see why anybody thinks this movie is any good. The GREAT reviews must be from Teen Beat, and that ilk, LOL! Mame turned out badly because the top notch director attached to it had to bail when Lucy broke her leg and delayed the project for one year, HE would have guided her to an Oscar, instead she was saddled with Gene Saks who ruined the film, i always state as an example the scene where Lucy is shown at the top of the stairs waiting for her cue to come down. You state that the star should be suited to the material, Lucy wanted that so badly that she insisted on singing every song instead of dubbing it as you suggest, she danced impeccably in spite of the recent broken leg and she did all she could with the material. Let's face it, the movie is all about the great Herman score, nothing else matters, same as with Dolly. Now give up because your arguments are falling on deaf ears, Mame was excellent with Lucy as it's star and Lucy never looked better on film in that quarter million dollar wardrobe. It was not a flop as it did eventually make it's money back, some of that money even came from Lucy's own pocketbook which wasn't the reason she had such enthuseasm for the project, Lucy just loved wholesome women's pictures not realizing that it was at least twenty years too late for that type of film. :hlLOL: I understand the points you make, i just refuse to hear them as a loyal Lucy fan, LOL. :gasp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was basing my opinion of the terrible musical GREASE on the fact that only kids want to see my copy. Aside from a couple of great musical numbers i dun't see why anybody thinks this movie is any good. The GREAT reviews must be from Teen Beat, and that ilk, LOL! Mame turned out badly because the top notch director attached to it had to bail when Lucy broke her leg and delayed the project for one year, HE would have guided her to an Oscar, instead she was saddled with Gene Saks who ruined the film, i always state as an example the scene where Lucy is shown at the top of the stairs waiting for her cue to come down. You state that the star should be suited to the material, Lucy wanted that so badly that she insisted on singing every song instead of dubbing it as you suggest, she danced impeccably in spite of the recent broken leg and she did all she could with the material. Let's face it, the movie is all about the great Herman score, nothing else matters, same as with Dolly. Now give up because your arguments are falling on deaf ears, Mame was excellent with Lucy as it's star and Lucy never looked better on film in that quarter million dollar wardrobe. It was not a flop as it did eventually make it's money back, some of that money even came from Lucy's own pocketbook which wasn't the reason she had such enthuseasm for the project, Lucy just loved wholesome women's pictures not realizing that it was at least twenty years too late for that type of film. :hlLOL: I understand the points you make, i just refuse to hear them as a loyal Lucy fan, LOL. :gasp:

 

Don't worry, I'm a Lucy fan too. I always feel like the fans c an speak the truth but those outside the circle cannot. Sort of like I can talk trash about my family, but you can't. :)

 

We can agree that Gene Saks was the wrong director for this project. He was primarily a stage director, and I think most of his films (maybe about a dozen) were film adpatations of plays he directed on Broadway. He did a good job with the TV adaptation of BYE, BYE BIRDIE a few years ago, however. But that was for the small screen. I don't think he was well suited to direct "big" films (big as in size and scope), which was why he only did one - MAME.

 

P.S. I don't know how much money MAME made at the box-office. Its budget was about 12 million but that didn't include P&A. 12 million doesn't seem like a lot of money. I just produced a low budget film for 10 million. Times have changed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, I'm a Lucy fan too. I always feel like the fans c an speak the truth but those outside the circle cannot. Sort of like I can talk trash about my family, but you can't. :)

 

We can agree that Gene Saks was the wrong director for this project. He was primarily a stage director, and I think most of his films (maybe about a dozen) were film adpatations of plays he directed on Broadway. He did a good job with the TV adaptation of BYE, BYE BIRDIE a few years ago, however. But that was for the small screen. I don't think he was well suited to direct "big" films (big as in size and scope), which was why he only did one - MAME.

