MovieChat Forums > Easter Parade (1948) Discussion > Should they have rewritten the end of Ea...

Should they have rewritten the end of Easter Parade when they recast it?

posted 19 years ago by johandav
26 replies | jump to latest

As everyone here quite likely knows, Gene Kelly was scheduled to co-star in Easter Parade with Judy Garland, and shortly before filming started he was hurt and they got Fred Astaire to fill in for him (pulling him out of retirement).

Does anyone else out there think that they should have rewritten the love story when this recasting took place? Fred Astaire was 23 years older than Judy Garland, and looked it. When he kisses her I get a smaller version of the cringe that I felt when I saw Woody Allen kissing Mariel Hemingway in Manhattan. Plus, Garland and Astaire have very little chemistry in the movie, in my opinion. Gene Kelly and Judy Garland would have been fine together, I think; he was ten years older than she was but had a very youthful look (he was twenty years older than Debbie Reynolds in Singing in the Rain and they were fine together).

I think that the ending should have been rewritten so that Judy's Hannah Brown ended up with Peter Lawford's Johnny. They seemed much better together. And he seemed to love her - even at the end of the film I never believed that about Fred Astaire's Don Hewes.

Anybody out there agree or disagree with this opinion?

"Use the instrument panel, Loke. That's what it's there for."

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ijonesiii 18 years ago

Apparently you're one of the few people on the planet who didn't think Fred and Judy had chemistry because this movie was a monster hit and MGM made two more attempts to pair Judy and Fred in a film together; however, due to Judy's health problems, Ginger Rogers replaced her in THE BARKLEYS OF BROADWAY and Jane Powell replaced her in ROYAL WEDDING.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jan-524 18 years ago

I'm with the others, sorry. Fred and Judy are fabulous and I felt chemistry between their characters. Not sexual tension---maybe that's what you're missing---but there's definitely something there. Of course I'm a huge Astaire fan---I'm in love with every character he played---but I also think Judy was happy when she made this film and it shows on the screen. To me, she's more open and free with herself in this movie than any other. She's relaxed and there's joy in her dancing, singing, clowning---everything. Somehow it makes her romance with Fred seem real. And like I said, how could she not love Fred Astaire?

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

Yes. Heads of studios never make bad decisions or show poor judgement. Personally, I thought the skeletal Astaire (look at his old man hands) and youthful Garland pairing was off-putting. The same feeling I get with many late Cary Grant films.

[–] georgestrum 18 years ago

If ever they should remake and rewrite Easter Parade here are some suggestions; Restore the taken out sequence sung by Judy, Mr. Monotony. This song makes her a solo hit and she gets star billing at the Zigfield. Fred's prediciton about Judy comes true, her character Hannah does make it big one year later. Only this time, still pissed at Fred for dancing with Ann at the Zigfield Roof, Judy leaves Fred for Peter. Ann realizes that there is still a spark left so she and Fred reunite. It is Peter who takes Judy to the Easter Parade as she is noticed and photographed while Fred and Ann look on in the distance.

[–] Partygirl640426 18 years ago

How can anyone say that Fred and Judy had no chemistry? I heard that both of them were madly in love unbeknownst (sp?) to the other! Judy frequently had affairs while married to Minnelli and thought she would have one with Fred until one of her friends reminded her that Fred was one of the Famously Faithful Husbands. But Fred also had a huge crush on Judy and was extremly disappointed that Ginger Rogers replaced her on the Barkleys of Broadway (although he was great friends with Ginger)

I don't know if all thats true, but its what i have heard.

I've never looked through a keyhole without finding someone looking back.
Judy Garland

[–] jnnfrbryc 18 years ago

The whole script was greatly re-written several times, especially when Astaire took over from Kelley. Originally the story was much darker and not nearly as cheery and the ending was just ridiculous. It was Judy Garland herself who suggested the new ending as that was one part which had not been re-written. At first the producers told her that it was nothing to do with her, then Irving Berlin said that if they didn't do it her way they could do it without him which just wasn't going to happen. Personally I love it but then I'm a total Fred fan.

[–] kenny9197 17 years ago

I completely agree with the first post in this thread. I was greatly disappointed that Fred & Judy ended up together. The entire time I was watching the movie I was sure that Judy would realize that she was in love with Peter Lawford's character at the end, and that they would get together. I thought Fred should've hooked up with his old girlfriend and original dance partner. I agree that there was no good chemistry between Judy & Fred. Their relationship seemed strained and Fred's character was rather annoying to me. Besides, Lawford is much more attractive than Fred, and closer to the right age for Judy's character. Now don't get me wrong, I like Fred Astaire and enjoy most of his movies. This one would've been good, if only the ending was different.

[–] Jinjuraly 17 years ago

I Love fred astair's charector but the first is right, I've always thought that Jonny should have got Hannah instead of the stupid "naidine get your dogs we're going for a walk" why couldn't Don go back to Nadine? sure 'that never happens' but it's good to put a twist on the format... If I'd made this movie Peter Lawford would definately have ended up with Judy.

