Guest Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Have you ever wondered how certain actors/actresses are cast in certain movies? I'm no expert, but sometimes I am amazed at what seems to be a good actor in an inappropriate role, or a bad actor in a good role. This seems to be a particular problem with movies that follow successful Broadway runs where, for whatever reason, the original cast is not used. Two examples come to mind: Camelot and Man Of LaMancha. On Broadway, the Burton, Andrews and Goulet combination was perfection in Camelot, so what do they do for the film? Richard Harris for Arthur, who did his best to imitate Burton; Vanessa Redgrave for Guenevere who croaked her way through "The Lusty Month Of May", making May about as lusty as a funeral; Franco Nero as Lancelot, who just stood around looking embarrassed (as well he should have). Remember the beautiful "Impossible Dream" sung by Richard Kiley? Now imagine it sung by Peter O'Toole. Scary. Sophia Loren, not known for her ability to burst into song, did her best in the part of Dulcinea, utilizing her talents (both of them) to full advantage. The only positive thing about this movie was James Coco as Sancho Panza. Any others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lococardinal Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I dislike all Elvis Presley movies. Actually there was one of his earlier ones (can't remember the name) that was pretty good but his role was entirely different than his usual casting. It makes my skin crawl seeing him brake out in a song (with the usual background music magically showing up) with the usual mishmash of goofballs surrounding him encircling him with hideous grins. I actually tried watching "Stay Away Joe" one TCM viewing night. I couldn't watch it for very long. It looked like they either had Presley lie under a hot lamp too long, or put some awful dark make-up on him to give him an American Indian appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brackenhe Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 If you watched "Stay Away Joe" then you picked the wrong Presley movie to watch. And anyway, they were just throw away, cheap budget fun pictures to watch. Of course, he's no Vin Diesel or Adam Sandler, but he held his own with some pretty good company (Ann Margret, Barbara Stanwyck, Dean Jagger.) He just made some goofy movies that are fun to watch. So what? Don't watch them. BTW, I think Col. Parker controlled a lot of what he did. So that explains a lot. Too bad someone didn't take control back. I guess Presley's ego couldn't deal with negativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bansi4 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 It's too bad that Col.Parker didn't permit Presley to star opposite Barbra Streisand in "A Star Is Born" since I believe he would have been ideal in the role. As far as "Stay Away Joe" I believe Presley was supposed to be an Indian, hence the makeup...duhhh. Mongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lococardinal Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I'm sorry. Did I make it sound like I didn't know he was supposed to be an Indian? Who's Colonel Parker btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brackenhe Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Col. Parker was Elvis' manager and, I believe, the cause of his downward spiral into death. Maybe the Elvis movies were schlocky, but I think after the success of "GI Blues" and "Blue Hawaii" the Col. was reluctant for Elvis to change the format. Although a few of his songs from the movies were hits, mostly they were crap. After his big TV comeback special, he toured incessantly where his drug use spiralled out of control and his eccentricities manifested. Too bad rehab had not come "out of the closet" so to speak. He'd probably still be alive, maybe made better movies, performing in Vegas. But Col. Parker and his entourage wouldn't/couldn't do anything to stop this self destructive behavior. And I'm not a huge Elvis fan. Never been to Graceland, even though it's 3 hours away. I did like his movies as a kid and I realize he never made "Citizen Kane" or whatever you think the greatest movie was. But he did entertain a lot of people and was a talented human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lococardinal Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 I hope I didn't sway things too much off the original topic. All in all I guess I could say I do like disliking Elvis' movies. I respect your opinion on his talent and his movies being fun. However in my opinion they're far from fun. To me Abbott and Costello movies are fun whereas I know many people don't think so. Thanks for the info on Mr. Parker. I had never heard of him before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Frankly, I've never been able to appreciate or understand the reverence that Elvis Presley is held in by legions of fans. Maybe it's a female thing. His contribution to modern music cannot be denied, but he didn't invent rock and roll, he introduced it. Rock and roll had been a part of black culture for decades. Elvis had the talent and the foresight to do a cross-over of the music from black to white culture. Plus, he seemed to me to be a very nice guy, very sensitive and generous to those around him. Tom Parker was the puppet master to Elvis' marionette and Parker made some bad decisions regarding Elvis' career, but ultimate responsibilityfor Elvis rests with Elvis. Whether it was due to carelessness, stupidity or a drugged stupor, Elvis has only himself to blame for his career decline and his demise. With regard to his movies, I admittedly have only seen one or two. They weren't Oscar material, but they were pleasant. The most popular ones were made during the 'feel good film' era, along with the 'Beach Blanket' and 'Gidget' fluff. When you're 250 pounds, you don't eat peanut butter and bacon sandwiches with a side of Qualludes, then wonder why your career isn't what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Another movie that I really love is "West Side Story," with the exception of what I consider to be one of the worst mis-castings in cinematic history--Richard Beymer as Tony. He was supposed to be a gang member? Maybe, if the gang was called the "Pink Ladies." I found his demeanor to be so feminine in what should have been a 'macho' role that it became laughable. It was almost like casting Truman Capote as BlueBeard the pirate. I never heard of him again. Maybe this miscasting gave him his two hours of fame (or flame), then proved to be too detrimental to his career. (I'm not gay-bashing or ridiculing him because of a lifestyle. If he's gay, that's fine. But if your demeanor is feminine, don't try to be Sylvester Stallone when you're Franklin Pangborne). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Another movie that I really love is "West Side Story," with the exception of what I consider to be one of the worst mis-castings in cinematic history--Richard Beymer as Tony. He was supposed to be a gang member? Maybe, if the gang was called the "Pink Ladies." I found his demeanor to be so feminine in what should have been a 'macho' role that it became laughable. It was almost like casting Truman Capote as BlueBeard the pirate. I never heard of him again. Maybe this miscasting gave him his two hours of fame (or flame), then proved to be too detrimental to his career. (I'm not gay-bashing or ridiculing him because of a lifestyle. If he's gay, that's fine. But if your demeanor is feminine, don't try to be Sylvester Stallone when you're Franklin Pangborne). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Another movie that I really love is "West Side Story," with the exception of what I consider to be one of the worst mis-castings in cinematic history--Richard Beymer as Tony. He was supposed to be a gang member? Maybe, if the gang was called the "Pink Ladies." I found his demeanor to be so feminine in what should have been a 'macho' role that it became laughable. It was almost like casting Truman Capote as BlueBeard the pirate. I never heard of him again. Maybe this miscasting gave him his two hours of fame (or flame), then proved to be too detrimental to his career. (I'm not gay-bashing or ridiculing him because of a lifestyle. If he's gay, that's fine. But if your demeanor is feminine, don't try to be Sylvester Stallone when you're Franklin Pangborne). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappy3500 Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Another mystery is Tony singing "Maria" in that neighborhood and ONLY ONE woman comes to the window??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lococardinal Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 (Place laughing emoticon here) Yeah I imagine there would be a lot heads looking out the window. I hadn't seen WSS in so long I forgot what Tony was like. Sometimes those miscastings of regular (or maybe even effeminate) actors playing tough guys works. Henry Winkler of course is one example. The Tony character I can't remember too well though. As far as Elvis goes for the record I was mainly referring to his movies. Although I'm not too fond of what rock and roll has done to the blues and black American folk, but that's a whole different subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Good points, lococardinal! I think I've discovered a common link between some movies I consider the 'best of the worst.' What do Camelot, Souh Pacific and Paint Your Wagon have in common? The director--Joshua Logan. I've previously gone over Camelot where Richard Harris talks his way and Vanessa Redgrave croaks her way through some of the most beautiful music ever written. Then we have South Pacific, a beautiful story with beautiful music about a female member of the armed forces who falls in love with her great-grand father. Or so it seemed with Mitzi Gaynor and Rosanno Brazzi. Then, in an attempt to introduce 'something new' in movie making, Logan used those horrible tinted filters that made everybody look jaundiced one minute then like they were suffering from 3rd degree sunburns the next. Finally, we have Paint Your Wagon. Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin sing. Or try to. If you close your eyes, Lee sounds like he also played Guenevere in Camelot. I'm sure that this was meant to be 'good clean fun', but the fun left after the second off-key solo. This movie has a sad element to it, in that it co-stars the tragic and pathetic Jean Seberg, who's life was horrific. If you're unaware of Ms. Seberg's life, go to: http://tedstrong.com/jeanseberg.html I'm working on some other 'best of the worst' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brackenhe Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 What's so funny, capet, is that I like all three of those movies for some strange reason. Especially "Paint Your Wagon." It was fun and Marvin's voice and singing were perfect for the part he played. And you can't forget Harve Presnell's lovely rendition of "Mariah." In "Camelot", so the singing wasn't that great. I think it was due to the time it was made, where there was definitely a movement toward more realistic acting. And it was probably one of the reasons that the musical died (that's an awful burden to bear, huh?) I went to see that movie about three times when it was in the theaters. I just loved Franco Nero--such gorgeous eyes. But it was a touching story and probably a lot better than "King Arthur" that's out now. "South Pacific" was a very popular musical and I think the tinted lenses were there to indicate the mood of the particular song being sung. Plus, I could easily have fallen in love with Rossano Brazzi if I were Mitzi Gaynor. He was very good looking and debonair. The songs are great but of the three you mentioned, this is probably my least favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bansi4 Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Slappy, I would imagine that all the other Maria's were out on the town when Tony was singing to his Maria who was usually grounded since she was so young. Wasen't it nice that she was at home though? Mongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I agree with you Brakenhe....I cannot think of anyone other than Lee Marvin singing "I Was Born Under a Wanderin' Star" in "Paint Your Wagon"! I still love watching that movie, and hearing the great music. But then I love most musicals in general and see no reason to be ultra critical of them. The music is