Sign in to follow this  
audreyforever

Judy Garland, Ideally

25 posts in this topic

First off, this is not an attack thread and is not meant as anything negative toward Judy Garland, because, she is my favorite singer, one of my favorite actresses, and in my opinion the greatest entertainer of the 20th Century. She was incredibly talented, and wonderful comedian, and beneficial to this world and many ways more than one. Unfortunately, she, just like countless others, could not handle the fame and fortune all the time, even though it wasn't her fault.

 

However, this thread is to talk about the roles Judy would of been given had she hadn't been taken over by her inner most demons.

 

Take Me out to the Ball Game

The Barkley's of Broadway

Annie Get Your Gun

Royal Wedding

Show Boat (I've heard before she was considered for Ava's role)

The Belle of New York (You never know)

Gypsy

Valley of the Dolls

 

any others?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd never heard that Judy was in the running for "Gypsy", so that one surprises me. Based on the roles we've seen her in, I'm not sure that Mama Rose would have been a good match for her, though there is of course that killer 11 o'clock number. Personally, I was always glad she never got beyond wardrobe tests for "Valley of The Dolls". Even if she had outperformed everyone else by miles, the movie would have still been a joke. The one I pine for is "Annie Get Your Gun", especially after the edited musical numbers were finally released. Demons or not, none of that showed on the screen. It just made me wish MGM had been more patient, or whatever was called for under the circumstances, because Judy was enchanting, especially in the number with Annie's siblings. It would have been one of the crowning glories of her career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure would of! Arthur Freed loved Judy so much, and said that if MGM could, she would of gotten every musical lead during her prime. I think she could of pulled of Rose, IMHO. I think it would of been great.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this since this morning, and I'm starting to see Judy a little more as Rose. She possibly could have even done something definitive with the role. I always thought that the mother-from-hell aspect was punched up a little too much by Rosalind Russell (and very probably Ethel Merman). Judy's characters usually had backbone AND vulnerability and Rose was someone who could be hurt and probably was a lot. Judy was unique, a consummate performer and an actress capable a real subtlety, and it's possible we might have seen a lot more than brass from the character if she had done it.

Getting back to your original post, it's a shame that Judy wasn't given the same latitude as, say, Doris Day as far as non-musical roles. Judy could have easily handled something like "The Man Who Knew Too Much", just as Doris did. "A Child Is Waiting" is an obvious exception, but it's too bad Judy wasn't thought of for dramatic roles which were obviously within her range.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DougieB-Robert Wagner wrote in his autobiography that he suggested Judy Garland for the Momma Rosa role to one of the Warner boys who chewed him out for mentioning it and would not consider it at all. I agree totally with you about Valley of the Dolls she dodged a bullet there but maybe, maybe if she had done it her life would have taken a different spin than the one it was on. Sort of like Elvis Presley if he had starred with Barbara Streisand in A Star is Born... it could have led to other roles better projects for the both of them.I LOVE Barbara Hutton in Annie Get Your Gun but I would have loved to seen Judy do it since I agree that what was filmed of her doing the role was promising. Thank goodness though we have her in The Wizard of OZ since it was iffy at the beginning since MGM was considering Shirley Temple. Plus, thankfully MGM backed Judy instead of Deanna Durbin a decision that seemed foolish at first but paid in dividends for MGM. What I wish is that Judy had been treated fairly or had a ( read this) a honest but hard nosed agent. It is a crime, a crime that Judy was paid less than Mickey Rooney and it was a lot less totally unfair. I wished Judy had made better decisions and had someone like a damn good agent in her corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Judy, she was so down and out by the time, best selling novelist Jacqueline Susann used her clout to lobby and convince 20th Century-Fox to cast Judy in the role of "Helen Lawson" for the big, lavished film version of Susann's novel "Valley of The Dolls." The novelist wasted no time in getting Judy before the publicity cameras and scores of interviews. This was big news, since Judy hadn't been in a film for about three years. During that time, she had also suffered the foes of a failed weekly television variety show. Judy had little choice but to settle on a concert hall and night club tour, that wasn't exactly as smooth or successful as it might have been, when she was in better condition and her voice fine-tuned. She was by the late 1960's, suffering from her usual bouts with depression and emotional instability. Judy spun through phases of her fans one minute in love with her, while the next minute there were the disappointments of canceled appearances and not even able at times to finish a show.