[–] img54-1 11 years ago

Totally agree. Even as a small child I thought Johnny was a much better catch and so much more attractive! I didn't understand when my mother told me that Fred was the star so he had to win the girl.

[–] swing_gal2 17 years ago

I think the ending was PERFECT! I according to Ava Astaire McKenzie (Fred's daughter), they were mad for each other, but only in the sense that they adored one another--and it SHOWS!! I think Fred's chemistry with Judy is better than it is with any of his other co-stars.

Anyway...back to the ending...
Don shouldn't have ended up with Nadine. She didn't deserve him. She had treated him terribly, and if He had ended up with her, she would have "won". I adored Johnny's character--I don't think Nadine deserved him, either, but oh well. It's not uncommon for dance partners to fall for each other, so it's understandable that Hannah and Don would fall for each other. Don is a good guy (even is he was 23 years older) and he deserves someone like Hannah. Remember, we're talking 1912/13 here. It wasn't that uncommon for an older man to marry someone a bit younger than him. It wasn't as taboo as it is today.

[–] Mithol 17 years ago

I loved the endintg. She just had to get with Astaire! He's the best! I love him. And it is true love. Seriously, how could you want her to get with Johnny? He had a weak personality. And what about Fred getting together with Nadine?? She was a bitch! You can't wish that on him! IT'S FRED!!!!

~Formerly known as "eowynmaiar".

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 8 years ago

Peter Lawford was drop dead gorgeous and so sexy--I cannot imagine how the character would have been mooning over Astaire's character--he was too old, but more, he was not demonstrative, not sensual, not the kind of man younger women (she was 26 and playing someone who seemed even younger!) go head over heels after. Face it, women in their twenties deserve a guy who can keep up. And I too loved him since I was a little girl. But I never wanted to sleep with him. Just because THE Fred Astaire and THE Judy Garland loved each other, it does not mean that the characters belong together romantically until death does them part. He was elegance and grace, refined. He could move across the dance floor like no one else, but the world is filled with lots more things than dance floors--and a young woman will want to experience them with her husband.

The Ann Miller role needed some chemistry with him and that would have been a great way for both couples to make sense. He would not have been a loser or 2d place, just with a classy elegant woman closer to his own age. She's starting out, he's getting ready to think about retiring! The formula for divorce.

[–] TirNaNog-UK 16 years ago

right on!!! i totally agree with you!!! :)
Can I also just add to the thread, that does it matter if he's 23 yrs older? ITS FRED ASTAIRE!!!
point made :)

[–] Dunewalker-620-44376 14 years ago

Agreed. Everyone seems to forget that Astaire came to Hollywood rather late, after a very successful stage career with his sister, Adele (considered the better dancer). He was 30 years older than Audrey Hepburn ("Funny Face").

That just goes to show you. You go someplace and there you are.

[–] movibuf1962 16 years ago

>>Fred Astaire was 23 years older than Judy Garland, and looked it.<<

Well, at the risk of saying something that sounds like it belongs in ALL ABOUT EVE, Fred Astaire was 23 years older than *all* of his leading ladies!! More or less!! And I don't think Gene Kelly, great as he is, could've improved on what was basically a variation on the story of 'Pygmalion--' which is something that Astaire does probably better than anyone. His love for Garland comes somewhat late in the story- only after he has been mentor, teacher, and sparring partner to her for maybe the first half of the film. When they have their one and only actual love scene (the reprise of "It Only Happens...," sung by Judy to Fred this time), Fred gets to utter the wonderful line, "why didn't you tell me I was in love with you?" It's sweet, even chaste-- which was the way Astaire preferred love scenes anyway. Most bios on him comment that he was always uncomfortable being a romantic lead to such younger co-stars, but that was how Hollywood used him. And he always made it work.

[–] TCMer 13 years ago

Well, at the risk of saying something that sounds like it belongs in ALL ABOUT EVE, Fred Astaire was 23 years older than *all* of his leading ladies!!

Quoted for awesomeness. :D

"What I got don't need pearls." -- Linda Darnell (1923-65)

[–] steven_torrey 14 years ago

It seemed to me that Fred and Judy did have chemistry with each other. They matched each other in talent for dance. She was a rarety for her gifts of singing, dancing, and acting--that she could keep up with him is a tribute to her dance talent. Older guys are constantly getting the younger girls; that happens in reality as well as in Hollywood.

[–] operabuff67 13 years ago

That was common at the time - teaming older actors with younger actresses. Suspension of disbelief - you weren't supposed to notice the age differences. Look at Grace Kelly and her three men in High Society. Frank Sinatra (as the "baby" of the group)was 14 years older, John Lund was 18 years older, and Bing Crosby was 26 years older. It was still a good movie, like Easter Parade.