Niles Silvers said: "It's interesting that the first thing people come up with in relation to female leads is age."
I think for many of us in this thread, we try to be cognizant of the ageism and sexism regarding actresses and age, but this thread is also dealing with a incredibly beloved character of musical theatre so they'll have strong opinions about whoever is cast. If not age, it'd be something else. But with Streisand, age was a factor. Rose needs to be played by an actress who looks like she could have two young children at the age of...well you know whatever age Baby June and young Louise are as they don't even know and two adult-age children. I think that's why people are harping on the age factor. I think 40 to around 50 (more-or-less) is probably the perfect age and I think 60 is probably acceptable depending. Plus, I think Rose needs to be young enough to really think she still has a shot at the big time and is just coming to terms with "aging out" to not make her completely delusional.
Nowadays with more 70+ actresses being visible and working, it can happen and thank God for it, but we're talking the time of dying vaudeville. Unfortunately, on screen rather than stage, aging out does happen sooner than it does on stage (though the suspension of disbelief is much bigger in theatre as usually untraditional casting may be the point of that particular production of a classic show). However, it seems this film adaptation is more of a straight-forward telling of this story. For film, audiences make a bigger deal about being about to realistically believe the actor they are seeing on screen is what the character is supposed to be. I also have an issue with young actresses who seem way too young and read that way playing older characters with more life experience but Hollywood still casts inappropriately young women in roles that should probably be played by older actresses because women's values still being tied to their age and all.
Some times though, someone is so good in the role that directors are willing to take a chance despite an actor maybe being about 10 years too old for the role like what happened where it took like more than ten years for Spielberg to do Lincoln. Spielberg originally imagined Liam Neeson to be Lincoln and Sally Field for Mary Todd, but by the time he was ready to film it more than ten years had passed and he thought he needed younger actors (Daniel Day Lewis instead of Liam Neeson). At first Field resigned herself that she lost the role, but then decided to fight for it despite the hurdles in front of her and convincing Spielberg she could play opposite a younger DDL. DDL heard she was fighting for the role and was trying to convince Spielberg to cast her that he actually offered to fly in to do a screen test with her to help her get the role and Spielberg ended realizing she was too perfect for the role to not cast.
So yes, maybe we can have a 70+ Rose, but for many of us, it's understandable that we'll need some convincing. My issue with Barbra is that I think she does read too old for the role and I fear I'd only see Barbra in the role and not Rose. She's just so distinct and Barbra-ish now it's hard for me to envision her in-character outside of her Barbra the superstar persona.
QueenAlice said: "Owen, I know people like to point to history when they mention that historically Rose was a young woman. But this really isn’t a history play- it’s a musical fable that was specifically tailored for the musical and dramatic gifts of Ethel Merman. Merman was in her early 50s when the play premiered and I personally think it works best when the part is played by someone in the shade of that age. I think, especially for film, in this day and age it might be difficult for audiences to feel for Rose’s central issue- “if I could have been, I would have been” if Rose were cast with what we consider today to be a relatively young actress. But it’s ceetainly not outside of the realm of possibility. I mean if Barbra could play Dolly at 27..."
I'm not sure what the point of doing another movie version of this story if it sticks to the original book and stage story. I'm not saying it should include the two people Rose Hovick supposedly murdered in cold blood, but painting the story in more psychological and sociopathic terms of the character, without worrying too much about Rose's likability (she is always referred to as "a monster" anyway) would make a much more interesting take on the story. I would love to see Anne Hathaway (right there, letting everyone know this ain't your daddy's Gypsy) pacing the old time Seattle streets pulling two toddlers in toe, using her wiles to get what she wants. Or Gaga even. Look, I'm sure this is Speilberg's reasonings for remaking West Side Story. Like Gypsy, they were both amazing musical dramas of their day that time has neutered. And with Gypsy you have a true, well researchedm, somewhat nasty story to tell. Still told through the slightly askew rose colored Palladino-Sherman musical lens, but sticking more to what really happened. That, at least to me, would be exciting.
About 70%[made that up] of audiences would go 'Oh look, BS is in a musical called Gypsy, love her, never heard of this one but let's go see it', and they would accept whatever was up there on the screen.
Can Felicity Huffman sing? She might be able to do it.
In our millions, in our billions, we are most powerful when we stand together. TW4C unwaveringly joins the worldwide masses, for we know our liberation is inseparably bound.
Signed,
Theater Workers for a Ceasefire
https://theaterworkersforaceasefire.com/statement
I remember when Forbidden Broadway joked about Sutton Foster playing Mama Rose on their Patti Lupone in Gypsy track. ASP really does love Sutton Foster, so maybe this will happen unless the studio steps in and is like "who?" and vetoes that casting.
While we're tossing out actresses that are phenomenal actors, but not really singers, I'd like to add OLIVIA COLMAN to the mix. I'm actually someone that doesn't think Mama Rose needs to be particularly well sung. It does need to be extremely well acted, though. Dub her for all I care or just sweeten up her voice in post.
darreyl102 said: "And isn't the full title of the show 'Gypsy: A Musical fable'? And with Fable' in the title, some stretches of Reality can be possible. Lol"
True--and if you are your avatar and about to sink that banana, I'll believe and follow you anywhere !
I think the casting also depends on what scale this movie is going to be done on. If it’s more of an indie sized movie, I think they could easily get away with someone like Toni Collette or even Sutton.