Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Hibi

BAD MOVIE ALERT: MAME

Recommended Posts

So....

n i p s and G o o c h are censored, but the "T" word makes it through with a clean pass.

Makes sense.

 

ps- that's a word I've personally dropped from my vocab, albeit it with some effort, because as someone who's been called a name or two in the past, I know they can sting....but I leave it up to you to make your own choices.

 

 

Why would G O O C H be censored?? (eyeroll).......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would G O O C H be censored?? (eyeroll).......

 

Lemme make sure:

 

Gooch

 

edit- KAY, THEY FIXED IT, BUT I DISTINCTLY RECALL IT WAS CENSORED WHEN I WROTE IT INITIALLY.

(beware, they pay attention from time to time.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just unsuccessfully tied to post TWENTY FIVE DIFFERENT images in a row and have been told I don't have "permission."

 

 

LOL. Please edit all that out. Talk about an eye ache.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EGAD!!!--Have you rebooted?  Done a virus/malware scan? If so, I have no advice except to contact the administrators.  Wish I could be more help 

 

Edit--I've never tried to post pictures.  Am on an old computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Please edit all that out. Talk about an eye ache.............

 

 

all right all right all right.

 

edit- done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Now what could that mean???

 

Maybe they don't want us speculating about Kim Novak's face again.

 

 

although "tucks" is allowed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they don't want us speculating about Kim Novak's face again.

 

 

although "tucks" is allowed.

 

 

No, I meant the 4 asterisks. You snuck a post in before mine.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably typed **** instead of GOOCH

 

See.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably typed **** instead of GOOCH

 

See.....

 

Maybe...maybe.

(I'm gettin old.)

 

ps- that is one of the tamer C-Words one can drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I meant the 4 asterisks. You snuck a post in before mine.....

the 4 asterisks is where I spelled out n i p s without the spacing.

see:

****.

 

(to make sure Otto still disapproved. He does.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 4 asterisks is where I spelled out n i p s without the spacing.

see:

****.

 

(to make sure Otto still disapproved. He does.)

 

 

I see. I thought it was another 4 letter word that rhymed with tuck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It did????!!!!

 

Credit should be given to Ball for wanting to create an appealing piece of family entertainment at a time when more adult fare dominated cinema.

That naturally leads to the question of why so much family entertainment of the time, such as Fleischer's DOCTOR DOLITTLE, was so bad. It seems family entertainment did not get back on its feet until 1977, when STAR WARS came along. I personally suspect it was because so much of it was addressed to a kindergarten mentality, whereas SW appealed to a more developed mentality--that is, children who were growing into their teen years. I certainly remember that DD, which I saw at 12, had nothing in it that appealed to, as Leslie Halliwell put it, anybody but the most indulgent of TOTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you make an excellent point, Palmerin...although i think a lot of the movies that followed "Star Wars" improve on the formula and were more intelligent (or at least had some better dialogue) even for example "The Empire Strikes Back."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can hardly credit Ball for wanting to "create" as the role was around for a long time before she expressed a desire to play it, and probably would have gone ahead with someone else in the role if she hadnt.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the failure of many musicals of the 1970s, I suspect that much of the reason for their dismal performance was that they were OLD FASHIONED: id est, made according to a formula that was showing its age. Consider the success of CABARET, SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER, GREASE, and FLASHDANCE, all of them musicals that broke new ground in their music, choreography, and storytelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was such an enormous backlash when Audrey Hepburn got the role of Eliza, that from that point forward, women stars were very apprehensive to be dubbed in movie musicals.  People, today, would find it difficult to believe how major a news item Hepburn's casting was.  None of it positive.  I am sure that is what was behind Lucy's not allowing herself to be dubbed.  I even recall her addressing it on talk show, prior to MAME's release.  I think it was THE MERV GRIFFIN SHOW.  I also remember her stating that Lansbury had, in effect, turned the movie role down, stating that she preferred to work on the stage.  Which, of course, was not true.  I don't believe the bit about Lucy taking notes in the wings.

And why wouldn't the public be angry? Julie Andrews OWNED that role!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why wouldn't the public be angry? Julie Andrews OWNED that role!

If she owned it she would've played it on the screen..........