 

As 1966 rolled in, Judy was for all intended results, broke and in need of some sort of help. The bill collectors and creditors had begun to get on her back and the talk around the show business world was to wonder if Judy could at any cost get her act together. The whole "Valley of the Dolls" deal for Judy would become the big expected break she needed. Yet, the whole idea of having Judy in the film version seemed from a technical, if not, historical aspect somewhat ironic. One of the main characters of Susann's story was a lovely little singer, whose experiences as written in the novel seemed to shadow those of Judy's real life and career. From the very start of all the hoopla surrounding Susann's book, there was no doubt that Judy was the main focal point of an entertainer having reached the pinnacle of show business success, to later on lose it over issues that were solid to the core of relating to Judy's hardships.

 

It was no secret around the show business world that Judy getting into the production of 'Valley of the Dolls" was out of a pathetic desperation in order to save her reputation and what was left of her career. Judy was in so much trouble at the time Susann managed to track her down and coax her into accepting the idea of playing the role of Broadway superstar "Helen Lawson." This role was on all counts, a thinly disguised image of singer Ethel Merrman. Susann had once been a close friend to Merrman and the subsequent publication of the novel destroyed the intimacy of their bond to each other.

 

As Judy arrived on the studio lot to begin filming, everyone connected to the movie was in awe of her. She was the legend, on a return to perhaps rekindling the whole aura of what had once been. Of course, all of this was wistful thinking, because for the most part, Judy appeared burnt out and not in very good shape. After only a few weeks at the studio, Judy began to display some erratic behavior. She was able to shoot one singing sequence and then a tough dramatic scene with the star of the movie, Barbara Parkins. Then, it happened! Judy began arriving very late to begin work. Upon her arrival at the soundstage, she spent long periods of time locked up in the dressing room, refusing to come out. When alone, she could be heard talking to herself loudly. Whomever she allowed inside the dressing room had to face screams and shouts of frustration that jarred the soundstage. Most of the time, Judy argued, demanding something outrageous that the production company had to consider. Throughout these rough days, Susann tried in vain to get Judy in line. Susann even sought the help of her husband and agent, Irving Mansfield. Cast and crew members, along with Mansfield and his celebrated wife pleaded with Judy. They did everything possible to make Judy comfortable, but their efforts wouldn't amount to any positive conclusion to get Judy back on track. Those times Judy did get out of her dressing room, she acted weird and nonsensical, forgetting her lines and then taking periodic breaks in the filming. As Judy created more tension than any hope of making a film comeback, director Mark Robson soon realized it was all a fruitless pursuit to have considered her to be in the movie. This idea on the part of Susann to have Judy in the movie proved to be one of the first embarrassing fiascos to befall the production.

 

There are today, two very simple and logical reasons as to why Judy fell apart once she decided to be in the movie. The first was the obvious very direct connection she had (realistically) to the story. This centered on the character of singer Neely O'Hara. The second would have been Judy risking her friendship with singer Ethel Merman, by taking on the role of Helen Lawson, thereby acting out events related deeply to the famous Broadway star that Susann had first hand knowledge, most of which came from Merman herself as told to Susann over the years of their friendship. The famous scene where the character Helen Lawson has the young and talented (Garland like) starlet thrown out of the musical show was based on an actual incident, when Merman had a young Betty Hutton tossed out of a Cole Porter Broadway musical. Judy knew of this affair and the event came back to haunt Merman over the course of her career. Susann simply brought the whole matter out into the public eye and Judy must have wondered about and debated the consequences that might result from a backlash of having interpreted an unpleasant, painful event.

