HELLO DOLLY! (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by MattH.

With the recent announcement that Barbra Streisand wants to direct and star in a new version of Gypsy, I was dismayed. Gypsy has a fine movie version and a fine made-for-TV version. It doesn't NEED remaking. Mame does. I'm not saying Barbra would be right for the title role, but we don't need another Gypsy. We do need a decent Mame.

[SIZE= 12px]I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I usually detest remakes on principle and because there are so damn many of them these days, but I'd compromise my principles just this once for a movie version of Mame that was not only good, but excellent. And in movie theaters where it belongs. Bernadette Peters, who has been away from movies for too long, could do it well. Meryl Streep could make it a tour-de-force. But unless he dies first, Jerry Herman will exercise creative control after being so dissatisfied with the last one (and not a huge fan of the screen's Dolly either). After Gypsy aired on CBS, there was interesting in re-doing Mame for TV but plans always kept falling through. Either the leads they wanted kept backing out; Angela Lansbury was asked and could have—and should have—done it [footage of her taking Gypsy on tour in the 1970s has surfaced on YouTube, and I'm disappointed there isn't more], but felt she was too old; they mentioned Bette Midler, Barbra Streisand, and even Whoopi Goldberg (which would have made Mame's sojourn into the postbellum White South a bit, shall we say, interesting). Cher came pretty close to getting it done a few years ago, but that fell apart. And I have heard that they never came up with a script that satisfied Jerry.[/SIZE]


[SIZE= 12px]I can't honestly say I'm one of Ms. Streisand's biggest fans, but I think her early work—both screen and recording—is largely excellent. But the idea of a third Gypsy movie, and less than 20 years after Bette Midler's version (I wonder if she'll retaliate by doing her own version of Hello, Dolly!), has me on the fence; it doesn't make me angry like the talk of redoing My Fair Lady, but it would have to be a masterpiece to justify its existence. I'm ambivalent about the age thing. Frankly, I had less trouble buying Barbra as Dolly than I did with her as Yentl, largely because Hello Dolly is essentially a candy-colored fantasy of 1890s New York. Then again I loved Grease, even with everyone in the cast being no less than 5 years older than their characters. This new Gypsy is largely being done because librettist Arthur Laurents, who has been friends with Streisand for years, hates both the movie and TV versions (he didn't like the film of West Side Story either). There has been talk of doing it for awhile now, and the Weinstein Company had remake rights at one point. Director-star combos bandied about included Rob Marshall & Catherine Zeta-Jones (Laurents supposedly nixed this after hearing what Marshall planned to do with "Some People") and Mike Nichols & Meryl Streep (that could have worked). It would be interesting if they could get someone like Bill Condon on board as director. At least it'll get us Blu-Rays of the two prior versions.[/SIZE]

 

[ahollis]

Oh good god no, there is no way to compare Lucille Ball and Streisand and I would not want to do so. They are both two totally different entertainment legends with totally different talent. I think Rosalind Russell was 50 when she made Auntie Mame and 54 when she did Gypsy. Considering the many different ages both those roles encompass, they seem to fit. Your are right about the age of Norma Desmond being in her late 50's, I have always pictured her an older cougar myself. And In my humble opinion, Streisand did look and act to young for Dolly, but I still enjoy the film and find her performance charming.


I'm not sure who would have done a good job as Mame in 1974. We all are aware that most people would want Angela Lansbury to have played it, but at that time she was not a household name and the thinking was she could not carry a major film. Her last two films before Mame was released was Something For Everyone and Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Neither a real hit. With the money that WB was investing in Mame, they needed a star to carry the film, even as bad and as old as Ball was. The "It's Today" number is excruciating to watch.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by ahollis

I'm not sure who would have done a good job as Mame in 1974. We all are aware that most people would want Angela Lansbury to have played it, but at that time she was not a household name and the thinking was she could not carry a major film. Her last two films before Mame was released was Something For Everyone and Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Neither a real hit. With the money that WB was investing in Mame, they needed a star to carry the film, even as bad and as old as Ball was. The "It's Today" number is excruciating to watch.

