Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:36 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - bobby2 04:49 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| Mary Tyler Moore is about as wrong for the role as anyone I can imagine. Well, Alfred Drake might have been more unlikely. Moore might have been a terrific Phyllis in Follies, a good Fay Apple, and perhaps a very interesting Joanne in Company. If she had been the right age, she might have been a good Baker's Wife. But after Breakfast at Tiffany's, she seemed to have no interest at all in ever doing a stage musical again, and Mrs. Lovett seems about the most unlikely choice imaginable for her imaginary return. Bea Arthur also seems very wrong for the role, and the vocal adjustments that would have been needed for her would have been drastic, more or less the same as would have been needed for, say, Carol Channing, who actually seems to me more right for the role (and who, lest we forget, toured with creditbility in both Pygmalion and The Millionairess before her performance persona became so limited). Really, it would be hard to believe that Bea Arthur would not have jumped in to cut the Judge's throat for Sweeney. Can't imagine the sight of some blood making her "come all over gooseflesh," can you? I'm being silly, of course, she was an actress, but still there was a reason that Erwin Piscator cast her as Medea when she was in her early 20s. Julie Andrews showed no interest in returning to Broadway. I think the only reason she finally did Victor/Victoria was to make Blake Edwards happy. Yes, there was Putting It Together before that, but it was a limited run, I seem to recall she did that in part as preparation for Victor/Victoria (even though it ended up not happening for another two-and-a-half years). I also suspect that at age 44, she might not have wanted to play a Dickensian grotesque, which was very much the way the role was perceived at the time because that was how Lansbury played it. And would she have been willing to be a replacement and to follow another star who had gotten such great reviews? I think, as garyd said, that the chances would have been close to nil, except I'd get rid of the "close to." |
|
| reply to this message |
| Sorry for the typos! | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:35 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 12:36 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
|
|
|
| Creditbility would be a pretty good word. | |
| reply to this message |
Time to render: 0.007187 seconds.