 

Aside from already having emotional problems brought on by booze and drugs, (very much the subject matter of the film!) Judy was in some ways reliving this reality of numerous events that were based on all her problems throughout the time she was the greatest singing star of motion pictures. The strain and stress to deal with this reality, on top of playing a very unsympathetic character was too overbearing in the final analysis for her to continue. Susann tried to cover her tracks, as if to say that by having Judy in the film, she was not only offering financial help, but giving her something therapeutic towards the process of bringing back the magic of her illustrious talent. In the end, Susann's hand-out to Judy backfired terribly as this whole situation placed a huge stain on the film and made it more of a mockery and total embarrassment for everyone involved.

 

Despite "Valley of The Dolls" considered a campy film, it is also a reminder on just how far and reckless some individuals in the business will go in order to exploit what are known hardships to those portrayed in a film. Judy wasn't even fired from the project; she just finally disappeared and never showed up again. The studio simply stopped any payment to her. At this point, nobody at the stuido front-office expected her to return. However, what made this Garland fiasco turn even more bizarre, somehow Judy managed to steal her entire wardrobe for the movie, created by famed designer at 20th Century-Fox, Bill Travilla. It was decided by the stuido to let the matter go and not make more of a mess of things. Bill then redesigned a new wardrobe for Judy's replacement, (a real solid pro in my book!) beautiful and respected Susan Hayward. It was rather dispirited and heavy-hearted to see Judy end up wearing the Travilla gowns on her last concert tour before she passed away in 1969. Some fans have seen this as a lasting dismal connection to what probably could have been her last major Hollywood film or the last one she never completed.

 

It's funny how Susann was all a glow and participated in the making of her novel's transformation to the big screen. But, once the situation turned sour and it was all too obvious the motion picture was a foolish undertaking that didn't even accurately cover her original novel, her sentiments changed. She distanced herself from everything associated to the production! Suddenly, Susann felt betrayed and stabbed in the back. Of course, for some in the business, this was a good example of how rats abandon a ship when it's sinking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, the film was and remains a financial success for Fox. Had Judy done it, or the other role she was strongly considered for, replacing Angela Lansbury in MAME on Broadway, it might have changed things for her. I agree she would have been a superb Rose in GYPSY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always fasciated me that some fans feel strongly had Judy been able to continue and finish her work in "Valley of The Dolls," it might have save her to some extent or I guess her career. Yet, from a reality of how her life had turned out, she wasn't in any sort of physical, if not, mentally stable state of mind. This I feel is what's so devastating and overlooked to the point that most fans would always see Judy fortified by her past glories, regardless of how she had turned out. It has always been one of these strange situations where her talent overexceeded her problems make so many beleive she still had it in her to be so rewarding to creating a magic that doesn't come around very often. Judy showing up to work on this film was liken to a drunken alcoholic at a lavished party! Sure, it was her talented reputation that gave her the chance to perhaps feel she could possible renew her magic. But in the long run, anyone from those first days she arrived on the set of the movie could have easily figured out it was all a terrible mistake to consider her for the role of "Helen Lawson." The role, if not, the motion picture as a whole, hit too close to home!! As for "Mame," that was nothing more than another pipe dream that looked good on paper or as another fantasy to remember what Judy once was and for all practical purposes, the reality of her situation and life couldn't have ever made the Broadway show work. Let's face it, in the end Judy *couldn't be* a: Ginger Rogers, Ethel Merman, Julie Andrews, Barbra Streisand, Petula Clark, Mary Martin, Angela Lansbury, Betty Grable, Sally Ann Howes, Debbie Reynolds, Dolores Gray, Jane Powell, Lauren Bacall, Ann Miller, Dorothy Lamour, Janis Paige, Chita Rivera, Carol Burnett to handle a Broadway show, let alone, get back into some logical sense of her motion picture career. The strange and perhaps most paraddoxical point to Judy is that she had tons, upon tons of talent, way above most of those ladies listed!! I think to sum up Judy, it was best said by June Allyson when she once remarked, "Judy just got lost." But then, I'm also reminded of that prophetic line Susan Hayward says in "Valley of The Dolls," quote: "She never learned how to roll with the punches . . . She'll destroy herself, but *_NEVER_ _HER_ _TALENT_."* It's a crying shame that all we can now deal with is thinking about "what if" and that's the way it ususally goes around show business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She did neither DOLLS nor MAME, for exactly those reasons. However, my sentiment had nothing to do with the properties, but had she been able to sustain doing them, they would have gone a long way to boosting her own self-esteem. I saw her live, twice. Once during her historic (due to the Carnegie Hall recording) 1961 tour, and then again at her final US concert, in Philadelphia, summer of '68. Both times she was magnificent. However, it was the final concert that was the most special, for a variety of reasons. Of course, we didn't know it was her last US concert, but we weren't surprised that it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}

> Lena Horne is the one who was really supposed to get Ava's role in SHOW BOAT, and justifiably SHOULD have gotten the role.

 

 

I've never liked Lena Horne, so I'm glad she didn't get it. Not that I'm such a fan of that film, but Ava is what I like most about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Show Boat" will always be one of my favorite musicals. And I thought Ava Gardner was wonderful as Julie. One thing I don't understand is why Lerna Horne fought so much for that role. While I'm not dismissing her wonderful talent, I can't see how she could have played that part. Julie LaVerne is a black woman passing for white. And there is no way that Lena Horne could pull that one off! Forgive me if that seemns racist. I really don't intend for it to come out that way.

 

Terrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 6:23 PM, DougieB said:

I've been thinking about this since this morning, and I'm starting to see Judy a little more as Rose. She possibly could have even done something definitive with the role. I always thought that the mother-from-hell aspect was punched up a little too much by Rosalind Russell (and very probably Ethel Merman). Judy's characters usually had backbone AND vulnerability and Rose was someone who could be hurt and probably was a lot. Judy was unique, a consummate performer and an actress capable a real subtlety, and it's possible we might have seen a lot more than brass from the character if she had done it.

Getting back to your original post, it's a shame that Judy wasn't given the same latitude as, say, Doris Day as far as non-musical roles. Judy could have easily handled something like "The Man Who Knew Too Much", just as Doris did. "A Child Is Waiting" is an obvious exception, but it's too bad Judy wasn't thought of for dramatic roles which were obviously within her range.

 

On Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 6:23 PM, DougieB said:

I've been thinking about this since this morning, and I'm starting to see Judy a little more as Rose. She possibly could have even done something definitive with the role. I always thought that the mother-from-hell aspect was punched up a little too much by Rosalind Russell (and very probably Ethel Merman). Judy's characters usually had backbone AND vulnerability and Rose was someone who could be hurt and probably was a lot. Judy was unique, a consummate performer and an actress capable a real subtlety, and it's possible we might have seen a lot more than brass from the character if she had done it.

Getting back to your original post, it's a shame that Judy wasn't given the same latitude as, say, Doris Day as far as non-musical roles. Judy could have easily handled something like "The Man Who Knew Too Much", just as Doris did. "A Child Is Waiting" is an obvious exception, but it's too bad Judy wasn't thought of for dramatic roles which were obviously within her range.

Judy had an excellent non musical role in The clock. She was great as the romantic heroin and love interest of Robert Walker. Their Central Park scene was the best, along with her and Robert helping the milkman with his deliveries. And there was some funny comedy too as they were rushing around trying to get their blood tests and other things needed to make their marriage official, and they were racing against the clock. That whole part bared some resemblance to scenes in the Out of towners with Jack Lemon and Sandy Dennis, but the scenes in The clock were better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 12:21 PM, MovieProfessor said:

It's always fasciated me that some fans feel strongly had Judy been able to continue and finish her work in "Valley of The Dolls," it might have save her to some extent or I guess her career. Yet, from a reality of how her life had turned out, she wasn't in any sort of physical, if not, mentally stable state of mind. This I feel is what's so devastating and overlooked to the point that most fans would always see Judy fortified by her past glories, regardless of how she had turned out. It has always been one of these strange situations where her talent overexceeded her problems make so many beleive she still had it in her to be so rewarding to creating a magic that doesn't come around very often. Judy showing up to work on this film was liken to a drunken alcoholic at a lavished party! Sure, it was her talented reputation that gave her the chance to perhaps feel she could possible renew her magic. But in the long run, anyone from those first days she arrived on the set of the movie could have easily figured out it was all a terrible mistake to consider her for the role of "Helen Lawson." The role, if not, the motion picture as a whole, hit too close to home!! As for "Mame," that was nothing more than another pipe dream that looked good on paper or as another fantasy to remember what Judy once was and for all practical purposes, the reality of her situation and life couldn't have ever made the Broadway show work. Let's face it, in the end Judy *couldn't be* a: Ginger Rogers, Ethel Merman, Julie Andrews, Barbra Streisand, Petula Clark, Mary Martin, Angela Lansbury, Betty Grable, Sally Ann Howes, Debbie Reynolds, Dolores Gray, Jane Powell, Lauren Bacall, Ann Miller, Dorothy Lamour, Janis Paige, Chita Rivera, Carol Burnett to handle a Broadway show, let alone, get back into some logical sense of her motion picture career. The strange and perhaps most paraddoxical point to Judy is that she had tons, upon tons of talent, way above most of those ladies listed!! I think to sum up Judy, it was best said by June Allyson when she once remarked, "Judy just got lost." But then, I'm also reminded of that prophetic line Susan Hayward says in "Valley of The Dolls," quote: "She never learned how to roll with the punches . . . She'll destroy herself, but *_NEVER_ _HER_ _TALENT_."* It's a crying shame that all we can now deal with is thinking about "what if" and that's the way it ususally goes around show business.

 

On Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 12:21 PM, MovieProfessor said:

It's always fasciated me that some fans feel strongly had Judy been able to continue and finish her work in "Valley of The Dolls," it might have save her to some extent or I guess her career. Yet, from a reality of how her life had turned out, she wasn't in any sort of physical, if not, mentally stable state of mind. This I feel is what's so devastating and overlooked to the point that most fans would always see Judy fortified by her past glories, regardless of how she had turned out. It has always been one of these strange situations where her talent overexceeded her problems make so many beleive she still had it in her to be so rewarding to creating a magic that doesn't come around very often. Judy showing up to work on this film was liken to a drunken alcoholic at a lavished party! Sure, it was her talented reputation that gave her the chance to perhaps feel she could possible renew her magic. But in the long run, anyone from those first days she arrived on the set of the movie could have easily figured out it was all a terrible mistake to consider her for the role of "Helen Lawson." The role, if not, the motion picture as a whole, hit too close to home!! As for "Mame," that was nothing more than another pipe dream that looked good on paper or as another fantasy to remember what Judy once was and for all practical purposes, the reality of her situation and life couldn't have ever made the Broadway show work. Let's face it, in the end Judy *couldn't be* a: Ginger Rogers, Ethel Merman, Julie Andrews, Barbra Streisand, Petula Clark, Mary Martin, Angela Lansbury, Betty Grable, Sally Ann Howes, Debbie Reynolds, Dolores Gray, Jane Powell, Lauren Bacall, Ann Miller, Dorothy Lamour, Janis Paige, Chita Rivera, Carol Burnett to handle a Broadway show, let alone, get back into some logical sense of her motion picture career. The strange and perhaps most paraddoxical point to Judy is that she had tons, upon tons of talent, way above most of those ladies listed!! I think to sum up Judy, it was best said by June Allyson when she once remarked, "Judy just got lost." But then, I'm also reminded of that prophetic line Susan Hayward says in "Valley of The Dolls," quote: "She never learned how to roll with the punches . . . She'll destroy herself, but *_NEVER_ _HER_ _TALENT_."* It's a crying shame that all we can now deal with is thinking about "what if" and that's the way it ususally goes around show business.