Robert Siegel had a lot of interesting facts about the film that he shared with us but he doesn't seem to be posting here anymore. Supposedly Jerry Herman passionately made the case for Angela Lansbury to WB execs, but they were unmoved. What is unclear to me is the exact time period when the film rights to Mame were sold and all the casting was finalized. I know that the live action shooting for Bedknobs and Broomsticks wrapped in the summer of 1970 (after which Angela starred in a flop Broadway musical called Prettybelle), and due to the time it took for the animated sequences it didn't come out until October 1971. By that time I imagine it was all a done deal. And then there's the fact that the film was to have been released in late 1973 but pushed back to spring 1974 because its Oscar chances were practically nil. I have also heard that Lucy put up some of the money in exchange for the title role (which she wanted because she felt her friend Rosalind Russell's performance in the original 1958 Auntie Mame [which would make a kick-ass Blu-Ray] echoed Lucy Ricardo in many ways). There really were no musical leading ladies in the 1970s who were still box office draws except Barbra Streisand and Liza Minnelli (Julie Andrews' drawing power took a huge hit from Star! and Darling Lili, and she did almost no films this decade, and Doris Day had given up films and would for all intents and purposes retire when her always-being-retooled sitcom ended in 1973).


And if you want to see something really screwy (think Art Deco on LSD), here's a TV spot for the film (scroll to 0:50):

 

[Mark B]

Originally Posted by MattH.
With the recent announcement that Barbra Streisand wants to direct and star in a new version of Gypsy, I was dismayed. Gypsy has a fine movie version and a fine made-for-TV version. It doesn't NEED remaking. Mame does. I'm not saying Barbra would be right for the title role, but we don't need another Gypsy. We do need a decent Mame.

Is this a joke? Too old, indeed, and just plain wrong for the role. And, yes, we do need a decent version of "Mame."

 

[Will Krupp]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua /forum/thread/299826/hello-dolly/90#post_3771155

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Will Krupp

Glad no apologies are neede for I will admit it to the world a secret I have been hiding for a long time. I find the train-wreak of Mame to be a guilty pleasure. A lot has to do with Robert Preston, Jane Connell and Bea Arthur, but seeing Ruth McDevitt and Lucille Benson as southern dowagers is always a hoot and John McGiver can do no wrong.

 

[Will Krupp]

Glad no apologies are neede for I will admit it to the world a secret I have been hiding for a long time. I find the train-wreak of Mame to be a guilty pleasure. A lot has to do with Robert Preston, Jane Connell and Bea Arthur, but seeing Ruth McDevitt and Lucille Benson as southern dowagers is always a hoot and John McGiver can do no wrong.

"Will it mix with Dr. Pepper?"

"He'll LOVE it!"


Welcome, Allen.....

 

[MatthewA]

The film does have some genuinely good moments. Even Lucy scores some very big laughs, particularly in her ill-fated (ILL-FATED!!!) performance in "The Man in the Moon".

 

[Joe Caps]

Saw Mame its opening week in new York. Trust me. NOTHING Lucy did generated any laughs.

 

[robbiesreels]

Some interesting trivia on Mame


Filming of Mame was scheduled to begin with Lucille Ball (who had $5 million dollars of her money invested in it) in early 1972 with original director George Cukor in command, at the time Bette Davis actvely sought to play the roll of Vera Charles, Davis was friends with Cukor, who also wanted Davis playing the part. Lucy broke her leg in a sking Accident, which delayed filming for over 6 months, Cukor was forced to leave the production
because of commitments to his next film Travels with My Aunt. Warners rushed in Gene Saks, and his influence resulted in his then wife Beatrice Arthur getting the roll.

 

[Mark B]

This MAME tangent brings this wun-dah-ful parrody to mind. The MAME references come toward the end.

 

[Robert13]

Originally Posted by Will Krupp /forum/thread/299826/hello-dolly/90#post_3770989

 

[Garysb]

Originally Posted by robbiesreels


Some interesting trivia on Mame


Filming of Mame was scheduled to begin with Lucille Ball (who had $5 million dollars of her money invested in it) in early 1972 with original director George Cukor in command, at the time Bette Davis actvely sought to play the roll of Vera Charles, Davis was friends with Cukor, who also wanted Davis playing the part. Lucy broke her leg in a sking Accident, which delayed filming for over 6 months, Cukor was forced to leave the production
because of commitments to his next film Travels with My Aunt. Warners rushed in Gene Saks, and his influence resulted in his then wife Beatrice Arthur getting the roll.

