Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

stage stars vs. screen stars


msladysoul
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some of the stage stars of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940 could never be movie stars, no matter how big their popularity on the stage, a lot of them weren't ideal for movies, it's been said by many- people like Tallulah Bankhead, Ethel Merman, Peg Entwhistle, and others just couldn't make it on screen, maybe they weren't screen material. Even though a lot of them were as talented as the screen stars, Hollywood didn't want ready-made stars, they wanted to make stars.

 

Do you think the screen stars would of cut it on the stage? Like could you picture Jean Harlow, Clara Bow, Joan Crawford, Rita Hayworth, Ava Gardner, Lana Turner on the stage?

 

I can picture Bette Davis on the stage.

 

I couldn't picture some of the stage stars being movie stars, they just don't have that image.

 

When the talkies came around, Hollywood wanted to use the stage stars because they had better voices and were more talented, but they brought in a new batch of talent and groomed them, instead of using the stage stars.

 

I know a lot of people came from the stage and became movie stars, but they weren't very big on stage, the real superstars of the stage never made big on screen.

 

Do you think the screen stars would of cut it on the stage? Like could you picture Jean Harlow, Clara Bow, Joan Crawford, Rita Hayworth, Ava Gardner, Lana Turner on the stage? A lot of the screen stars weren't necessarily consider talented, until Hollywood groomed them, personally, I think a lot of the screen stars couldn't of been on the stage, half the stars were scared of the camera and the microphone, so you know how they would have been on stage in front of an live audience, any accidents they make, it could do it over. Most screen stars taught their acting talent, they weren't born with it.

 

 

Do you think stage stars could of been movie stars, if Hollywood would have groomed them for the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only going to pick out one thing to reply to, and help you to know that Ethel Merman most certainly did "make it" on the silver screen, or in Hollywood, as they say. Her career covered all the decades between the 1930's to the 1990's, and she appeared in many successful musicals and comedies. In 1953, she was awarded a Golden Globe for "Call Me Madam". All together she made 26 movies...not nearly enough for this great talent, but enough that it can't be said that she "didn't make it" on the screen.

 

ML

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Ethel Merman had a successful career on stage and screen, though she was successful on stage, she never was considered over Joan Crawford, Doris Day, Judy Garland Bette Davis, Ann Sheridan or Rita Hayworth when it came to screen. When people talk about her work, its usually her stage work and the documentaries I've seen said she wasn't real big in movies as she was on stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a smile, I must say that comparing Ethel Merman to the likes of Joan Crawford is kinda like comparing "Francis the Talking Mule" to "The Black Stallion" (grin), both were adored...but for entirely different reasons.

 

It's kind of a "question" whether Joan Crawford, et.al, would have been popular on stage. Had some of them wanted to go into threatre, it would have been quite easy for them because most actors/actresses were at least "somewhat" schooled in the same ways that stage actors were in the early days of their careers. I tend to believe that anyone who appeared more on stage than in films during earlier eras, probably made a choice to go that direction because they prefered the climate of the stage and live performance. ML

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...