Kate Winslet question

Been reading this board for years and years. Love the knowledge and dedication of everyone posting.  

After just rewatching Mildred Pierce on HBO I was thinking what an amazing job Kate Winslet would do playing Rose in Gypsy on the screen?

She is an amazing actress, the right age and can sing.  Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

She doesn't have a belt... Rose isn't written for a sweet, thin voice.

I would be open to the idea of dubbing - I don't know if audiences & especially critics would be - but surely it's better than a lousy singing performance, or an average singing & acting performance (it seems really hard to get both in a film star!). In hindsight, I think the Sweeney Todd film might have been much stronger had Bernadette dubbed Mrs Lovett's vocals, for example. 

In reality, they are usually dubbing anyway - even if it's to their own vocal track. And 'their' vocal track has probably had a lot of studio help anyway. I still am very skeptical that if you asked Meryl Streep to sing 'Last Midnight' live she would actually sound anywhere near as good as what is on film. 

^Yes who can forget her poor showing at the Oscars.  But John Travolta had some influence there!

Jordan Catalano said: "Oh ok. Glad that debate is permanently settled. "

I don’t understand the need for a sarcastic response. I’m not looking for any argument, I’m just saying I think there’s a clear difference.

Viola’s dubbing amounted to about three minutes of singing, with almost all of the role’s screentime being devoted to dialogue scenes. The singing is really pretty superfluous, it’s just there to remind people of who Ma Rainey was. The meat of that role is not the singing.

Rose is different. The whole point of musicals lies in singing, and while a minor character being dubbed is fine, the lead who engages in song so often being played by someone who doesn’t actually sing feels like the audience is being cheated of such a major part of the role, being the actresses’ interpretation of these many different numbers.

There’s plenty of fantastic actresses who are also incredible singers. Why should Rose be played by someone who can only do one when both parts are just as important for this role?

"There’s plenty of fantastic actresses who are also incredible singers. Why should Rose be played by someone who can only do one when both parts are just as important for this role?"

But are there though? This is the key issue - getting someone who is well known enough, who can act & sing enough for this role seems pretty tough. Maybe Ryan Murphy can do a TV movie with Patti?