 

If the "public" was so angry, why was My Fair Lady such a huge hit and a winner of 8 Academy Awards??? If they were angry, you'd think they would have stayed away. I've no doubt  people who saw the original show weren't happy, but then again I'm sure many people who didn't see it, didnt care. I know a certain poster here hates everything about the film and never misses a chance to state the fact, 50 years later. Obviously not everyone did or does. Few Broadway stars ever got the chance to repeat their roles. But MFL for some reason is a special case. (Of course, I know the reason why..........) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one notable difference between Lucille Ball in MAME, and Audrey Hepburn in MY FAIR LADY is that, at least Hepburn excels in her non singing scenes. I know it was easy for her to play the lady elegant, and she's terrific in those scenes, but where Audrey sparkles is in playing Eliza at her grubbiest and cockniest: she is terrific and does as good a job as any great actress could in a role that is a 180 from pretty much everything she had done before. Even in the non singing parts of MAME (at least the ones I saw) Ball just seems listless stilted and uncomfortable.

 

Audrey is good enough in her own right that you can at least kinda sorta overlook the Julie Andrews thing. (if not entirely forgiving it)

 

...Vanessa Redgrave in CAMELOT is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one notable difference between Lucille Ball in MAME, and Audrey Hepburn in MY FAIR LADY is that, at least Hepburn excels in her non singing scenes. I know it was easy for her to play the lady elegant, and she's terrific in those scenes, but where Audrey sparkles is in playing Eliza at her grubbiest and cockniest: she is terrific and does as good a job as any great actress could in a role that is a 180 from pretty much everything she had done before. Even in the non singing parts of MAME (at least the ones I saw) Ball just seems listless stilted and uncomfortable.

 

Audrey is good enough in her own right that you can at least kinda sorta overlook the Julie Andrews thing. (if not entirely forgiving it)

 

...Vanessa Redgrave in CAMELOT is another story.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she owned it she would've played it on the screen..........

 

If the "public" was so angry, why was My Fair Lady such a huge hit and a winner of 8 Academy Awards??? If they were angry, you'd think they would have stayed away. I've no doubt  people who saw the original show weren't happy, but then again I'm sure many people who didn't see it, didnt care. I know a certain poster here hates everything about the film and never misses a chance to state the fact, 50 years later. Obviously not everyone did or does. Few Broadway stars ever got the chance to repeat their roles. But MFL for some reason is a special case. (Of course, I know the reason why..........) 

Actually, the public did sort of stay away.  MY FAIR LADY was a phenomenon on stage, and its cast album was the biggest selling album (any genre) of all-time, at the time the film was made.  Jack Warner predicted that his film would be the biggest movie of all-time, and considering the success of the stage show and the cast album, it should have been.  It wasn't even the biggest film of the year, and it's cost was high, so it's box-office net wasn't all the tremendous.  Yes, it was a hit film, by any standard, just nowhere near what they anticipated.  People definitely stayed away.  As for Oscars, they aren't an indication of anything real.  The real issue with MY FAIR LADY is not its cast, but its direction, which, despite what the Academy says, is abysmal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the public did sort of stay away.  MY FAIR LADY was a phenomenon on stage, and its cast album was the biggest selling album (any genre) of all-time, at the time the film was made.  Jack Warner predicted that his film would be the biggest movie of all-time, and considering the success of the stage show and the cast album, it should have been.  It wasn't even the biggest film of the year, and its cost was high, so its box-office net wasn't all that tremendous.  Yes, it was a hit film, by any standard, just nowhere near what they anticipated.  People definitely stayed away.  As for Oscars, they aren't an indication of anything real.  The real issue with MY FAIR LADY is not its cast, but its direction, which, despite what the Academy says, is abysmal.

George Cukor was no Vincente Minnelli. Basically all he did was nail the camera to the floor, and have the actors move in front of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought My Fair Lady a dismal bore. As stated, the camera seems to be nailed to the floor. The only scene with any life in it is the Ascot race scene....

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cukors' win as "Best Director" for "My Fair Lady" I always think of as the one he won for all the previous nominations he had received & lost (5 or 6)--& to be fair--he did get an Oscar-winning performance out of Rex Harrison & quite the performance from Audrey Hepburn--especially as the non-singing Cockney Eliza, in the start of the film.  And the cameraman has to bear Some responsibility (even if only 10%) for the static feel of MFL.  As for Julie Andrews owning the role of Eliza--anyone who has even heard the original cast recording will agree that vocally, she owned it (I certainly do)--but she Did get the consolation prize (quite a prize) of the  Best Actress Oscar for Mary Poppins (1964).

  • Like 1

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  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...