The Harvey Girls.

[JulianHookbucks]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 10:25pm

Has anyone ever seen this movie? It's been on TCM twice in the last month, and I've fallen in love with it. How well do you think it would fair on stage?

Posted: 5/20/06 at 12:22am

Of course I've seen it. I don't think it would fare any better than most musical films that have transferred to the stage. Nothing against the film but....

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 12:27am

I've owned and loved this film for years, and often wondered why it was never transferred to the stage.

[Glebb]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 9:09am

It's an amazing film.

Posted: 5/20/06 at 9:15am

Considering the overuse of the word "amazing" on this board, does the word really mean anything anymore, if it ever did?

[Glebb]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 9:17am

That's an amazing wink you've got Tom. :)

[JulianHookbucks]

Posted: 5/21/06 at 10:23am

Only a few questions about it.

Does the ending seem a bit too abrupt? Like... it butns down, and suddenly she wants to become a saloon girl... like the characters internal things aren't really shown to the audience enough? 've come to understand pretty much everything in the story I think... but that's only because I've seen in like 17 times now in the past month..

I think with extensive work it could be transferred.

Was this movie popular in it's day? I mean I know "Atchison Topeka" was a really famous musical number... but was this a prize of MGM? Or kind of just another Judy Musical?

Was Angela Lansbury really 19 when she made the film?

[Glebb]

Posted: 5/21/06 at 10:52am

I think that popular song got Oscar and I'm pretty sure there was no such thing as 'just another Judy musical'. People lined up to see them and I am amazed every time I watch them. Judy's work was, is miraculous.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:17pm

"The Harvey Girls" was a huge hit when it was released, largely due to Judy Garland's popularity. But the film itself is very choppy, especially during its final "act" because it was running way too long. Lots of sub-plots were eliminated, as were a couple of musical numbers.

I always thought John Hodiak was a little too slimy for our Judy.

[Sister Rose]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 3:03pm

The Harvey Girls is a great movie musical and I love it because Angela and Judy are in it. According to Martin Gottfried's authorized biography of Angela titled "Balancing Act"Angela was twenty and had already been nominated for two Oscars for "Gaslight" and "The Picture of Dorian Gray", but she was under MGM contract and you didn't get your choice of movies that you made back then....however, she considered this role to have "the greatest impact" on her career. She thought it established her versatility and she was promoted as "Legs Lansbury". She looks glamorous and gorgeous in it. She towers over little Judy who was several years older than her. She said that people thought she was really a bitch to poor little Judy. Unfortunately, her singing is dubbed because the studio didn't consider her voice up to par. Had they only known what was to come!

I highly recommend this biography if you're interested in the history of theatre - Angela talks a lot about Sondheim and Jerry Herman - and of course, Angela is one of the all time greats.

[Flahooley]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 7:58pm

I agree with philcrosby. The script is very choppy and John Hodiak needs a bath.

I think THE HARVEY GIRLS would make an ideal source to stage adapation because it isn't perfect. There is alot of room for imporvement and a competant stage adaptation could fix it.

MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS is pretty much perfect on film and every stage adaptation only reminds the audience of that. Same goes with SINING IN THE RAIN.

But HARVEY GIRLS has a lot of good stuff in it and has potential for improvement.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 10:42pm

Adapting hit film musicals to the stage opens up a can of worms. They want to keep the songs that made the movie popular but most film musicals have 8 songs or so. A stage musical needs more. So they interpolate other songs by the same authors either old (42ND STREET) or new (MEET ME IN ST LOUIS) or have new writers create new material (MILLIE, VICTOR/VICTORIA) and neither approach is satisfactory.

A bigger problem is most film musicals run 90-105 minutes. A 2-act stage musical needs to run about 135-150 minutes.

There was talk of a stage adaptation of Judy's A STAR IS BORN some years becak. Never happened. Mainly because none of the songs in ASIB is organic to the plot. But that one has enough story to sustain a 2 1/2 hour show.

[vjRichie]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 10:55pm

the movie followed in the footsteps of the successful Oklahoma stage musical - according to TCM host R Osborne... MGM was going to make the film the western drama it was originally written as...based on a true story. It was felt the story would make a great musical movie.

Judy Garland also never showed for rehearsals. Ready to shoot "Atchison..." she watched her stand-in go thru the choreography and marks. After one run thru of each shot, Judy said "got it" and did all the shots in one take.