Whould the movie be good with them in the cast? They can both sing, unike Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison.
I am happy with Audrey Hepburn as Eliza, but the movie would have been better with Peter O'Toole as Higgins.
That would have been so much better in every way, because both Harrison and Hepburn were WAY too OLD for their characters.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Hepburn was far too OLD to play Eliza.
share[deleted]
Well, Pickering says she is "about 21", although originally she was only meant to be 19 or 20. It was so obvious that Hepburn was 35.
share[deleted]
Julie Andrews was 29 when the film came out. So, her playing 9-10 years younger than herself wasn't much different than someone playing 15 years younger than herself.
shareO'Toole is my favorite actor ever, he played Higgins twice onstage and he had great chemistry with Audrey in How to Steal a Million, so why not?
"They don't shoot you for being a Republican in America."
Absolutely. Even with the claustrophobic backlot shooting, the film with O'Toole and Andrews would have been dynamite. Oh, and Vincente Minnelli should have directed, as he badly desired.
In addition to O'Toole being even a bit younger than Shaw's mid-thirties Higgins, Leslie Howard intended to play T.E. Lawrence in an aborted Alexander Korda production in the late 1930s. Howard, of course, had immortalized Higgins on screen in Anthony Asquith's 1938 film version, which was actually more the basis of the stage MFL than Shaw's 1912 play script.
Speaking of age, the play says that Eliza is eighteen. Wendy Hiller was 25 in the Asquith film, but middle-aged actresses from the role's originator, Mrs. Patrick Campbell (47) to Gertrude Lawrence in a 1945 B'way revival (also 47) had routinely played Eliza on stage. Casting the 20-year-old Julie Andrews in MYL on Broadway was one of the musical's numerous innovations. Andrews was 27 by the time the film was made; yes, Hepburn was 34, but the age difference between her and Harrison (55) was still significant enough. Eliza could still certainly be a Cockney flower-peddler. Plus George Cukor cast the 75-year-old Gladys Cooper as Higgins's mother, thus preserving the impression that Higgins could actually be her son.
BTW, Peter O'Toole did play Higgins to Amanda Plummer's Eliza in a 1987 B[way revival of PYGMALION. Do the math on his age then (Without consulting his IMDb page, I calculate O'Toole's age then as 54--and due to his hard-drinking life, looking older than that. He was still Henry Higgins incarnate and would have been more so in 1963).
Retaining the line about Eliza's age that Alan Jay Lerner used when a very young woman was playing the part in 1956 was one of those bone-headed decisions that Lerner got away with in the film of MFL but that would come to devour him and everyone else in CAMELOT and PAINT YOUR WAGON, arguably the two worst Broadway-to-film musical adaptations ever.
To clear up another issue. according to Robert Windeler's Julie Andrews biography, MARY POPPINS finished principal photography shortly before MFL began production. Thus Andrews could have done both. (Due to its animation and special effects, POPPINS was more than a year in post-prod.) What she could not have done are her second and third films, THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY and THE SOUND OF MUSIC, whose producers probably would have cast other actresses rather than wait for her. Film history would have been quite a bit different, as would Andrews's career, but exactly how is one of those imponderables.
Julie Andrews didn't get the part because she didn't screentest for it. She thought that because Warner had seen her onstage that that should be enough for her to get the part. Warner tried to explain to her that acting on stage and on film are two different things, but she wouldn't do a screentest. So, that's why Audrey was cast.
Actually, Warner wasn't really unreasonable. After all, Audrey Hepburn herself had to do a screentest before she did her starring debut in Roman Holiday-even though she was already a hit starring in the non-musical Gigi on Broadway. And many stage actors can't cut it on film. Look at the stage cast of Rent. Most of them were cast in the film a few years ago, but do you see them as big Hollywood stars today? In fact, Rosario was one of the most praised and nominated actors in that film and she is one of the few "film" actors in Rent.
Peter O'Toole was strongly considered but was too expensive to play the part at $400,000 plus percentage. Even Audrey got no percentage from MFL.
And Peter doesn't sing THAT much better than Rex Harrison. He sang okay in Goodbye Mr. Chips (about the same as Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face). But he was dubbed in Man of La Mancha. Granted, Higgins doesn't seem to require a great voice anyway, but...
Higgins' singing (or non-singing) was as it was, to purpose and effect, to emphasise the emotional disconnection. I never saw Peter O'Toole play him, but of all those who have, he is the one I would have liked to have seen most. At the right age, he fits my theoretical image of Higgins absolutely perfectly. But at the time the film was made, he was only about 30. Too young! Rex Harrison was too old by a not dissimilar extent, though.
I was never terribly keen on Julie Andrews myself, and Audrey Hepburn certainly brought a much greater charm to the role. She also looked fabulous, and nothing like 35 or whatever she was. That wasn't a problem. But irrespective of the Julie Andrews screen test thing, didn't she purportedly say that she would have turned the part down had she not been told that Elzabeth Taylor would do it if she didn't?
That's true. When the MFL film was first offered to her, she turned it down because she (like many others) felt Julie deserved it more than anyone else. According to one of her biographies, she even threw a dinner party for Warners, trying to convince them to cast Julie-to no avail.
Then, Warners informed her that if she turned it down, Elizabeth Taylor would be offered the part (and Liz was dying to get it, for sure). Even on the IMDb trivia website, other actresses that were under consideration pending Audrey's rejection included Shirley Jones and Connie Stevens. Audrey realized that there was no chance in hell that Julie was ever going to get cast, so she decided it was fair game and accepted.
No one can blame Audrey for accepting the role. EVERY actress at the time was dying to get it. And she only accepted it when she found out that, for all intents and purposes, Julie would never get it. So, to me, it's really ridiculous and petty the way many Julie Andrews' fans keep going on and on about it when it was over forty years ago. Julie might have done a better flower girl, but Audrey could play a lady like nobody else. As for her singing, many non-singing actors at the time were dubbed in films. An actor's main job is to act, not sing and dance. That's why there are stunt doubles, dancing doubles, singing doubles, etc. For the Academy to have ignored her performance just because she didn't sing and to spite her is really stupid. Julie's career didn't suffer from it: in fact, she probably became more famous by doing Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, instead. She also has stated that she holds nothing against Audrey (they were actually good friends) and admired her performance. I think she would be embarrassed that so many of her fans are still holding a stupid grudge about it.
Well, we can never be judge to anything because first of all, the lady like qualities that Audrey always had from the very beginning was also present in Julie's broadway performance, according to other sources. And so, let's just think that both are very wonderful, and talented in their own rights.
And yes, an actor should act. But in a movie/stage musical, an actor should both sing and act.
Except that the Higgins role in MFL was written specifically for and around Rex Harrison's singing talent - or lack of it. And the majority of actors who have taken the part since have had similarly dodgy singing skills. The part does NOT require it.
However, in every stage performance of the musical, the Eliza Dolittle part REQUIRED singing talent - and got it. Which is where the movie lost out. The Broadway team of Harrison, Andrews and Holloway was a massive success. Why try to change that?
I saw O'Toole play the role in a filmed version of "Pygmalion." Don't hurt me, but -- he was terrible. I was shocked, because normally I love him in everything. He was a magnificent Henry II in "Lion in Winter" and "Becket," for example. But he must have been having an off day when they filmed him in "Pygmalion," because he was chewing scenery like nobody's business. It was enough to make me more grateful than ever that Harrison got the movie.
share"They [Andrews and O'Toole] can both sing, unike Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison."
O'Toole was dubbed in MAN OF LA MANCHA, and his 'singing' in GOODBYE MR CHIPS was a variation on the Broadway-style sprechtsingen established by Harrison (among others, including Rosalind Russell, who actually preceded Harrison by 3 years). The plain truth is that Higgins' songs were not written for a singer - they were written for an actor.
O'Toole was very hot at this time, and might have provided the necessary box-office 'insurance' that was one of the main reasons Hepburn got the job. Hepburn and O'Toole were delightful together two years later in Wyler's HOW TO STEAL A MILLION.
"Remind me to tell you about the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke."
I thought Marni Nixon was the singing voice of Eliza, and she can sing, hear her in Rodgers and Hammerstein's King and I with Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr. As for the above poster, I agree with you 100%.
"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeleine Kahn(CLUE, 1985)
Look up any movie musical from Hollywood's Golden Era on IMDB and you'll see that there's dubbing in so many of them:
-The King and I
-West Side Story
-South Pacific
-Gypsy
-The Sound of Music
-Flower Drum Song
-Gigi
...to name a few. It was as common as stunt doubles, dance doubles, etc.
