Lucille Ball talks about Mame

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:38am

I know that things got pretty sad for Lucy towards the end of her career. Pity Mame wasn't success. She clearly wanted it to be good.

I feel a little sorry for her now.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jo_jb5kcne0

Updated On: 1/30/08 at 12:38 AM

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 1:14am

I've never seen it. Was it a bad adaptation?

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 1:29am

Notoriously bad. On most top 10 list of worst stage to screen musical adaptations.

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardid=1&boardname=off&thread=876969#1628155

[jeniferrenepatricia]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 5:09am

I know that I am in the minority on this one after reading the previous threads, but I can't help but love "Mame." I was too young to see Lansbury do it on stage- the Lucy version is the only one that I was exposed to as a child, so I loved it. I agree that Lucy was too old, couldn't sing, and was too "over the top" in some scenes. I just can't help but still love the movie and it does have some strong points- like Bea Arthur and Jane Connell. I think that back then if you were a big name, they would let you do anything....even if you weren't right for the part. I still love Lucy.....

[Urban]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 5:43am

To be fair, her comic timing was good and I cannot blame her for the sub-par dancing, because any good director could've easily set up everybody to dance around her.

But her singing voice... imagine Foghorn Leghorn singing and you are halfway there. Age, cigerettes and a whole lot of spirits where not kind.

[jeniferrenepatricia]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 5:49am

I agree about her singing voice, but there were many actors/actresses that took on singing roles in the movies that were just as bad as Lucy.

[bschneid76]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 7:02am

Ah the film version of Mame, these threads seem to make an appearance ever 3-4 months. SO obviously people are interested in the film or have seen it. I enjoyed it. Though I was in a production of Mame, so it had some sentimental value to it, but I didn't mind Lucy's Mame, though Act II is a bit better than Act I, but with so many great talents involved with Bea, Robert Preston, and Jane Connell, it makes for a wonderful viewing. In my opinion. And it is fairly faithful to the book and at least most of the songs are still in tact, plus Robert Preston's new number "Loving You" which was wonderful! At least the film is certainly watchable, compared to other misfires of that decade and beyond. Plus, I do love the "Mame" number.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 8:28am

The movie is dreadful and Lucy is so mis cast.
I realize the movie wouldn't have been made without her, but if thats the case, then the movie shouldn't have been made.
Considering how many movies she had done before, there was no excuse not to have Angela recreate her role.

[nmartin]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 8:38am

I would rather watch the movie version of Mame than the movie version of Hello, Dolly, although both are bad.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 9:19am

Oh, my God... "Hello, Dolly!" is "West Side Story" compared to the film of "Mame."

I have never been able to get through the whole thing. I always have to heavily medicate about halfway through it, and then turn it off shortly after that. It's right down there with "Plan 9 From Outer Space."

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 9:24am

Completely agree with B12B. I guess I find the movie versions of Mame and A Chorus Line so awful because the source is so good. One could argue that A Chorus Line would be difficult to translate effectively to screen, but Mame should have been a great transfer.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 9:27am

MAME came to the screen a good 10 years too late. It was the mid-seventies, Hollywoods second Golden Age...grit was in, not dated fifties satire.

The fact the movie sucked didn't help matters.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 9:29am

Yes, sucky satire doesn't work in any era.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 9:38am

First of all, the movie had to live up to the wonderful Roz Russell version. So it had to have a huge star to compete.

The story has it that Lucy broke her leg while skiing so that may have affected her dancing ability. She was known for physical comedy, so it's not like she couldn't make her body do the dancing.

But the fact remains that Lucy was never a good singer. She could do comedy numbers, but she never under any circumstance in her entire career could pull off a ballad like "If He Walked Into My Life". She should have swallowed her pride and allowed her music to be dubbed or sweetened.

She should have realized that her Broadway musical career (Wildcat - 12 years before) was not that successful and just admitted to the fact that she's really not a musical comedy star.

Additionally, what makes the movie so bad is the tricks they used to film her. That movie has more soft focus moments than any filmed dream sequence.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 9:42am

TOTAL EDIT--Storaro didn't shoot MAME.

Updated On: 1/30/08 at 09:42 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 9:46am

Lucille Ball was shooting it.

Updated On: 1/30/08 at 09:46 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 10:53am

oh, its endearing to see Lucy so earnestly hoping MAME is gonna do well.
one gets the feeling that she knows its a stinker (& i say that as someone who loves certain scenes of it...one @ a time...in small doses).

...but when Merv tells her that her singing is "sexy"...WHOA.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 10:57am

He likes Ernie Borgnine's singing too, then, I'm assuming. And Larry King's.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 11:03am

What exactly is people's problem with the HELLO, DOLLY! movie aside from the fact that Carol Channing wasn't in it and Barbra Streisand was several decades too young (yet sang the score beautifully)?

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 11:20am

"What exactly is people's problem with the HELLO, DOLLY! movie aside from the fact that Carol Channing wasn't in it and Barbra Streisand was several decades too young (yet sang the score beautifully)?"

Michael Crawford - he is so awful in this movie.

But even if it wasn't Carol Channing, there were a lot more appropriate people to cast. She's not bad, she's just wrong.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 11:50am

Aside from the cast, it's a beautifully made movie, no?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 11:51am

Foster likes a movie?

[nmartin]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 11:52am

I was just about to post how bad Michael Crawford is in that movie. Tommy Tune is pretty bad as well. Streisand is wrong. The movie itself is long and dull. Only memorable performance: Louis Armstrong in a cameo.

[mateo]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 11:53am

I adore AUNTIE MAME. I've never seen this MAME.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:57pm

What strikes me about the interview - besides Griffin coming off as Ms. Sycophant 1974 - is how earnest Ball is about the final product.

Just reminds me that artists don't set out to do bad work. Especially those who give 110% like Lucy did. That kind of failure must be tough.

...

as for the Hello Dolly movie...

To me is it:

Over Over and OVER produced
Long
Miscast
Not funny
Charmless
Joyless

But like Mame, it is not a success from "lack of trying." Just bad choice after bad choice.