| re: well Alan | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 08:21 pm EDT 08/23/24 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:17 pm EDT 08/23/24 | |
| In reply to: well Alan - sc2 07:11 pm EDT 08/23/24 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know how seriously to take your reply. By which I mean that I don't know if you're sort of joking. So, going on the possibility that you're serious, I don't question that Day believed that that the role had been offered. My guess is that she believed that an offer had been made to Melcher, and he turned it down on her behalf. Maybe Melcher himself made the assumption that the reason Turman sent him the book was because Day was being offered the role. So I don't think Day was intentionally deceitful. Second, if Day had wanted to dispute what Turman said, she had plenty of time in which to do it. Turman's letter appeared in the Los Angeles Times on May 15, 2005, 14 years before Day died. An article on the making of the film appeared in Vanity Fair in March 2008. In the article, Turman said the same thing. And it was stated that Bancroft was Nichols's first choice from the beginning. So Day had plenty of time to dispute Turman and Nichols if she had wanted. Of course, it's possible that she didn't know what had been written. In any case, I don't especially feel the need to be supportive of people after they've died. I suppose I rather feel as Sondheim did: It's more important to speak well of people who are alive because they can be hurt by what you say. It's precisely the dead of whom it's OK to speak ill. Not that I think I was speaking ill of Day. I like Day, and, as I said, I think she believed that an offer had been made. The deceit, if there was any, came from her husband. Sondheim did occasionally speak ill of the living, sometimes a bit cruelly. So evidently he didn't always act in accordance with his own stated beliefs. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | well Alan - sc2 07:11 pm EDT 08/23/24 |
| Next: | re: well Alan - Billhaven 08:33 pm EDT 08/23/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.105682 seconds.