 

P.S. I don't know how much money MAME made at the box-office. Its budget was about 12 million but that didn't include P&A. 12 million doesn't seem like a lot of money. I just produced a low budget film for 10 million. Times have changed. :)

Yes, i could tell from your insightful post that you were someone very knowledgeable in the industry, can you say who you are? And i apologize about my comments but i feel the exact same way you stated, i can bitch about Lucy but i rarely let anyone else do it, i don't know what that's all about? LOL! And i even use your line, i say nothing good about French Canadians but attack anyone else who does, LOL! Same with Lucy of course. Also, i remembered your posts elsewhere, maybe the dreaded SO board, but you certainly know what you are talking about and i treasure posts like yours. Being old though, i just could not for the life of me remember the name of the director who was slated to direct Mame originally, he had done Gone with the Wind of course and then proceeded to guide Maggie Smith to an Oscar when the Mame deal fell through, Travels with my Aunt was the name of the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being old though, i just could not for the life of me remember the name of the director who was slated to direct Mame originally, he had done Gone with the Wind of course and then proceeded to guide Maggie Smith to an Oscar when the Mame deal fell through, Travels with my Aunt was the name of the project.

 

George Cukor, who directed almost too many classics to name and was known for being a great "woman's director," was originally supposed to direct Mame. He was the original director of Gone with the Wind but was fired about a month into the prject because Clark Gable felt he was devoting too much of his attention to Vivien Leigh. Vivien Leigh was crushed when Cukor was replaced with Gable's favorite director, Victor Fleming (who also directed The Wizard of Oz), though she continued to meet with Cukor secretly for coaching and advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Cukor, who directed almost too many classics to name and was known for being a great "woman's director," was originally supposed to direct Mame. He was the original director of Gone with the Wind but was fired about a month into the prject because Clark Gable felt he was devoting too much of his attention to Vivien Leigh. Vivien Leigh was crushed when Cukor was replaced with Gable's favorite director, Victor Fleming (who also directed The Wizard of Oz), though she continued to meet with Cukor secretly for coaching and advice.

Thank you, yes, George Cukor, and he would have guided her to at least an Oscar nomination, not ridicule and comments about being in DRAG and all that soft focus lens business etc . . . like Desi, he would have known how to present her at her best and what would have worked for her and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, yes, George Cukor, and he would have guided her to at least an Oscar nomination, not ridicule and comments about being in DRAG and all that soft focus lens business etc . . . like Desi, he would have known how to present her at her best and what would have worked for her and so on.

 

Before Mame came out there was an article that stated "the original plan was to have Lucy do most of the singing and have a 'singer' take the high notes, but after listening to Lucy's tracks (mentioning specifically "My Best Beau"), the musical arranger (doesn't mention if it was Jerry Herman) decided Lucy's were good enough on her own". To which Lucy told the interviewer "Not THAT thrills me." I wasn't sure how well this combining of voices would work, but on the link below, an amateur combined Liza Kirk and Roz (from the bonus tracks on the Gypsy soundtrack CD) and it works quite well. And remember he's just doing a amateur mix. So maybe it's an idea that would have worked for Lucy in Mame.

 

http://vimeo.com/21051098

 

(you might have to copy and paste this link, but it's worth the effort!)

 

Lucy looks great in the costumes and wigs chosen for a lot of "Mame"--particularly the "Loving You" segment, but some of those wigs were just plain awful, the worst being the short brown do for the "Open a New Window" bridge ("If you follow your Auntie Mame..."). I'm not wild about the "We Need Xmas" wig either, nor do I think "It's Today" wig is very flattering. It just looks TOO much like a wig.. Too, some of the costumes are great, but the "New Window" white dress makes her look a little thick as does her "Bosom Buddies" poodle-like outfit.

 

I have a lot of issues with Sak's direction but he does manage some nice visuals. I don't know how well the working relationship between Lucy and Saks went, but one has to fault him for some of the lapses in Lucy's performance; and the general flow of the movie. Ultimately both are his responsibility. "Mame" seems to alternate between good scenes and not-so-good scenes and in a movie like this, that just won't do. I think Lucy would have been more willing to put herself in Cukor's hands, but I don't know where his career was at this point. It had been 10 years since My Fair Lady and Cukor was 75 when Mame came out.

