MovieChat Forums > I Love Lucy (1951) Discussion > Cate Blanchett As Lucy

Cate Blanchett As Lucy


So the movie entitled "Lucy & Desi" is currently filming with Cate Blanchett as Lucy, what do you guys think of her as Lucy?

reply

Not pretty enough. And these kind of bios simply do not work when we have such a strong imprint of these people's true features. This is why Michelle Williams didn't work as Monroe, and Renee Zellwegger won't work as Judy Garland.

All three are great actors, but we have too much of a strong visual of the REAL personalities.

The great actors who portrayed Lincoln, or would ever fully portray Benjamin Franklin have a much better chance at
being believable.

reply

Yeah I can't picture here, but I guess I'll have to wait and see. The only reason I'm happy about it is if the movie is successful, people will be talking about Lucy, and maybe we'll get more Lucy content like more blu ray, etc, but who knows.

reply

Not pretty enough.


What? I get your fascination with Lucille Ball and the subjectiveness of beauty in general, but while Blanchett is no raving beauty, she's no less pretty than Ball.

reply


Disagree. Blanchett is NOT a classic beauty, while Lucille Ball was. More importantly, there is no physical
resemblance. Blanchett's beauty is in her incredible acting.

reply

I agree that Blanchett doesn't look anything like Ball, but I disagree that Ball is a classic beauty. But like I said, beauty is subjective.

reply

Ball's beauty is what got her into the business (as model "Diane Belmont"). She got most of her pre-ILL
roles due to this beauty. At MGM, she was known as "Technicolor Tessie." Ball was also tall, and possessed a
great body. True, she had some extra pounds between/after giving birth, but by the mid-'50's Lucy was
astonishing to look at, even well into her 40's. She had exquisite cheek bones, large (but not "Popped")
expressive eyes, a lovely straight nose (noses are usually people's weak spot), and sensuous lips.

No other comedic actress of her ilk (Burnett, Bea Arthur) possessed this kind of beauty.

But I see a bigger problem. WHO would one cast as Desi, and who could play him without caricature?

reply

I didn't know a Lucy movie was in the works. But I do agree with steven 1660 that if it generates a renewed interest in Lucile Ball, it may be worthwhile.

But it's hard to accept any actor in the role of someone who is SO familiar to the fans. Historical figures are one thing. I've seen portrayals of Henry the Eighth, Lincoln, Ben Franklin, etc, and as long as the actor has a passing resemblance and a similar build to the person, they can get away with it.

In the case of Lucille Ball, she's been "in our living rooms" for years. We know her voice and every mannerism and nuance. It's so hard to believably portray an icon who is so familiar.

One of the few exceptions in the biopic category was the portrayal of Judy Garland in the TV miniseries "Me and My Shadows". Tammy Blanchard played the young Judy and Judy Davis portrayed Judy garland in her later years. Not only did both actresses look like Judy, they managed to capture something of her essence too.

reply


Yes and no. Davis looked RIDICULOUS "singing" 'The Trolley Song' with her orange hair. She had it
down like mimicry, but you can't replicate art, and Garland's "Trolley Song" is one of the great movie
moments in classic film.

I do feel Davis would've been better had she'd only been playing Judy's last few years. But Renee
Zellwegger???

Gloria Grahame is a lesser know legend. Annette Benning took her on in last year's indie "Film Stars
Don't Die in London." Despite her magnificent acting, she simply didn't convince me she was
Grahame, when she didn't resemble her, or have her bizarre mouth/voice down. The film worked
for me only when I pretended she was a fictional movie star.

"Renewed interest" in Ball? She's one of the most famous stars of all time! ILL is still one of the
only shows from its era to air on LOCAL TV stations. No other TV show can claim this, except,
perhaps, "Seinfeld", which is 40 years younger!

reply

Interesting you should mention Davis singing "The Trolley Song". I did not care for that scene either. I thought she looked too old to portray a young Judy. I really had wished that Tammy Blanchard portrayed Judy a little longer.

"Renewed interest"? Oh yes, ILL is still on TV after more than half a century. I didn't mean that a movie would renew interest in Lucy in general. I was referring to this board (in particular). A movie could possibly bring in more posters and generate some conversations.

No doubt a lot of Lucy fans are very interested in her work. I'd just like a few more to be interested enough in her to talk about her and ILL.

reply


Good point about the board, but I'd prefer a small group of intelligent posters, rather than
juvenile posters who speak about "tag-teaming" Lucy and Ethel.

reply

Oh boy! You said it. I always pray for intelligent discussions and not the silliness some people bring to the table.

reply

My 21 year old friend was taking a college TV course and the professor asked how many people knew who Lucille Ball was and 2 kids raised there hand. That made me sad. So if this movie can put Lucy back in peoples minds I'm for it.

reply

....the professor asked how many people knew who Lucille Ball was and 2 kids raised there hand.


Wow.

reply

Yeah, but on a positive note, the Lucy Christmas special was the highest rated show of Friday night, which made me happy. I used to babysitt and I made sure those kids watched Lucy! haha

reply

It IS depressing when you encounter teens and twenty-somethings who are totally clueless about our rich heritage of performers.

I was teaching teen-agers a few years ago and one girl asked who Marlon Brando was!! None of them were familiar with the name.

I told them that he was only one of the greatest actors in the English speaking world. No surprise that they never heard of Lord Laurence Olivier either!

reply

As "depressing" as it is, put it into perspective. 1960's youngsters likely did not know very famous actors from decades-ago either.

reply

I was a "1960's youngster" and I definitely knew Cary Grant, Bogie, Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, John wayne, Joan Crawford,etc.

I really think today's youngsters are so busy texting that they don't read. They've never seen the old classic movies. A lot of them are cultural illiterates.

reply

Along with their hyper restlessness and disinterest in watching older films and stars(assuming Tv cable even shows them), the 1960's is less removed from the 1930's-40's compared to the 1960's to today.

reply

..what is a classic beauty to you? Google Lucy from the 1930-40s, and you'll see a classic beauty.

And Frances Fisher was a horrible Ball in that TV-bio, including Fisher's habit of talking AT other actors, not TO them. Having Fisher imitate Ball's murder-episode scene: self-defeating embarrassing unnecessary idea.

reply


It doesn't matter if anyone considered Lucy a "classic beauty" (I certainly don't), but to say Cate Blanchett isn't good looking enough to portray Lucy is silly which - was my point.

reply

Which Ball do you mean, the one from the 50's or 20 yrs younger? If you can be more specific, do you mean Ball's distinctive eyes, sharp jawline, mouth, other?

reply


It isn't "silly", Strntz, because you're missing the point. Ball's face is considered (by many) to be the
most recognizable in the world. Blanchett looks NOTHING like her, and to have one already famous
actor (Blanchett) trying to play a much more famous Ball is going to be difficult for audiences to buy.
And that's putting it mildly.

reply

That's a totally different argument. If you want to say that Blanchett looks too little like Lucy to portray her in a movie, that's fair (although finding doppelgangers to portray legends is an impossible task IMO and is rarely accomplished). But to say that Blanchett isn't pretty enough to play Lucy is what I consider silly.

reply


Blanchett isn't pretty enough. She isn't even pretty. Talented, yes; pretty, no.

Ball was a genius, and so much of what made her unique was the comic genius combined with
a physical beauty.

No other female comic genius can claim this. It's so part of what made Ball unique.

It's the lack of resemblance AND Blanchett's lack of physical beauty.

I see beauty ONLY in Blanchett's astonishing acting.

reply

But to say that Blanchett isn't pretty enough to play Lucy is what I consider silly.
--- --- --- -- ---
For the sake of argument, even if Cate is pretty enough , she still does not resemble Ball. You might feel that Cate is prettier than Ball, actually.

reply

For the sake of argument, even if Cate is pretty enough , she still does not resemble Ball. Casting doesn't matter?


Jesus, doesn't anybody know how to read??

reply

Jesus, what? I read what you said. Nobody is expecting a 'doppelganger'. What's your point, that resemblance does not matter at all?

You said this:< I agree that Blanchett doesn't look anything like Ball, but I disagree that Ball is a classic beauty. But like I said, beauty is subjective.>

reply

This is what I said:

If you want to say that Blanchett looks too little like Lucy to portray her in a movie, that's fair (although finding doppelgangers to portray legends is an impossible task IMO and is rarely accomplished).


It couldn't be any more clearer. Do me a favor and don't respond to any more of my posts and I'll return the favor. Thanks.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

don't be jealous of Lucy.

reply

[deleted]

oh, so now, you were joshing..uh-huh. You've been to Harvard U, btw?

Lucy aged like a normal woman, with or without the drinks and cigs; people aged quicker then in general. Plus, she looked a bit too good on her later series, her jawline tight, than how she was in reality. I believe she used those temporary face-lift adhesive-tapes under her wig that lifted her skin.

Unless Ms Blanchette has some Meryl Streep planned-magic , it might work, but still be iffy. Nobody is going to look like Ball, no more than any actor truly looked like Elvis in all his bio-pics.
Interestingly, Catherine Hicks (of all women) looked nothing like Marilyn Monroe (nothing!), yet she pulled it off with good reviews and an Emmy nom. Who knows.

reply

[deleted]

I meant for Cate to use Streep's level of mimicry for the role.

I don't think the cause of aging is conclusive based on whiskey and smokes. I'd say genetics and sun exposure are a greater cause. If you look at some well-known actors who aged very quickly, they were not known for substance-use, and vise-versa. The more pigment in your skin, the less damage to your skin by the sun; the pigment being related to your genetics/ethnicity
With Johnny Depp, he is mid-50's and even with the drugs/alcohol, he generally looks like a man of his age.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, Depp has that skin tone that looks like it tans easily, and more resistant to sun damage.
They didn't' know how harmful the sun was back then, and many still don't.. A suntan is virtually your skin's defense mechanism against the toxic rays of the sun. Drinking seems more synonymous with puffiness and bloating, while cigs attribute to wrinkles to some degree. It could be that those smokers/drinkers happen to be sun-worshipers also.

reply