| Elizabeth Taylor? | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 04:56 pm EDT 06/29/17 | |
| In reply to: HELLO, DOLLY! Film - If not Streisand, Then Who? - JereNYC 01:23 pm EDT 06/29/17 | |
|
|
|
| She was still box office and had just won the 1966 Best Actress Oscar for Virginia Woolf. She was only 35 (circa 1967 when the film Dolly was being put tohether), but had already stopped playing ingenues and started taking on character roles like Martha. She also--unlike Streisand--seemed older because she'd been around in movies for so long already. She might have been very good. The role isn't a terribly difficult sing, and if it proved too much for Taylor there was always dubbing. Of course, there were plenty of other ladies then available, and of the right age, who might have done it brilliantly, from Betty Garrett to Janis Paige, but none of them were considered bankable by the late '60s. With the possible exception of Katharine Hepburn--all wrong for Dolly for obvious reasons--there were NO bankable female stars over 35 in Hollywood by the late '60s. So it was virtually inevitable that if they went with "bankable" they were going to get someone who was either too young or WAY too young. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Maureen O'Hara nm - BroadwayTonyJ 05:44 pm EDT 06/29/17 |
| Next: | re: Elizabeth Taylor? - AnObserver 09:57 pm EDT 06/29/17 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.055743 seconds.