 

I've read the statement that Lucy put some of her own money into "Mame", but I don't know that it's ever been substantiated. The statement is usually made by Lucy-Mame detractors who use it as evidence that it was more of a vanity project and that without this cash infusion, Lucy would not have gotten the part. It's seems unlikely she invested in it because this was a studio film, not an independent production, so why would they need outside money? And looking at some of Lucy's pre-broken leg musical numbers, Warners had every reason to think she could handle "mame" musically with ease. I also don't agree that she was 'miscast'. There's nothing in Mame that is not within her acting range. The fact that she didn't always rise high enough to the occasion in several scenes, well...you can blame her or Saks. It's hard to know in retrospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before Mame came out there was an article that stated "the original plan was to have Lucy do most of the singing and have a 'singer' take the high notes, but after listening to Lucy's tracks (mentioning specifically "My Best Beau"), the musical arranger (doesn't mention if it was Jerry Herman) decided Lucy's were good enough on her own". To which Lucy told the interviewer "Not THAT thrills me." I wasn't sure how well this combining of voices would work, but on the link below, an amateur combined Liza Kirk and Roz (from the bonus tracks on the Gypsy soundtrack CD) and it works quite well. And remember he's just doing a amateur mix. So maybe it's an idea that would have worked for Lucy in Mame.

 

http://vimeo.com/21051098

 

(you might have to copy and paste this link, but it's worth the effort!)

 

Lucy looks great in the costumes and wigs chosen for a lot of "Mame"--particularly the "Loving You" segment, but some of those wigs were just plain awful, the worst being the short brown do for the "Open a New Window" bridge ("If you follow your Auntie Mame..."). I'm not wild about the "We Need Xmas" wig either, nor do I think "It's Today" wig is very flattering. It just looks TOO much like a wig.. Too, some of the costumes are great, but the "New Window" white dress makes her look a little thick as does her "Bosom Buddies" poodle-like outfit.

 

I have a lot of issues with Sak's direction but he does manage some nice visuals. I don't know how well the working relationship between Lucy and Saks went, but one has to fault him for some of the lapses in Lucy's performance; and the general flow of the movie. Ultimately both are his responsibility. "Mame" seems to alternate between good scenes and not-so-good scenes and in a movie like this, that just won't do. I think Lucy would have been more willing to put herself in Cukor's hands, but I don't know where his career was at this point. It had been 10 years since My Fair Lady and Cukor was 75 when Mame came out.

 

I've read the statement that Lucy put some of her own money into "Mame", but I don't know that it's ever been substantiated. The statement is usually made by Lucy-Mame detractors who use it as evidence that it was more of a vanity project and that without this cash infusion, Lucy would not have gotten the part. It's seems unlikely she invested in it because this was a studio film, not an independent production, so why would they need outside money? And looking at some of Lucy's pre-broken leg musical numbers, Warners had every reason to think she could handle "mame" musically with ease. I also don't agree that she was 'miscast'. There's nothing in Mame that is not within her acting range. The fact that she didn't always rise high enough to the occasion in several scenes, well...you can blame her or Saks. It's hard to know in retrospect.