With the mental and emotional problems that Judy was suffering, she did a damn good job appearing so beautiful, vibrant, full of spirit, and showing every inch of her exceptional talent in each film. The exception sort of was during the outtakes of Annie get your gun (which they show on the DVD extras) with Judy performing I'm an Indian, and you could almost see a little craziness in her eyes, like she was very close to a breakdown, which she was. Judy, sadly, just didn't ever know how to relax during any of the minutes of her life while not in front of the camera, with the exception of her temporarily being sedated and sleeping her few hours a night from the barbiturates that she was so addicted to. It's such a shame since Judy was one of the most beautiful, amazing talent ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is a shame that Judy was never really able to make a complete turnaround with both her life and career.

A STAR IS BORN should have put her back on the map, but her behavior during filming led to her dismissal from the Warner studio (Jack Warner was not one to tolerate tardiness). She lost the Oscar to Grace Kelly, and no one was rushing to her doorstep with movie offers. 

Then comes along JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG, she gets another nod but loses to Rita Moreno. Again, it appears that Judy might just be on the road to another comeback, but her next two films, from what I've heard, didn't go huge with the public. 

At this point, Judy only had her singing career to depend on, then her TV show, which is cancelled after only one season.

Her persona offscreen becomes increasingly moody and depressing. VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, while big hit that it may have been, isn't what I would call a classic, and I doubt it would have revitalized her career.

I saw a video of her after she married her last husband, she was in her late 40's but she looked 50, an unfortunate effect from all the pills that she had consumed all her life.

As Mickey Rooney once stated, there was no Betty Ford clinic those days for people like Judy, which is a real tragedy because it might have saved her life.

Judy's untimely death has left all of us fans with 'what could have been if only'....yet we will never really know. All we can do is enjoy the many films and memories she has left us with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

It really is a shame that Judy was never really able to make a complete turnaround with both her life and career.

A STAR IS BORN should have put her back on the map, but her behavior during filming led to her dismissal from the Warner studio (Jack Warner was not one to tolerate tardiness). She lost the Oscar to Grace Kelly, and no one was rushing to her doorstep with movie offers. 

Then comes along JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG, she gets another nod but loses to Rita Moreno. Again, it appears that Judy might just be on the road to another comeback, but her next two films, from what I've heard, didn't go huge with the public. 

At this point, Judy only had her singing career to depend on, then her TV show, which is cancelled after only one season.

Her persona offscreen becomes increasingly moody and depressing. VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, while big hit that it may have been, isn't what I would call a classic, and I doubt it would have revitalized her career.

I saw a video of her after she married her last husband, she was in her late 40's but she looked 50, an unfortunate effect from all the pills that she had consumed all her life.

As Mickey Rooney once stated, there was no Betty Ford clinic those days for people like Judy, which is a real tragedy because it might have saved her life.

Judy's untimely death has left all of us fans with 'what could have been if only'....yet we will never really know. All we can do is enjoy the many films and memories she has left us with.

Judy would've been 96 this year, my grandmother died at 97, so it wouldn't have been entirely impossible for her to have still been alive today. But with the way she didn't take care of herself, it still would've been highly unlikely. I seriously doubt that I'll make it to 97. If Judy had taken better care of herself back in the early 1950s after getting terminated from MGM, which she almost started to do but then fell way off the wagon again and never quite got back on again, and she had really led a healthier lifestyle from the minute on again, she may've lived to see the 21st century, maybe even made it to the early 2010s when both Mickey Rooney and Esther Williams passed on. But she would've had to have lived a very healthy lifestyle from the early 1950s onwards. The Betty Ford center being around then would've definitely helped too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um it was actress/singer Betty Hutton that ended up in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN, not the Woolworth heiress Barbara Hutton as earlier stated.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2011 at 1:21 PM, MovieProfessor said:

