Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? | |
| Posted by: shaggyhair 11:33 am EDT 06/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? - BroadwayTonyJ 11:10 am EDT 06/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| Was Reilly ever considered by Gene Kelly to play Cornelius in the film version of Dolly? Danny Lockin, who played Barnaby, came from having stage experience with the show and Michael Crawford, who got the part, was a relative unknown outside of England in the late 60s. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 12:16 pm EDT 06/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? - shaggyhair 11:33 am EDT 06/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| Reilly would have been 38 in '69, too old to be the juvenile lead in the Dolly film. Crawford had already played the juvenile lead in the Funny Thing/Forum film in '66. That said, Gene Kelly was the wrong person to direct Dolly. In a perfect world, I wish someone like Stanley Donen had been allowed to do it. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 12:06 pm EDT 06/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? - shaggyhair 11:33 am EDT 06/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| I think that when Reilly and Eileen Brennan were cast as Cornelius and Irene Molloy in the original Broadway cast, they were cast as more over-than-top to match up more with Carol Channing's big, outlandish style in her starring role. Brennan at that point had recently done the title role in the musical spoof "Little Mary Sunshine" off-Broadway, so she wasn't quite a typical ingenue, nor was Reilly a typical juvenile. Then again, Gene Kelly either directed, encouraged or allowed Michael Crawford to be over the top in his own way, which really contrasted to the more grounded and delightful performance of Danny Lockin as Barnaby. Reilly sounds relatively subtle on the OCR compared to Crawford in the film. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 03:24 pm EDT 06/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? - PlayWiz 12:06 pm EDT 06/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| The casting of eccentric, character types as Cornelius and Irene in HELLO, DOLLY! is a template that I really wish had been followed more in latter years. It seems that those roles are now usually cast (including in the recent revival) with traditionally handsome/pretty leading man/lady types. And that is fine. My admiration for Gavin Creel and Kate Baldwin is second to none. But they can play any number of musical theatre leading roles and are certainly much more castable, in general, than an actor in the Reilly or Brennan mode might be today, so why not cast a wider net when casting these roles? I'd love to see what different energy a younger Brooks Ashmankas might have brought to Cornelius, for example. I believe that I learned in a discussion thread here that the casting of even the original production of HELLO, DOLLY! went more in the traditional direction once Reilly and Brennan left the show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 12:19 pm EDT 06/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Why didn't they use Charles Nelson Reilly as Frump? - PlayWiz 12:06 pm EDT 06/27/19 | |
|
|
|
| Danny Lockin's performance is the only one in the film that I can tolerate. He was actually believable (as opposed to everyone else in the movie). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.015954 seconds.