Audrey Hepburn was far from the first nor the last actress to be dubbed in a movie musical. Why single her out?
Some people might want actors/actresses in film musicals to be able to act, dance, AND sing, but star power and film charisma are sometimes considered more important to bring in audiences.
[deleted]
[deleted]
WB needed a box office star in the trioNot necessarily.
Why would they need box office clout for a film that already had it?
Walt Disney didn`t think of Andrews as box office clout because his name was clout enough.
Dorothy stop that, Mr. Ha Ha`s lookin at you!!
[deleted]
How many imdb.com posters have ever been to a Broadway show. 'Nuff said.You cannot compare today with 50 years ago. The My Fair Lady cast album was an enormous seller in the years before the movie came out (topping the charts on the US Billboard 200 for 15 weeks, and No.1 in the UK for 19 weeks, becoming the biggest-selling album of the year), and that alone shows how different things were. (The Camelot cast album with Julie Andrews was also a huge success.) Broadway was not marginalized in the culture as it is today. You'd see Broadway stars performing their material on television (when there were only a few stations and everyone saw pretty much the same shows) and hear it on the radio, and you'd see them in the magazines. It was a different world. If you weren't around then, you cannot fathom how eagerly awaited this movie was, based on its success on stage, the way a Da Vinci Code is anticipated today.
True, there is no star that will GUARANTEE a movie' success. So many films have flopped or atleast been disappointments with huge stars, while other films with little-known names (eg, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF) were huge hits.
I love the film of MFL, and I love Audrey in it, but it would have been nice to have seen Julie repeat her role for posterity. Also, considering her name was already attached to the show and the fact that POPPINS and SOM were HUGE hits....Jack didn't do himself any favors. MFL did very, very well, but maybe it could have been bigger with Julie in it.
GYPSY - I'm partial to the film, and while it didn't tank, I'm sure WB was expecting a bigger return. But again - it would have been great to see Merman in her signature role.
Dubbing only acceptable in.biopics.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
By the time Camelot was in production, Julie was entering her downward spiralCamelot was filmed June-November 1966.
[deleted]
Julie Andrews herself has said more than once that she was offered the movie and turned it down, her interview with Larry King for one instance. She was offered the role and wouldn't do it without Burton. She said, "I will play a supporting role to Richard Burton but not to Richard Harris." The facts are out there, but you seem to prefer your delusions. At least you are not still claiming that her career was in trouble at the time, which is absurd.
"Oh look, the neighbors are recording us."
[deleted]
She actually didn't have to turn it down. She didn't want to play a role in a film produced under the aegis of Jack Warner, so her agents asked for a price that they knew wouldn't fly with the cheapskate--and to which she was entitled, since she was the biggest box office draw IN THE WORLD at the time, and remained so even after STAR! flopped domestically (it was a success in the U.K. and in 1968 The Sound of Music was still playing in cinemas across the USA, although most first-run showings had stopped at this point). Warner Brothers definitely courted her and hoped to sell the property on her marquee value, and she didn't take the bait. The fact is, she didn't want to do it without Burton, who wasn't interested in doing a film without Taylor. And I doubt she wanted to repeat what had been a most unpleasant working experience opposite Richard Harris in Hawaii (he actually HATED her--the only person in her entire 60-year career who manifested this sentiment; he wrote about it in his autobiography, but she has not spoken publicly about him). And she has remained typically mum about the Camelot debacle ever since--not bad-mouthing either Warner or the rancid, ungallant Logan.
So your Logan bit is way off, there, pal. AFTER Andrews had effectively turned it down, Logan and his sour grapes attitude carped to the press, "Can you imagine anybody wanting to see two armies go to war over Julie Andrews?", conveniently ignoring the fact that they did just that on Broadway for two years, and this was well before she was a movie star. When the music of Lerner and Loewe was presented in a television "spectacular" in 1962 to celebrate the record-breaking 6th anniversary of MY FAIR LADY on Broadway, Alan Jay Lerner, who wanted her for the movie and thought this would prove the perfect vehicle to getting it for her, INSISTED that the entire show be built around her--so Maurice Chevalier, Richard Burton, Robert Goulet and Stanley Holloway all played her leading men, and the show was a ratings hit and critically well received. But it still didn't work with Warner. And, as has been noted, even Vanessa Redgrave was on record during production of CAMELOT as saying, "I'm sure if Julie Andrews WANTED to be playing this part, she would be."