grand, they entertain, and that's all that matters to me. Long live the Musicals! :)ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lococardinal Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 I got a kick out of seeing Julie Newmar (lipsink?) in 7 Brides for 7 Brothers! The dancing I think made the movie. The choreographed fight scenes were hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 brackenhe--I almost forget Harve Presnell!. You're right; his singing of "Mariah" was spectacular. I only remember seeing him in The Unsinkable Molly Brown with Debbie Reynolds and Song Of Norway with Florence Henderson. What a shame his career sort of stalled. He was (or is) a nice-looking, talented fellow. Your point about the change in musicals to present a more realistic approach to musical numbers is a good one. A more recent example is Woody Allen's tribute to the Hollywood musicals, Everyone Says You Love Me. I recommend it because, and I don't know how he did it, but he got the following stars to sing (and, in some cases, dance): Julia Roberts, Edward Norton, Drew Barrymore, Goldie Hawn, Alan Alda, and a few more. Some sing solos, others are backed by singers and dancers. The end result is enjoyable because it's obvious that everyone is having such a great time. Except poor Julia; she should have stayed home whem they filmed her solo. Maybe that's the difference. In Camelot, everyone took themselves too seriously, which made their lack of singing ability so noticeable. In Paint Your Wagon and the Allen film, the actors are enoying themselves and their roles, and it's contagious. Thanks for your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Hi classicfan! Believe it or not, movie musicals is my favorite genre too (my all time favorite is "Carousel"). But I think care has to be taken in casting and directing a musical because the basic premise is unbelievable: someone bursts into song suddenly for no apparent reason and, no matter where they are, there's usually a full orchestra on hand. It takes a special actor and a knowledgeable director to pull it off. That's why I feel that casting the dramatically-oriented Vanessa Redgrave and Peter O'Toole to sing light musical comedy is dangerous. If you have a chance, try to catch Barbra Streisand's appearance on "Inside the Actor's Studio" where she discusses the problems inherent in musicals. When she directed Yentl, she wanted to avoid the unrealistic 'bursting into song' in front of others, so each time a character sings, they are alone so it appears more intimate like we're reading that character's mind. It's less obvious. Thanks, I enjoy your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Hi Capet! I've always noticed that there is a considerable "difference" in major studio Musicals through the years (take into account Busby Berkley's grand early contributions, the early MGM musicals with Garland and Rooney, the many Rogers and Hammerstein musicals, and the later musicals such as West Side Story, Grease, and even more recently Chicago). When I watch the R&H musicals now (those from the 50's), it's especially easy to see that this "breaking into song" thing was basically the "accepted norm" during that time, and at that time, no one who loved musicals seemed to object to it. I did watch (and tape) Barbra Streisand's Interview on "Inside the Actor's Studio"...a program I never fail to miss...and totally agree with what she said about this "inherent problem" of "bursting into song" at every turn. For sure, her "Yentl" continues to be one of my very favorite Musicals because of her good sense in how she filmed it. I also agree that casting is especially important in a Musical, especially if the actor's singing isn't going to be voiced-over. I'm drawing a blank on the last name of this woman, but to you remember someone named "Marnie" who served for many years as the "singing voice" we heard in countless musicals? But, on the flip side of this coin, even a voice-over by a much better singer can lead to problems...as in the case with Ava Gardner's own singing not being used in "Show Boat", which greatly upset her, and actually, her singing voice wasn't all that bad. Nice talking with you! ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
path40a Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Marni Nixon is who you mean, ML - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0633262/ Also, for those interested, the October schedule is up: http://turnerclassicmovies.com/Schedule/Print/0,,10-2004|0|,00.html which includes a lot of musicals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Marni Nixon! Thanks, Path! And, thanks for the link! I'm looking forward to the Musicals TCM will air for us in October, even though some will be repeats that "some" of us are quite familiar with. I'm even more excited by hearing from the TCM Programmer that a few of Mario Lanza's films "might" be aired on his Birthday. WOW! ;)ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappy3500 Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 "Say it loud and there's music playin'...say it soft and it's almost like prayin'...I'll never stop sayin'--Mariaaah." Beautifully crafted lyrics. No schmaltz, no cloying maudlin melodrama. Just the heartfelt emotion and excitement of a boy totally infatuated with a young lady that captured his imagination. THAT's romance and a perfect musical portrayal of Shakespear's classic love story. A small anecdote. I was asked to do emergency coverage of an 8th grade music class. In the closet were a lot of tapes. I popped WSS into the VCR and within 2 minutes those antsy, hormone-driven, monsters were rapt with attention, totally engrossed and groaned when the period ended. Folks if you don't think that shows the power of a great musical work of art, you don't know modern 8th graders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Thanks, Slappy! We need more people like you to bring these wonderful Musicals...and many other great true Classics...into the lives of our young people today. Good job, pal! The chances of today's kids ever seeing them otherwise are virtually "nil". I wonder how a "discussion period" would have gone following their viewing of "West Side Story"? :)ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts