..than to have the viability of a major production depend on -you- being in it? Not just from a box-office perspective, but artisticly: Watch this film while imagining anyone other than Astaire, Rogers, & Levant starring in it. It would never have been made, & regretted if it was.
sharewell originally it was suposed to be a astaire-garland vehicle, all i can say is thankgod it wasnt as i love this movie and have so far seen it more times than any other astaire-rogers movie
shareAs this film was planned as a follow-up to the very successful EASTER PARADE, into which, of course, Astaire stepped after Gene Kelly injured an ankle, we might have had, but for a twist of fate (and an ankle), Kelly and Garland as the "battling Barkleys."
Astaire and Garland were to have teamed again in ROYAL WEDDING, but Garland was fired from MGM before the film went into production. Her replacement, June Allyson, in turn, became pregnant.
The possibilities: instead of only one Astaire-Garland partnership, we might have had three (and only nine Astaire-Rogers ones), or even six Kelly-Garland ones rather than three (and no Astaire-Garland ones).
Poe! You are...avenged!
I love this film and believe Rogers was the better choice in the end.
First of all, as a (presumably) long-married couple, Rogers was better
suited age-wise. Garland was simply too young at age 26. I also feel
the sophistication - as a team - of Astaire/Rogers lent itself better
to the script (they had much more chemistry than Astaire and Garland,
classic though "Easter Parade" is). We really feel the "marriage" of
Josh and Dinah due to the Astaire/Rogers history. A very underrated
musical.
I have heard that the script was reworked somewhat to make it a better fit for Rogers. And of course, there's the immeasurable benefit of revisiting the team - both fictional and real - for a depiction of how all those happy endings a decade-plus earlier might have worked out over time.
I can't help but think there was a mischievous little gleam in the figurative eye of the Comden-Greene writing team, as they teased audiences about the rumors they'd already heard of friction between Astaire and Rogers themselves. I'm sure Fred and Ginger must have enjoyed turning the construct of their earlier films - with Fred endlessly ingratiating in his efforts to win Ginger over, while she gradually succumbed to his charms in spite of her resistance - on its head. And even in Pandro Berman's absence, his wisdom prevailed: "It's Fred and Ginger; everybody knows they belong together and will wind up that way in the end."
Poe! You are...avenged!
What about Hermes Pan's famous comment on the Astaire/Rogers team:
"It was a 25 year war."
I've never heard that quote. But, either way, I'm sure Fred and Ginger enjoyed it. I know they had their squabbles (what creative team wouldn't?), but if they didn't really feud, it must have been fun doing so on screen (and perhaps even more so if they really did).
Poe! You are...avenged!
I also love Hepburn's famouse line: "He gave her class; she gave him
sex appeal." Although it's been open to debate as to whether Hepburn
originated that line. Also, I think Rogers WAS classy and Astaire
possessed a unique eroticism in his dancing within the grace, with and
without Rogers. As a neigbor lady told me as a kid, "He made love with
his hands."
i have to say that i find 'the art of seduction through the dance' in his movies much more believeable when he danced with ginger than with any other partner regardless of what it was like off screen
share
Yes. And you reminded me of ANOTHER quote (although I can't remember who.
I think it was Pan): "Rogers wasn't the greatest dancer he (Astaire)
worked with, but she was the greatest PARTNER he ever had." Yes, charisse,
Hayworth were technically better, but nobody had the same chemistry.
The sparks flew!!
definately agree nobody had the same chemistry, in all their films together its quite easy to believe that their characters were madly in love and i never quite got that impression with anyone else that he starred with
share
I do to a certain degree, because so many women fall for charming older
men. And let's face it - Astaire was often old enough to be these
women's FATHERS. I'm a huuuuuge Judy Garland fan and think "Easter Parade"
was enough. Because their partnership (and each being the greatest
musical film star of their gender) was all the more special because it
was one film. Also, I don't think they had a tremendous amout of
chemistry. Garland had more with Kelly.
the difference of course with ginger is that he was a mere 12 years older than her and this never showed as much as it did with garland, charisse, caron and hepburn and this may be why it looked so much more believable, however i never thought fred looked his age, i always would have put him at 10 years younger than he was
shareI can't help but think there was a mischievous little gleam in the figurative eye of the Comden-Greene writing team, as they teased audiences about the rumors they'd already heard of friction between Astaire and Rogers themselves.
I'm sure Fred and Ginger must have enjoyed turning the construct of their earlier films - with Fred endlessly ingratiating in his efforts to win Ginger over, while she gradually succumbed to his charms in spite of her resistance - on its head.
If it had been Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse people would be writing "Try to imagine anyone other than Kelly and Charisse!" Once a movie is familiar, it's nearly impossible to imagine other performers in the lead roles, but if those others had been the ones we saw in the movie instead, we'd be just as attached to them.
share