I am surprised about the Bea Arthur story. I remember reading that Bea Arthur wasn't interested in playing a supporting role to Lucille Ball at the time of filming. She was already a TV star with Maude at the time and Vera Charles was a step down for her. She did it at her then husband's request.

 

[dana martin]

Originally Posted by Mark B




Is this a joke? Too old, indeed, and just plain wrong for the role. And, yes, we do need a decent version of "Mame."

Bernadette Peters ???, at least the voice will work and she can do the comedy as well, paired with Bette Midler?

 

[Ethan Riley]

Originally Posted by Garysb


I am surprised about the Bea Arthur story. I remember reading that Bea Arthur wasn't interested in playing a supporting role to Lucille Ball at the time of filming. She was already a TV star with Maude at the time and Vera Charles was a step down for her. She did it at her then husband's request.

God, this has become the gayest thread in the forum. But you know what? We wouldn't be having these discussions if these infamous musicals had been cast the right way in the first place.


Here's the top four Gay Casting "Should-Haves" Debate List:


1.) Ethel Merman should have been in "Gypsy," (if not "Annie Get Your Gun" while we're at it).

2.) Carol Channing should have starred in "Hello Dolly." She also should have starred in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes." However, we'll forgive Marilyn Monroe for doing it, but only because she's Marilyn--that and the fact that the film has so little to do with the Broadway musical that it's almost a completely different project altogether.

3.) Angela Lansbury should have been in "Mame." Heaven and Earth should have been moved to make it happen.

4.) Julie Andrews should have been in "My Fair Lady," but we'll live with the fact that the movie is good anyway. The reasons why the movie is still good and a beloved classic escape me. I love that movie and even I can't figure out why it's good.


All these remakes are just Gay wishful thinking. You can't go back in time and make these movies the right way, and you can't do a modern remake and somehow get it right. You can't, even with Bette Midler. The time has passed. Cher as Mame? I mean, come on, now--forget it. Just forget it. Cher's not going to somehow undo the damage that Hurricane Lucy has wrought over Gay Filmdom. Make a film of "Mack and Mabel" instead. At least that way we'll see something we haven't seen before.


But if they hadn't screwed up those four musicals, what in the world would Queens have to talk about in after-hours gay bars from coast to coast?

 

[Robert13]

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley





God, this has become the gayest thread in the forum. But you know what? We wouldn't be having these discussions if these infamous musicals had been cast the right way in the first place.


Here's the top four Gay Casting "Should-Haves" Debate List:


1.) Ethel Merman should have been in "Gypsy," (if not "Annie Get Your Gun" while we're at it).

2.) Carol Channing should have starred in "Hello Dolly." She also should have starred in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes." However, we'll forgive Marilyn Monroe for doing it, but only because she's Marilyn--that and the fact that the film has so little to do with the Broadway musical that it's almost a completely different project altogether.

3.) Angela Lansbury should have been in "Mame." Heaven and Earth should have been moved to make it happen.

4.) Julie Andrews should have been in "My Fair Lady," but we'll live with the fact that the movie is good anyway. The reasons why the movie is still good and a beloved classic escape me. I love that movie and even I can't figure out why it's good.


All these remakes are just Gay wishful thinking. You can't go back in time and make these movies the right way, and you can't do a modern remake and somehow get it right. You can't, even with Bette Midler. The time has passed. Cher as Mame? I mean, come on, now--forget it. Just forget it. Cher's not going to somehow undo the damage that Hurricane Lucy has wrought over Gay Filmdom. Make a film of "Mack and Mabel" instead. At least that way we'll see something we haven't seen before.


But if they hadn't screwed up those four musicals, what in the world would Queens have to talk about in after-hours gay bars from coast to coast?

LOL!! So true.


Funny, I was in P-town at a bookstore with my boyfriend and I mentioned Lucy in "Mame". Some guy came up to us and made sure we knew how horrible the movie was. I hadn't seen it yet. So when I did, and actually liked it, I made sure never to trust anyone's word on a movie again. But the consensus on "Mame" (at least, with gay men) is that they either love or hate it. I'm not a fan of musicals at all. But, I did like the movie so I chaulk it up to being a hardcore Lucy fan.

 

[Matt Hough]

Originally Posted by Robert13





LOL!! So true.