It's written in several books that she put up SOME of her own money to get the film made and might have been the reason the producers decided to WAIT for her leg to heal, a year or more can be an eternity in films. I told you where Cukor's rep was at that time, he left this project as he was contracted to direct the great Maggie Smith and directed her to an Oscar for Travels with my aunt. Or at least a nomination. I think Lucy desperately wanted to do this project because she loved the character and the music especially, remember those posters that merely said LUCY/MAME, what other name could be uttered to mean more at that time? Lucy lost Dolly, it had been promised to Streisand, who was much too young for that part. When Lucy asked Merrick for it in her Roxbury living room, he wanted her to do a run in the play, she said yes only if it got her the film role and when he told her Streisand had it that was when her thoughts turned to Mame, a similar role in a film with music to die for. If he walked into my life is another perfect example of Sack's lousy direction, that number could have been a killer, it wasn't her voice it was the staging of it and the way it was filmed. Although the Loving You sequence is my second favorite after the Mame number, i have said many times that the ugly hat that covers her head at the start of it is the main flaw, Lucy's hair was as famous as her bow lips or arched eyebrows, you don't cover it with those ugly hats that hide every strand of that trademark hair, they aged her and inspired those DRAG comments, think Jack Lemmon wearing the same hat in Some Like it Hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could have heard Lucy and Shirley's Bouncing number but I agree that Lucy voice did start to deepen after about 1968 more significantly and especially after she broke her leg and did Mame. Yet Making Whoopee with eddie is one of my favorite Lucy musical numbers; Ukele Talk was just classic! (That whole eposide was.) I agree that Lucy was a great showgirl type of dancer even after she broke her leg. Her Mame number makes the movie for me. I love Loving You too and the fox hunt scene before Mame. I think that parts of the movie did drag and that roller skate bit wasn't needed. Lucy needed more class for this role than have that scene put into the movie. I know Lee Tannen wanted Lucy to blacken her teeth for the Blackgammon AD but I am glad she did it in a classy pose; because Lucy at this point in her life needed class and to move away from the Lucy character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could have heard Lucy and Shirley's Bouncing number but I agree that Lucy voice did start to deepen after about 1968 more significantly and especially after she broke her leg and did Mame. Yet Making Whoopee with eddie is one of my favorite Lucy musical numbers; Ukele Talk was just classic! (That whole eposide was.) I agree that Lucy was a great showgirl type of dancer even after she broke her leg. Her Mame number makes the movie for me. I love Loving You too and the fox hunt scene before Mame. I think that parts of the movie did drag and that roller skate bit wasn't needed. Lucy needed more class for this role than have that scene put into the movie. I know Lee Tannen wanted Lucy to blacken her teeth for the Blackgammon AD but I am glad she did it in a classy pose; because Lucy at this point in her life needed class and to move away from the Lucy character.

Her voive deepened a lot AFTER she broke her leg? I dun't thin you should ever study to become a doctor buddy! LOL! But you're right, Tannen was wrong about the blacked out teeth thing, i mean, at her age? At that stage of her life and her reputation and all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a nobody MTAS. Just someone who works in the entertainment industry. My bio is here: www.twoadverbs.blogspot.com

But I've been a Lucy fan my whole life - mostly of I LOVE LUCY, which I still believe is the greatest sit-com ever produced. :)

 

That mix of Roz and Lisa Kirk is interesting. Nowadays, they can do all sorts of things in post. But audiences have less tolerance

for that kind of sleight of hand. Dubbing stars singing was done all the time in the Golden age. And in the 60s, no one seemed

to care the Marni Nixon was busy collecting paychecks. Today, there would be all sorts of bad press if a star was dubbed in a musical.

Projects are more star driven then ever today, and maybe dubbing a voice "rips off" the audience. Plus, the Internet age throws everything

out there for everyone to see. In the old days, studios could really manage the publicity machine. Not anymore. As for MAME, the studio

wanted Liz Taylor. She was the first choice. She's no great singer either (as demonstrated in A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC). Mame really is

a tour de force role of the musical theater and the project was doomed with those sorts of casting ideas. Film can hide a lot, but the

intimacy of the medium also puts the actor under a microscope. Miscasting in a big role like Mame is suicide. I think one of the reasons

musicals have done well in the last few years is because studios are making an effort to cast actors who can really pull their weight.

Yet, there's always the danger of not losing the theatricality for the adaptation. THE PRODUCERS didn't fare well on film because it felt

more theatrical than cinematic - ironic considering its source material was a motion picture.

 

BTW, it's not unusual for stars to toss in some bucks - even for a studo film. For instance, if the film reaches the top of its budget and the

studio refuses to shell out more money, a star migh contribute. If he doesn't donate money, he might donate an extra week of his time,

for instance. But this is mostly done for "important" films - where the budget is limited to start. Directors have done the same thing.