It's always fasciated me that some fans feel strongly had Judy been able to continue and finish her work in "Valley of The Dolls," it might have save her to some extent or I guess her career. Yet, from a reality of how her life had turned out, she wasn't in any sort of physical, if not, mentally stable state of mind. This I feel is what's so devastating and overlooked to the point that most fans would always see Judy fortified by her past glories, regardless of how she had turned out. It has always been one of these strange situations where her talent overexceeded her problems make so many beleive she still had it in her to be so rewarding to creating a magic that doesn't come around very often. Judy showing up to work on this film was liken to a drunken alcoholic at a lavished party! Sure, it was her talented reputation that gave her the chance to perhaps feel she could possible renew her magic. But in the long run, anyone from those first days she arrived on the set of the movie could have easily figured out it was all a terrible mistake to consider her for the role of "Helen Lawson." The role, if not, the motion picture as a whole, hit too close to home!! As for "Mame," that was nothing more than another pipe dream that looked good on paper or as another fantasy to remember what Judy once was and for all practical purposes, the reality of her situation and life couldn't have ever made the Broadway show work. Let's face it, in the end Judy *couldn't be* a: Ginger Rogers, Ethel Merman, Julie Andrews, Barbra Streisand, Petula Clark, Mary Martin, Angela Lansbury, Betty Grable, Sally Ann Howes, Debbie Reynolds, Dolores Gray, Jane Powell, Lauren Bacall, Ann Miller, Dorothy Lamour, Janis Paige, Chita Rivera, Carol Burnett to handle a Broadway show, let alone, get back into some logical sense of her motion picture career. The strange and perhaps most paraddoxical point to Judy is that she had tons, upon tons of talent, way above most of those ladies listed!! I think to sum up Judy, it was best said by June Allyson when she once remarked, "Judy just got lost." But then, I'm also reminded of that prophetic line Susan Hayward says in "Valley of The Dolls," quote: "She never learned how to roll with the punches . . . She'll destroy herself, but *_NEVER_ _HER_ _TALENT_."* It's a crying shame that all we can now deal with is thinking about "what if" and that's the way it ususally goes around show business.

 

Thankfully Judy was spared the wig in the toilet scene and shrieking to Patty Duke, "At least I didnt marry one!" (alluding to Judy's real life marriage to V.M.)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Um it was actress/singer Betty Hutton that ended up in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN, not the Woolworth heiress Barbara Hutton as earlier stated.

LOL!!!!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2018 at 5:08 PM, Hibi said:

 

Thankfully Judy was spared the wig in the toilet scene and shrieking to Patty Duke, "At least I didnt marry one!" (alluding to Judy's real life marriage to V.M.)...

 

On 4/17/2011 at 12:21 PM, MovieProfessor said:

It's always fasciated me that some fans feel strongly had Judy been able to continue and finish her work in "Valley of The Dolls," it might have save her to some extent or I guess her career. Yet, from a reality of how her life had turned out, she wasn't in any sort of physical, if not, mentally stable state of mind. This I feel is what's so devastating and overlooked to the point that most fans would always see Judy fortified by her past glories, regardless of how she had turned out. It has always been one of these strange situations where her talent overexceeded her problems make so many beleive she still had it in her to be so rewarding to creating a magic that doesn't come around very often. Judy showing up to work on this film was liken to a drunken alcoholic at a lavished party! Sure, it was her talented reputation that gave her the chance to perhaps feel she could possible renew her magic. But in the long run, anyone from those first days she arrived on the set of the movie could have easily figured out it was all a terrible mistake to consider her for the role of "Helen Lawson." The role, if not, the motion picture as a whole, hit too close to home!! As for "Mame," that was nothing more than another pipe dream that looked good on paper or as another fantasy to remember what Judy once was and for all practical purposes, the reality of her situation and life couldn't have ever made the Broadway show work. Let's face it, in the end Judy *couldn't be* a: Ginger Rogers, Ethel Merman, Julie Andrews, Barbra Streisand, Petula Clark, Mary Martin, Angela Lansbury, Betty Grable, Sally Ann Howes, Debbie Reynolds, Dolores Gray, Jane Powell, Lauren Bacall, Ann Miller, Dorothy Lamour, Janis Paige, Chita Rivera, Carol Burnett to handle a Broadway show, let alone, get back into some logical sense of her motion picture career. The strange and perhaps most paraddoxical point to Judy is that she had tons, upon tons of talent, way above most of those ladies listed!! I think to sum up Judy, it was best said by June Allyson when she once remarked, "Judy just got lost." But then, I'm also reminded of that prophetic line Susan Hayward says in "Valley of The Dolls," quote: "She never learned how to roll with the punches . . . She'll destroy herself, but *_NEVER_ _HER_ _TALENT_."* It's a crying shame that all we can now deal with is thinking about "what if" and that's the way it ususally goes around show business.