Funny, I was in P-town at a bookstore with my boyfriend and I mentioned Lucy in "Mame". Some guy came up to us and made sure we knew how horrible the movie was. I hadn't seen it yet. So when I did, and actually liked it, I made sure never to trust anyone's word on a movie again. But the consensus on "Mame" (at least, with gay men) is that they either love or hate it. I'm not a fan of musicals at all. But, I did like the movie so I chaulk it up to being a hardcore Lucy fan.

I think the only strengths the film has come from the original material and the original stage performers who appear in the film (along with Robert Preston who's perfect casting and has the movie's best number not from the show "Lovin' You"). I'm a Lucy fan, but I'm not a fan of her as Mame. After having seen both Janis Paige and Ann Miller on Broadway during the original run (wish I could have seen Angela but the cast album has to suffice), Lucy is not even in the running for effectiveness in the part, at least for me. Of course I have the movie on DVD; how could I not with those wonderful songs (even through Lucy's croaking) and a very good production?

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by MattH.

With the recent announcement that Barbra Streisand wants to direct and star in a new version of Gypsy, I was dismayed. Gypsy has a fine movie version and a fine made-for-TV version. It doesn't NEED remaking. Mame does. I'm not saying Barbra would be right for the title role, but we don't need another Gypsy. We do need a decent Mame.

Just read on Playbill.com that Steven Sondheim has talked Arthur Laurents out of allowing Ms Streisand to film Gypsy.

"Laurents told the Hartford Courant that he came to the decision after speaking with the musical's lyricist, Stephen Sondheim. (Jule Styne was the show's composer). As Laurents relayed the conversation, "[Sondheim] said, 'What is the point of it?' And I said, 'They have this terrible [1962 film] version with Rosalind Russell wearing those black and white shoes.' And then Sondheim told me something that he got from the British — and it's wonderful. He said, 'You want a record because the theatre is ephemeral. But that's wrong. The theatre's greatest essence is that it is ephemeral. You don't need a record. The fact that it's ephemeral means you can have different productions, different Roses on into infinity.' So I don't want it now. I don't want a definitive record. I want it to stay alive."


Not a bad decision at all. Someone has some sense.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Originally Posted by ahollis

Just read on Playbill.com that Steven Sondheim has talked Arthur Laurents out of allowing Ms Streisand to film Gypsy.

"Laurents told the Hartford Courant that he came to the decision after speaking with the musical's lyricist, Stephen Sondheim. (Jule Styne was the show's composer). As Laurents relayed the conversation, "[Sondheim] said, 'What is the point of it?' And I said, 'They have this terrible [1962 film] version with Rosalind Russell wearing those black and white shoes.' And then Sondheim told me something that he got from the British — and it's wonderful. He said, 'You want a record because the theatre is ephemeral. But that's wrong. The theatre's greatest essence is that it is ephemeral. You don't need a record. The fact that it's ephemeral means you can have different productions, different Roses on into infinity.' So I don't want it now. I don't want a definitive record. I want it to stay alive."


Not a bad decision at all. Someone has some sense.

Interesting point of view he has there. But there's plenty of "definitive" movie musicals that didn't kill off the stage versions. In fact, a good movie musical inspires young people to put on the stage version. It's an eternal pity that Ethel Merman didn't star in the "definitive" Gypsy film, but Bette Midler got it right. And the fact that she got it right simply drove more interest into that show. I recall very clearly that after Midler's version came out, all our local community theatre groups suddenly put on productions of Gypsy. There were Gypsy's coming out of our ears for the next 2 or 3 years. Mr. Sondheim isn't much of a film guy and doesn't understand that synchronicity. And his comments are doubly interesting since he's the composer of "Into the Woods" and "Passion," two musicals that appeared very soon after their Broadway runs--on television!--in completely definitive broadcast versions...!

 

[JohnMor]

While I think Barbra was a little too old to play Rose, I think Sondheim's (and now Laurents') reasoning is flawed. There were just as many Broadway revivals after the Russell film (Lansbury and Daly) as after the Midler film (Peters and LuPone), so essentially films haven't killed the piece on stage. So why couldn't this version have been ONE of those "Roses on into infinity?" I don't think anyone thinks it will be the very last time the show is ever mounted. What a missed opportunity.