After Eight, you may be unqualified in your love of MAME, but not everyone is. Look no further than the fact it lost the tony for best musical to, of all things, MAN OF LA MANCHA. A show which depends even more keenly to work on having a great star, meaning a star who is magically cast, not a household name, a show which like MAME gave Broadway one of its most legendary star turns from a great performer who was not a superstar.
My point is that somewhere between the notion that the show would need a superstar to work and the show is so solid it doesn't need a superb choice for its leading lady, is the truth.
The show is not such a draw that it is casting-proof. Nor is it a show that couldn't thrive in large part due to the quality of its casting (assuming good direction, design, etc.) rather than the name-recognition and megapopularity of its star.
If it's good, people will want to see it. And for it to be good requires a Mame who is a fabulous actress, a deft comedienne, a woman who knows how to sell a song, with an engaging warmth, and a sense of madness mixed with an eccentric and imperfect maternal quality. As good as Lady Gaga - whom Lansbury has proposed - might be in the role, the woman who takes Mame on need not be that kind of automatic draw for the show to succeed.
In other words, if Mame premiered today with someone as perfect for the role and with the same degree of box office power as Lansbury had then, it would be a success. The same goes for a revival.
Updated On: 12/30/12 at 11:19 AM