judy garland in gypsy
wouldn't judy have made a great mama rose
shareoh my god she would have been AMAZING! Liza might just have to do it for her now!
I can't believe it, the Twilight movie was better than the book!! :D
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Gypsy (1993) Discussion > judy garland in gypsy
Never thought of it but yes, you are right! So powerful...
shareActaully the 1960's film was intended for Judy Garland as Mama and Ann-Margret as Louise, but those plans were altered when Judy died. Then, Rosalind Russel and Natalie Wood took the roles.
Juno MacGuff: I named my guitar "Roosevelt"-not Ted, Franklin. You know, the cute one, with polio.
Um.... jlr31191... you are a tad misinformed. The film "Gypsy" was made in 1962. Judy died in 1969. No way that her death infringed on her being csst.
Roz Russell's husband was a producer and obtained the rights in order to cast her. Dramatically, she was good, but would've loved to have heard Garland sing those numbers.
"He makes her feel like a woman. And that frightens her."
The stage team had hoped that Warner would cast Judy Garland as Mama Rose and Ann-Margret as Gypsy. The two stars had heavy scheduling conflicts, so the production team passed on both.
--from the trivia page of the 1964 version
Juno MacGuff: I named my guitar "Roosevelt"-not Ted, Franklin. You know, the cute one, with polio.
I know this was around the time that Ann Margret was really getting hot in Hollywood. She was filming Bye Bye Birdie at this time and was probably unavailable because of that. She explained in her biography that at the time, she had an agent who would pick things for her and also steal some money. She relates running into one of the filmmakers behind Cat Ballou and they asked her why she never excepted the Jane Fonda role and she told them that she never knew it was offered to her. It's possible that she never even knew Gypsy was offed to her.
By this time, poor Judy was beginning her downward spiral. She was deemed as too unreliable to be cast in pretty much anything, which was a real shame. I think the team of Garland and Margret could have really ALMOST saved the film. I'm still not a fan of the script or the director they used. The pacing is really off for the first half and only picks up a little for the second half.
wow in the department of wishful thinking: Judy paired with Ann-M would have been fantastic. Although Roz nailed the overbearing part, too bad that her singing needed to be dubbed. As for this TV version, if I was going to cast anyone as pushy stage mother, Bette M. was born to play the part + she's got the belter pipes. She's the closest thing we have to a contemporary Ethel Merman as far as outsize personality. I have to say that I like this TV version more, because it was more true to the original Broadway show, but the movie had a grittier quality to it, which is probably more authentic to the milieu.
shareBy this time, poor Judy was beginning her downward spiral.
Not really true. She had just had the triumph of her later career with her Carnegie Hall concert. She had a television show in 1962 and another in 1963. The film came out in 1962 and would have been filmed the year before.
She was a hot property at the time and was not in a downward spiral. share
yeah in some ways judy was at her peak at the time gypsy was made...as other fans note she was recording her tv series and also in excellent voice at carnegie hall in 1961 ( when the film was more than likely made)...such a shame she hadnt made this film.. she was so born to play the role of mama rose..and with her being pushed on the stage but a dominant mother too...anne margaret as gypsy would have been excellent too.. although i did like natalie wood...barbra will he superb in this role as long as she doesnt direct...
judys voice really starting to deteriorate around 1964 onwards i would say...she was even considered for the part of nancy in " oliver " in 1968 but by then she was too far gone...again she would have been superb...i suppose as mama rose said in gypsy..." if you couldnve been you would have been " !!!
Judy Garland was on a roll during the time Gypsy was being cast. She was wonderful in Judgement at Nuremberg.
Anyway, I can't imagine anyone else being cast as Gypsy Rose Lee in 1962. The film version was produced by Warner and Natalie Wood was one of the studio's prized contract players. She was a very hot commodity (West Side Story, Splendor in the Grass)and aside from the musical itself, Wood was the selling point of the film version.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's not like she's going to wear a sign around her neck that says "I'm 70". If she can play the role, she can play the role.
Patti was 60 when she played the role. Who cares what number it says on someone's birth certificate?
[deleted]
wouldn't judy have made a great mama rose
Honestly, I don't think she would have.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning her talent, obviously. But I don't think her personality would have suited the character. She had a certain fragility and tremulous hopefulness to her that underscored every role she played, and that's not Mama Rose. She would have sung the pants off every song in the score, but she still wouldn't have been Mama Rose.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
share
It would have been amazing but only if done during a time when she was in a stable place, here's a clip of her singing Some People, brilliantly beyond words yet shaky and too realistically erratic that I think she's going to collapse any second
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f_y3pFOOEs
Jacks
Thanks Raf... should've researched before I assumed.
"If it is not in the frame, it does not exist!"
It's an interesting thought, Judy in this part. But would the casting have worked?
In the early 60's Judy really was on a roll professionally, doing both concerts and films. In 1961 (when this likely was shot) her vocal abilities may have been unreliable, but in general her voice was in excellent form. It simply would have been a matter of getting her into the studio to do the prerecordings on those days when she was firing on all cylinders; if caught at her best, she could have knocked each and every song out of the park.
She was still rather chubby at this point, even though she'd lost a lot of the weight she had gained in the late 1950s, but I don't think that this would have mattered for the role.
However, as has been noted, Judy's stock-in-trade was her vulnerability; something she'd played up in many of her previous film roles. Could she have played a character as hard and driven as Rose? Well, she was a good actress who really had had little chance to fully showcase her dramatic talents in the majority of her earlier films. This part would definitely have been a stretch for her, and completely unlike any character she had played previously. I honestly can't guess if she was up to the challenge. But if she could have managed it, she would have made an excellent Rose. It's interesting to think "what if" on this one, because I really thought the part could have been better cast in the Rosalind Russell version of the film.