To suggest Andrews was already on a downward spiral at the time CAMELOT was being prepared is asburd bullstick.
"Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind."
"so her agents asked for a price that they knew wouldn't fly with the cheapskate-"
LMAO!
Ruin is a gift. Ruin is the road to transformation (Eat, Pray, Love)
Julie could definitely sing better than Audrey-or Vanessa Redgrave in Camelot, for that matter. But some critics argued that Audrey's acting performance was even BETTER than Julie's-particularly in the 2nd half of MFL. Julie sang beautifully and could do a better cockney, but Audrey Hepburn was BORN to play the lady. Plus, according to Julie Andrews' memoir, Cecil Beaton told her that she was the "most unphotogenic person she had ever seen". Alan Jay Lerner also admitted that "Julie was as pretty as you believed her to be". P.L. Travers on the other hand, told her, "you're too pretty to play Mary Poppins"! I think what all this means is that Julie is generally considered okay-looking, reasonably attractive, but not really gorgeous. Audrey Hepburn, on the other hand, was widely considered a great beauty and she looked fantastic in My Fair Lady.
As for Camelot, the same argument could be made that Vanessa (although almost as weak a singer as Audrey) had dramatic chops that Julie couldn't come close to. Like the ending scene where Guinevere says goodbye to Arthur for the last time. I just can't imagine Julie (or anyone else, actually) playing the scene as movingly as Vanessa. On stage, Camelot was lighter and more cheerful, so Julie's personality and temperament probably worked well. But on film it became darker and more dramatic. I think Vanessa actually suits the mood there better.
And Julie's downward spiral didn't happen until Star! in 1968. One year after Camelot the film was released.
I think Julie suffered a more devastating fall than Audrey, but she bounced back better. Audrey basically retired of her own free will after the succes of Wait Until Dark in 1967. Julie was considered for that film, too. After that, she made just a handful of films in the 70s and 80s, none of them really successful.
Julie on the other hand, didn't have any more offers after Star! and then Darling Lili in 1970 bombed. For the next 9 years, she only appeared in Blake Edwards' The Tamarind Seed. In the '80s, '90s, and '00s, her career picked up again most notably with 10, Victor/Victoria, and The Princess Diaries. She's definitely had a longer career than Audrey, but she's also had the blessing of living longer, too.
Audrey Hepburn was BORN to play the lady.
Well, I think many critics who've seen this movie would disagree with you. Even those who didn't think of Hepburn much as a flower girl, felt she had more than redeemed herself playing the lady. Being raised partly in English boarding school, she did have a proper British accent, but it was mixed with French and Dutch, too. In a way, I think it makes even more sense because even PROFESSOR KARPATHY, the linguistic expert, can't place her accent correctly.
One could also make the argument that Julie Andrews, no matter what she does, never lets us forget that she's Julie Andrews playing someone-partly because that's what her fans expect of her. She's played American in Torn Curtain, Thoroughly Modern Millie, and Hawaii, but she still sounds like Julie Andrews-British girl, through and through. I DON'T see the difference.
she did have a proper British accent, but it was mixed with French and DutchBut if it's mixed with French and Dutch, it isn't a proper British accent! No one in the movie except Hepburn speaks like this, so where did Eliza get this distinctive international accent? The joke of Karpathy's not placing Eliza's accent is that her English is too perfect, not that it's a mélange of Anglo and Dutch mixed with her own charming affectations.
I DON'T see the difference.Yes, thank you for making my point for me. Casting Audrey Hepburn as Eliza Dolittle makes as much sense as casting Julie Andrews as Millie Dillmount from Kansas. You're absolutely right.
I could've not agree with more! Both of these marvelous talents played these roles peerlessly in separate things. It would've loverly to see these two awesome geniuses repeat their masterful, meritorious performance all while working off each other!
shareI could not agree with more! Both of these marvelous, magnificent talents played these roles peerlessly in separate things. It would've loverly to see these two awesome geniuses repeat their masterful, meritorious performance all while working off each other!
share