 

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, i could tell from your insightful post that you were someone very knowledgeable in the industry, can you say who you are? And i apologize about my comments but i feel the exact same way you stated, i can bitch about Lucy but i rarely let anyone else do it, i don't know what that's all about? LOL! And i even use your line, i say nothing good about French Canadians but attack anyone else who does, LOL! Same with Lucy of course. Also, i remembered your posts elsewhere, maybe the dreaded SO board, but you certainly know what you are talking about and i treasure posts like yours. Being old though, i just could not for the life of me remember the name of the director who was slated to direct Mame originally, he had done Gone with the Wind of course and then proceeded to guide Maggie Smith to an Oscar when the Mame deal fell through, Travels with my Aunt was the name of the project.

I'm a nobody MTOS. Just someone who works in the entertainment industry. My bio is here: www.twoadverbs.blogspot.com

But I've been a Lucy fan my whole life - mostly of I LOVE LUCY, which I still believe is the greatest sit-com ever produced. :)

 

That mix of Roz and Lisa Kirk is interesting. Nowadays, they can do all sorts of things in post. But audiences have less tolerance

for that kind of sleight of hand. Dubbing stars singing was done all the time in the Golden age. And in the 60s, no one seemed

to care the Marni Nixon was busy collecting paychecks. Today, there would be all sorts of bad press if a star was dubbed in a musical.

Projects are more star driven then ever today, and maybe dubbing a voice "rips off" the audience. Plus, the Internet age throws everything

out there for everyone to see. In the old days, studios could really manage the publicity machine - manage the audience's perception of

things. Today, it's the antithesis. Audiences create the perception and use all sorts of multi-media at their disposal to perpetuate it.

 

As for MAME, the studio wanted Liz Taylor. She was first choice. She's no great singer either (as demonstrated in A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC).

Mame really is a tour de force role of the musical theater and the project was doomed with those sorts of casting ideas. Film can hide a lot,

but the intimacy of the medium also puts the actor under a microscope. Miscasting in a big role like Mame is suicide. I think one of the reasons

musicals have done well in the last few years is because studios are making an effort to cast actors who can really pull their weight.

Yet, there's always the danger of not losing the theatricality for the adaptation. THE PRODUCERS didn't fare well on film because it felt

more theatrical than cinematic - ironic considering its source material was a motion picture.

 

BTW, it's not unusual for stars to toss in some bucks - even for a studo film. For instance, if the film reaches the top of its budget and the

studio refuses to shell out more money, a star migh contribute. If he doesn't donate money, he might donate an extra week of his time,

for instance. But this is mostly done for "important" films - where the budget is limited to start. Directors have done the same thing.

 

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a nobody MTAS. Just someone who works in the entertainment industry. My bio is here: www.twoadverbs.blogspot.com

But I've been a Lucy fan my whole life - mostly of I LOVE LUCY, which I still believe is the greatest sit-com ever produced. :)

 

That mix of Roz and Lisa Kirk is interesting. Nowadays, they can do all sorts of things in post. But audiences have less tolerance

for that kind of sleight of hand. Dubbing stars singing was done all the time in the Golden age. And in the 60s, no one seemed

to care the Marni Nixon was busy collecting paychecks. Today, there would be all sorts of bad press if a star was dubbed in a musical.

Projects are more star driven then ever today, and maybe dubbing a voice "rips off" the audience. Plus, the Internet age throws everything

out there for everyone to see. In the old days, studios could really manage the publicity machine. Not anymore. As for MAME, the studio

wanted Liz Taylor. She was the first choice. She's no great singer either (as demonstrated in A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC). Mame really is

a tour de force role of the musical theater and the project was doomed with those sorts of casting ideas. Film can hide a lot, but the

intimacy of the medium also puts the actor under a microscope. Miscasting in a big role like Mame is suicide. I think one of the reasons

musicals have done well in the last few years is because studios are making an effort to cast actors who can really pull their weight.

