I just saw this link appear, and it's amazing. He would be a phenomenal Stanley, and maybe he'll get some award recognition for once!:)
Signed,
a very happy reilly-aholic in Michigan:)
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/89609.html
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/2/03
While I think he's very talented, I would have thought him more a Mitch.
Stand-by Joined: 11/14/04
He's a wonderful actor...but I agree with the other person that I see him more as a Mitch. I mean...he lacks the sex appeal that Stanley, in my opinion, needs.
I enjoy John C. and I was also thinking he'd be better suited for Mitch...we shall see. I'm really looking forward to this though!
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/14/04
I think he's going to do a great job because he is a terrific actor. He does lack a bit of sex appeal, but I hear a gym membership and a protien diet does wonders for the body. What I mean by that is, he seems to be a very determined actor and lost a lot of weight for Chicago so who knows what can happen.
Stand-by Joined: 11/14/04
It's not really his body or weight that lacks the sex appeal...he's just got such a sweet face, you know? You want to really hug him, or at least I do. And like...when Marlon Brando was Stanley...hugging was the last thing on most people's minds.
WHoaaaa, STANLEY?!?!
NOOOOOOO.
Mitch, hell yes.
But noooooooot Stanley...
This is a huge miscast.
-d.b.j-
I viewed him more as a Mitch as well. But I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
Stanley MUST have appealing looks and a great torso. John C. Reilly doesn't seem to have either. He may be a gifted actor but Stanely he's NOT.
TSMrW for Stanley Kowalski!!!!!!!!!
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
I like it. Remember the original national tour starred Anthony Quinn as Stanley and he got rave reviews all across the country -- hardly a sex symbol, even in those days, he played up the raw, brutish, animalistic qualities of the role and apparently was brilliant. Contrary to popular belief, there are other effective ways to play Stanley than to just get up and do a Marlon Brando impression. The contrast between Reilly and Richardson should be quite powerful and electric.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
Williams' stage directions indicate that Stanely should be in his early 30's. Reilly seems to be substantially older. Richardson can at least PASS for a woman in her 30's on stage.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
Reilly's 39. Richardson's 41 (and Neeson, who you mentioned, 52). It'll be fine.
While seeing him more as a MItch, I think he can be Stanley...from Blanche's own words I've always thought it less important for Stanley to be handsome and more important for him to be a caveman brute...
that said, Marlon Brando is one of the sexiest men ever and no one could ever equal him as Stan
You know, maybe this is the moment Reilly has waited for, and he'll tone up, lose a few pounds, and somewhat reinvent himself. He's certainly butch enough for Stanley. And appealing in his own way (I bought him as the husband of Jennifer Anniston in THE GOOD GIRL.) I remember him in THE PERFECT STORM as a very youthful, macho fisherman, and appealing. I bet he does work out for this -- hey, it's the spring -- and knows this is the leading man opportunity he's waited for. I'm coming around to Margo's POV. We've already seen Baldwin, and I think too many of the other folks are lightweights, acting-wise.
When I read the thread name, for a split second I thought they were actually doing a musical version of "A Streetcar Named Desire", a la the Simpsons' "Oh, Streetcar!"
I have Simpsons on the mind.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/23/04
Im so excited for this. I think John C. Reilly is one of the most underestimated actors around. I dont doubt for one minute that he will find some new and interesting way to play this part.
I agree with those who feel that Reilly is much more suited to the role of Mitch. In fact, he's the perfect Mitch. If had been cast as Mitch, he would probably win a friggin Tony for it. But Stanley Kowalski? What, is this the new version of "Streetcar" where Stanley ISN'T supposed to be sexy? (no offense, John.)
John C. Reilly is the man, and I'm sure he can act it, but he's just not right.
I thought he was doing the musical version of "Marty"
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/4/04
I think Reilly is great. This casting does seem a bit odd, but who knows? Maybe he'll surprise us all.
As I said almost a year ago, when the revival was first announced: John C. Reilly would have been a perfect... Mitch! He's a brilliant actor, but he's not right for Stanley. At all.
I read this and threw up in my mouth a little....
He is NOT Stanley....When I read this it seemed like one of those Broadway.com April Fools posts....I just really hope he turns it down or they get smart and cast him as Mitch and cast Marc Kudisch as Stanley....wait...I need to go grab an electrical appliance and think about that more
I've known about this for a while. At first, yes, I thought about the Mitch thing. But after thinking about it a while, I think it has the potential of being the performance of the season. Just cause Marlon Brando played something doesn't mean that's the only viable interpretation of the role.
Nowhere in the text does it say that Stanley is 'sexy.' He's an animal. He's everything that Blanche is not. He doesn't make love to her in the end, he rapes her. O'Reilly's a smart actor, varied actor (anybody remember a little play called TRUE WEST???). I agree with the studied and articulate members of the board who are excited to see what this remarkable actor has in store.
With Streetcar being a limited run, Reilly has plenty of time to get back to "Marty" when/if that gets here...
he's gonna knock it out of the park. remember, darlings, it's called acting.
but more importantly, margo are you impugning the sex appeal of tony quinn, father of hundreds?
Yes he is. And rightly so. Ha!
Videos