ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Kad said: "I've never had the opportunity to see a production of Mame- it's so seldom produced. Has anybody here seen a very good production that was not the original staging? The impression I've had is that the original was lighting in a bottle and that has never really been duplicated. This honestly seems like an ideal Encores show."
Whatever it is that Gene Saks, Angela Lansbury, and Frankie Michaels brought to the original does not seem to carry over, even in recreations of the original staging/design that I have seen.
Frank Rich enjoyed some aspects of the 1983 revival, but even then felt the book structure didn't work, the text was dated,found the recreated direction "mechanical", and disliked some of the performances:"The more energy that's expended, the more we notice the seams: ''Mame'' is long and repetitively constructed. With maybe two exceptions, Mr. Herman's songs annotate Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee's book rather than propel it forward: The Peter Panlike story of Mame's 20-year tutelage of Patrick, already densely plotted, is in effect told twice. The bitchy aphorisms of the dialogue seem unsophisticated now, and so do some of the numbers."
As others have cited, I've always heard brilliant things about Juliet Prowse as Mame, and going by some of the YouTube videos that are available she brought a sexier take to the role than Angela and some of the dames who followed her."
The book works fine. Don't know why you keep pushing this. Again, the movie still works for a lot of people, and Mame is very close to the script for Auntie Mame (large passages of dialogue are identical) with the exception of Nora and Gooch being morphed into one character.
Now Bette is about as wrong for this material as it is possible to be, but she's a star, it's a star vehicle, and the revival would likely do great business.
Updated On: 8/1/24 at 09:43 AM