MovieChat Forums > Odd Man Out (1947) Discussion > Disastrous Casting Averted .....

Disastrous Casting Averted .....

posted 12 years ago by d.doherty
6 replies | jump to latest

Producers wanted Ann Todd for the role of Kathleen,in hopes of reigniting the box office, as her previous pairing with James Mason, THE SEVENTH VEIL, had done.Filming began, when suddenly Todd was unavaiable. Carol Reed had to scramble for an actress, and asked some of the Abbey Players if they knew anyone who could play Kathleen Sulllivan. Dan O'Herlihy or Cyril Cusack suggested Kathleen Ryan, with whom they had just done a play in Dublin.

Can you imagine Ann Todd as Kathleen? It would have sunk the movie completely. Nothing against Todd, who was perfectly cast in THE SEVENTH VEIL, but she could not have been a credible Kathleen.

"This bar of likker is now a bar of justice!"

[–] calixtah11252-3 10 years ago

Yes I actually can see Ann Todd or any number of capable actresses in this role.

I love this movie, but the character of Kathleen (or Agnes as she is called in the book) is a weak spot. She is what fiction writers would call a "Mary Sue": the token wonderful, beautiful female who is a symbol of all self-sacrificing womanhood.

Kathleen Ryan did a very good job with what she had to work with, but the character was under-written in the book (published 2 years before the film came out), as well. The book is very interesting. I enjoyed it but was happy about most of the changes that were made for the film. (F.L. Green, the author of the book, was also co-writer of the movie's script.)

[–] d.doherty 10 years ago

Let's be real. Ann Todd could not have convincingly played a child of the Belfast slums.

"Do you indulge in any form of worship?"

[–] calixtah11252-3 10 years ago

Ann Todd and Kathleen Ryan were both actresses with a ladylike persona. Maybe Ann Todd could not have "convincingly played a child of the Belfast slums." But Kathleen Ryan did not accomplish that either.

It would have been awesome to have a fully fleshed out personality for the female lead, but it was a film that was addressing so many issues. It accomplished more than enough for its time.

[–] d.doherty 10 years ago

Well, I grew up with a lot of poor Irish Catholics, and Kathleen Ryan's look and manners reminded me of several girls I went to school with.

"Nihil sanctum estne?"

[–] Forlorn_Rage 9 years ago

I think Ann Todd would've done fine. Though they would've had to dress her down a bit, I wouldn't have minded her in the role. I am glad Kathleen got the role though. She was terrific.

The really disastrous casting would've Stewart Granger, the original choice for Johnny. Considering, Johnny isn't onscreen very much, you needed an actor who would be heartbreak and suffering incarnate, which is James Mason to a T. Granger is a good actor, but not as sympathetic, and can't see fitting into the role nearly as well as Mason.

[–] manderstoke 9 years ago

I'm glad that somebody finally mentioned the truly disastrous first choice for Johnny. Granger was a handsome man with a pleasant persona, but never much of an actor. As for Mason, when was he ever less than excellent? His "heartbreak and suffering incarnate" performances were, imo, the result of his consummate acting skills and the long standing tragedies of his personal life.