The world, and life is full of millions of "what ifs?", and it's true that if every single "what if" was taken a different decision made, it would've started an entirely different outcome to our whole lives. It's really fascinating how each one of our lives could've taken millions of different pathways and chain reactions based on each little decision made. Any of us, and I mean ANY of us could right now either be wealthy and successful with fabulous credit (if we studied hard, got a degree, and carefully maintained our credit), or doing hard time in prison (if we dropped out of school, decided not to get a job, and then robbed a bank out of extreme desperation). It ALL has to do with our choices we make

Judy Garland could've lived to be 90 and could've passed on around the same time that Mickey Rooney did, if she got off the drug abuse, careless reckless lifestyle, and started eating and living healthy in the early 1950s right after being terminated from MGM. On the other hand, Judy could've passed away 10-15 years earlier in the 1950s sometime if she took her pill abuse even higher than it was and died from an overdose in her early 30s. Golden age actresses have died very young such as Jean Harlow at age 26 in 1937, and she could've lived to be 80 something and passed on in the 1990s if she didn't catch pneumonia in 1937. You never know what could happen with anybody 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shock and the sadness of her death in 1969 is something I still remember, but I can't say that I've been overly tempted to wonder "what if?" Her life of professional brilliance undercut by drug problems, abusive relationships, financial woes, and industry pressure seems to me to be all of a piece, so that musing about what a turn toward clean living at the end could have meant for her doesn't seem to offer much in the way of resolution or closure. R.I.P., Judy.

But the O.P.'s question about roles she was up for but never played is kind of intriguing. Of the roles mentioned, Royal Wedding is another one which I'd be curious about. I like Jane Powell but never felt that role suited her. I can totally see Judy and Fred making a success of it on the level of their triumphant work together in Easter Parade. With that picture behind them I think they would have had even more intimacy and chemistry onscreen and I dearly wish we had gotten to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAD Judy lived she probably would have taken time off to get her act together.  She would have taken a role in Sondheim's Follies and continued as guest on game shows like Match Game and Password.  She may have tried Broadway again as Miss. Hanigan  in Annie  and after one or two more attempts at concert giving retire once and for all and die a peacful death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2018 at 3:53 PM, DougieB said:

Royal Wedding is another one which I'd be curious about. I like Jane Powell but never felt that role suited her.

There was probably an age difference that was going to strain credulity no matter who was cast in the female lead. May-December romances are all over the place in the movies of those days, but Astaire and Powell were supposed to brother and sister, and he was 30 years older than her! Those are some parents that waited a while between children! He was close to 25 years older than Judy, too. Although audiences seemed to mostly ignore these things back then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

There was probably an age difference that was going to strain credulity no matter who was cast in the female lead. May-December romances are all over the place in the movies of those days, but Astaire and Powell were supposed to brother and sister, and he was 30 years older than her! Those are some parents that waited a while between children! He was close to 25 years older than Judy, too. Although audiences seemed to mostly ignore these things back then. 

Audience had to ignore 'these things' IF they wished to see Astaire dance, and that is what most people wanted. 

There were few female dancers around the same age as Astaire that could appeal to audiences to the necessary degree (e.g.box office take).   Also for actresses younger was just preferred.    So if one wanted to see Astaire instead of say, Dennis Morgan,  that meant the actress he was paired with would be much younger. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judy should have replaced Shaye Cohan in Jack and the Beanstalk (1952).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us