Arthur Laurents puts Rob Marshall in his place- Page 3

[BDrischBDemented]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:27am

I thought I read that somewhere.

That or like, I dreamed it after passing out from drinking while listening to "Judy at Carnegie Hall". Either seems equally likely.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:37am

One of my favorite YouTubes, posted there by someone who used to post here too:

Rose's Turn, with Roz Russell dubbed with Ethel Merman's voice.

The closest you'll ever get to seeing and hearing Merman do the number.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GKzjmuSYXk

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 8:48am

Judy Garland campaigned heavily for the part of Rose in the film version of Gypsy. She even suggested Liza to play Louise with her. The problem was that, with her substance abuse widely known in Hollywood by that point, no insurance company would insure Garland for the film, therefore no movie studio would hire her---an "uninsured" star.

Her film career was finished as a result, and she never made another movie after that.

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 08:48 AM

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 9:14am

There were talks of Idina as Mama Rose at one point. However, I am glad this was passed by.

Elaine Paige would be an awesome Mama Rose IMO, only wished that production materialised in the West-End.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:06am

I certainly don't position myself as any sort of know-it-all about the glorious art of cinema or an autodidact on the minutia of all things Oz-related, but it seems to me "I Could Go On Singing" and "A Child is Waiting" came the year after "Gypsy" was released.

But what do I know? I could be completely wrong. Maybe a different Judy Garland was in those or perhaps they had been on the shelf for a decade or more before they were released. I dunno, I have no idea.

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 11:06 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:21am

Wrong, Namo. They were both filmed earlier (outside of Hollywood) and released in 1963. Gypsy was a big studio film in 1962, and when Warner Bros. couldn't insure Garland for the production, that, as they say, was the end of that.

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 11:21 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:23am

I knew there had to be a reason.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:26am

There was one attempt to "bring her back," with Valley of the Dolls in 1967. Sadly, it didn't work out. She dropped out in pre-production.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:32am

Watch Judy doing the hospital scene from I Could Go On Singing and imagine the force her Rose's Turn would have had:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GirOMCxZSm4

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:32am

And to be honest, I think Warners used the insurance issue as an "out" with her. That's just my opinion.

They were fine with Roz Russell all along, and I believe she had a deal that attached her to the project from the start, buying the film rights. They could have "bought her out" of that deal (via her husband), if they had really wanted Garland. But if you add in the lack of insurance on a movie of that size, that's definitely a deal-breaker.

Unfortunately, when Garland was determined "uninsurable" in Hollywood, and the word got out, her days in big movies were over.

Sure, she could have done more Indy European films, I guess. But she didn't.

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 11:32 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:35am

PJ, I think she would have been terrific as Rose. And I do think Warner Bros. seriously considered her for the part. But there were too many legal hurdles (buying out Roz Russell and finding insurance for Judy).

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 11:35 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:35am

Or the dressing room scene from A Star Is Born:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ArgJOJlVpQ

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:38am

Garland as Mamma Rose would have been one of the most glorious things ever.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:44am

And if you're wondering about my source on this stuf, it's been written about in books on Garland and movie musicals. But you can also throw in my own grandfather, who was VP of Warner Bros., Jack Warner's righthand man for production, and a friend of Judy Garland and Sid Luft's. Judy's relationship with Warner Bros. was "volatile" ever since A Star Is Born was released and then butchered. That whole debacle damaged my grandfather's relationship with Jack Warner, as well. And Harry Warner and Jack pretty much never spoke after that.

So there's a controversial "back story" leading up to Judy being considered for Rose in Gypsy.

... as good as she would have been in the part.

[bk]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:15pm

I don't believe A Child Is Waiting was shot elsewhere - it was made in the US, directed by John Cassavetes, produced by Stanley Kramer, released by United Artists - and shot at a care center in Pomona. While some consider Pomona a foreign land, it is, in fact, in California.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:24pm

I believe he meant outside of Hollywood as in outside the studio system. A Child Is Waiting is an independent production, not financed by a major studio.

[bk]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:37pm

While it was a low-budget film, United Artists financed it and was, at the time, a pretty major player in Hollywood, with many award-winning films. But maybe I misread the post - it seemed like it was saying she only worked outside the US.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:43pm

I would consider most UA films outside of the Hollywood studio system. It's sort of what they prided themselves on. And I think that UA only distributed the film anyways, not financed. But I could be wrong on that.

[jv92]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:45pm

Judy as Rose? That would have been perfection. How about Judy as Sally Plummer? Or am I going a little too crazy?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:51pm

If Judy had lived and the movie could have been made with in a few years of Follies opening, she'd have been Carlotta, no question.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:53pm

Marshall would have cut "I'm Still Here".

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 12:53 PM

[bk]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:53pm

UA did finance it, just as they financed all Stanley Kramer's productions of that era, and all Billy Wilder's and many others as well. While they were not a Hollywood "studio" (no real estate), they most certainly were a major force in Hollywood at the time, working with every major star, writer, and director.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:53pm

bk---A Child is Waiting was a high-profile indy (United Artists released) film, shot here in the U.S., prior to the production of Gypsy. It was released after Gypsy in 1963, after many battles, including the firing of the film's director, John Cassavetes, in post-production.

My comment was that post-Gypsy, and post-"uninsurable" status, Garland could have made more Indy European films, but she didn't. I was referring to her final film, "I Could Go On Singing," which was a UK production. (Also shot prior to Gyspy.)

Sorry for the confusion. And it was just speculation that an Indy European production company could have managed to scrounge up insurance for her on a low-budget, non-US film.

Updated On: 12/13/09 at 12:53 PM

[bk]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:56pm

No problem - I've just been doing a lot of research on this particular film, as I was going to put out its soundtrack. :)

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 12:59pm

Oh, very cool!

Kramer and Cassavetes fought a lot over the final edit, and Cassavetes was fired because of it. I wouldn't be surprised if you came across alternate scoring, deleted scenes, etc. If such material still exists.

That would be fascinating.