| re: how Warner Brothers got gypsy wrong | |
| Posted by: bicoastal 02:56 pm EDT 08/06/24 | |
| In reply to: re: how Warner Brothers got gypsy wrong - PlayWiz 01:01 pm EDT 08/06/24 | |
|
|
|
| I think Judy Garland playing Rose would have been incredible, as Liza also would have been at a certain point. I always question if Merman would have worked on screen as well as she worked on stage--she's pretty over the top (on purpose, granted) in Mad, Mad World. I think those annoying changes in the screenplay are annoying, but they don't kill the movie for me as there are still many good things about it, especially Natalie Wood and Karl Malden (he never gets the love he deserves). I can watch Natalie Wood watch Tulsa all day, she's so lovely and yearning. I also find the movie much easier to watch on the big screen. Sondheim once said that Russell was too elegant for Rose, which I thought was a great piece of information, but then again, she knew how to play to the camera in a way that Merman really didn't. Russell pulled the stops out as Rosemary in Picnic right before she took on Auntie Mame, but her success was so massive with Mame that she might have decided to stick with that level of enthusiastic yet elegant comedy. Also a bit of trivia--Debbie Reynolds was scheduled to star as Rose in Los Angeles with Carrie Fisher as Louise, but the two were bickering at the time and the production was canceled. OMG how I would have loved to have seen Debbie as Rose, especially if she really went for it. To this day I regret not seeing Angela Lansbury when I had the chance to (I was a very stupid teenager, apparently). |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: how Warner Brothers got gypsy wrong - PlayWiz 01:01 pm EDT 08/06/24 |
| Next: | re: how Warner Brothers got gypsy wrong - AlexanderKat 03:58 pm EDT 08/06/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.035548 seconds.