Kate Winslet question

[cinemarco2]

Posted: 12/29/20 at 11:32am

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.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/29/20 at 12:39pm

I think she’s a brilliant choice, actually.

[aliceripleyofficial]

Posted: 12/29/20 at 12:50pm

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

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/29/20 at 2:04pm

Yes but that’s why we need to bring dubbing back for movie musicals (like is being praised for in “Ma Rainey”).

[NameGreg]

Posted: 12/29/20 at 4:41pm

Dubbing works for something like Ma Rainey, but it shouldn’t be used for actual musicals, especially for a lead role with so many solos.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/29/20 at 4:47pm

Oh ok. Glad that debate is permanently settled.

[binau]

Posted: 12/30/20 at 4:12am

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. 

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 12/30/20 at 8:49am

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.

Of course, not.  Heck, even Idina Menzel has shown even SHE can’t sing “Let it Go” flawlessly every time.  She’s sung it without issues about a handful of times. 
 

 

 

 

 

Updated On: 12/30/20 at 08:49 AM

[Tag]

Posted: 12/30/20 at 9:52am

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

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 12/30/20 at 12:26pm

I’m all for bringing dubbing back if it was enhance a performance. Greatest Showman is an excellent example where acting and dubbing are executed flawlessly.

If you’re going to get a huge star that can bring in the money at the box office, for example Kate Winslet, then have them dubbed by a real singer who will also get a decent pay check and all the royalties from the soundtrack.

Updated On: 12/30/20 at 12:26 PM

[NameGreg]

Posted: 12/30/20 at 5:49pm

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?

[Owen22]

Posted: 12/31/20 at 5:16am

NameGreg said: "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 threeminutes ofsinging, 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?"

I completely agree! Part of a musical theater performance isn't just the expression on a person's face when they sing. There are actual acting choices within the singing voice,  whether it be tone, inflection, or any number of dynamics. Dubbing robs an actor and his or her audience of a total performance.

 

[binau]

Posted: 12/31/20 at 5:55am

"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?