Yet, there's always the danger of not losing the theatricality for the adaptation. THE PRODUCERS didn't fare well on film because it felt

more theatrical than cinematic - ironic considering its source material was a motion picture.

 

BTW, it's not unusual for stars to toss in some bucks - even for a studo film. For instance, if the film reaches the top of its budget and the

studio refuses to shell out more money, a star migh contribute. If he doesn't donate money, he might donate an extra week of his time,

for instance. But this is mostly done for "important" films - where the budget is limited to start. Directors have done the same thing.

 

 

:)

Lizzie? Really? Never ever heard or read that anywhere, she'd have been worse than Lucy, Liz sure had her share of turkeys and bombs. Yes, it's a shame Hollywood was always more concerned with marquee value rather than the original people who had hits with the shows on Broadway. But Ms Lansbury would have had a turkey also, movies are a director's medium and Saks just wasn't up to the task. Did you remember the fact that Bette Davis, once Warner's biggest star had begged for the role of Vera and when hearing of Lucy's quarter million dollar wardrobe even volunteered to bring her own clothes for the role or rather supply her own duds? I remember the uproar at the time over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a nobody MTAS. Just someone who works in the entertainment industry. My bio is here: www.twoadverbs.blogspot.com

But I've been a Lucy fan my whole life - mostly of I LOVE LUCY, which I still believe is the greatest sit-com ever produced. :)

 

That mix of Roz and Lisa Kirk is interesting. Nowadays, they can do all sorts of things in post. But audiences have less tolerance

for that kind of sleight of hand. Dubbing stars singing was done all the time in the Golden age. And in the 60s, no one seemed

to care the Marni Nixon was busy collecting paychecks. Today, there would be all sorts of bad press if a star was dubbed in a musical.

Projects are more star driven then ever today, and maybe dubbing a voice "rips off" the audience. Plus, the Internet age throws everything

out there for everyone to see. In the old days, studios could really manage the publicity machine. Not anymore. As for MAME, the studio

wanted Liz Taylor. She was the first choice. She's no great singer either (as demonstrated in A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC). Mame really is

a tour de force role of the musical theater and the project was doomed with those sorts of casting ideas. Film can hide a lot, but the

intimacy of the medium also puts the actor under a microscope. Miscasting in a big role like Mame is suicide. I think one of the reasons

musicals have done well in the last few years is because studios are making an effort to cast actors who can really pull their weight.

Yet, there's always the danger of not losing the theatricality for the adaptation. THE PRODUCERS didn't fare well on film because it felt

more theatrical than cinematic - ironic considering its source material was a motion picture.

 

BTW, it's not unusual for stars to toss in some bucks - even for a studo film. For instance, if the film reaches the top of its budget and the

studio refuses to shell out more money, a star migh contribute. If he doesn't donate money, he might donate an extra week of his time,

for instance. But this is mostly done for "important" films - where the budget is limited to start. Directors have done the same thing.

 

 

:)

What does MTAS mean? And you're certainly more of a somebody than i am, i'm More Than ASs, that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does MTAS mean? And you're certainly more of a somebody than i am, i'm More Than ASs, that's about it.

 

Sorry. That's a typo. It should have read MTOS - which are you screenname initials. Easier than writing out MORETHANONESUBJECT. Feel free to call me TC. :)

 

I think I read the Liz Taylor choice in the "Desilu" book. From what I recall, it was presented as a fact not a rumor.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. That's a typo. It should have read MTOS - which are you screenname initials. Easier than writing out MORETHANONESUBJECT. Feel free to call me TC. :)

 

I think I read the Liz Taylor choice in the "Desilu" book. From what I recall, it was presented as a fact not a rumor.

 

:)

Puhleeze, half that book was opinions presented as fact. Loved the book generally but thought the Bravo special and the book just painted Lucy the way all jealous males of that era presented her, as Lucille Balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...