It's Today | Mame | Warner Archive
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2016
- Mame (1974) #WarnerArchive #WarnerBros #Mame
Legendary Lucille Ball heads an all-star cast in her final feature film appearance. This lush screen adaptation of the Broadway musical hit adaptation of Auntie Mame has Lucy take on the role made famous by Rosalind Russell, the eccentric Mame who believes that "life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death." Co-starring Robert Preston (The Music Man) and "Golden Girl" Beatrice Arthur.
Directed By Gene Saks
Starring Lucille Ball, Robert Preston, Bea Arthur
Subscribe to watch more Warner Archive videos: ua-cam.com/users/warnerarchi...
FOLLOW WARNER ARCHIVE ON SOCIAL
Facebook: / warnerarchive
Instagram: / warnerarchive
Twitter: / warnerarchive
ABOUT WARNER ARCHIVE
Warner Archive Collection is a branch of Warner Bros home entertainment that releases classic films and TV that were previously unreleased. Thousands of Films, TV movies and series on Blu-ray and DVD direct from the studio. WAC started as a MOD (manufactured on demand) eCommerce business in 2009 and have released over 2,500 titles spanning from the 1920s to present with distribution outlets that now include wholesale, licensee, and retail partners. Available at amzn.to/3gQeRvx.
Warner Archive
/ warnerarchive
This is what a party girl like Mame would sound like. Glorious production and valiant effort from la Lucy. Angela was superb on stage. The world is big enough for two Mames.
Okay to combat some of the negativity here: I absolutely adore this movie and Mame's philosophy on life. It's a wonderful and fun musical with a lovely of not taking anything in life for granted and to live life completely. Mame had the courage to live an unconventional and nonconformist life full of color, eccentricity, and pure unadulterated wonder. I hope to live my life with half as much courage.
Cathleen Hays how about you READ the book, and see the ORIGINAL film, if you ‘love’ the ‘philosophy’ that much?
You’ll be seeing, hearing, looking at - or reading the SAME story, SAME characters, the ONLY difference is they’re ALL MUCH BETTER, and are ALL universally loved.
Here’s an analogy; this film’s like cigarettes (pun intended); they’ll leave you with a wrecked voice (like Ms Ball), deeply ragged skin (like Ms Ball), and kill you (or if fortunate, just lung cancer, heart disease ... just like you know who).
Why risk it when you can use a nicotine delivery device (an e-cig), and get the craving sated (satisfied), with no health risks (BTW; all that stuff about e-cigs being dangerous was terribly done. NOT ONE person got ill, or worse from them. EVERY single person who did, was using an electronic delivery device and inhaling either marihuana or more often, synthetic marihuana. Personally, I’ve been using them for over 12 years, and not only is my health really good, my lungs are VASTLY improved. Had to say that ‘cause of all the negative crap done by both incompetent journalists and pot heads).
I agree, Ms. Hays.
Cathleen Hays: Yes, Mame’s philosophy is correct. What is terrible is the person interpreting that philosophy with a husky out of tune voice with interpretation, dancing skill, style and blurry to boot because the messages is too old, too lame to play Mame. And that person is Lucille Ball.
....But you could just as easily get the same from the Rosalind Russell movie, or the Patrick Dennis book (and its sequel). It's not as if this movie was the ONLY thing out there with this message. (Plus a lot of other movies out there with similar messages.)
I wish they had cast Ann Miller ; she could dance,sing,act,look great and light up the screen like no other.
They honestly should have, she played it on Broadway until a month or so to the end of the run.
Ann Miller would have been wonderful. Of the actresses who played Mame onstage (other than Angela Lansbury) I think she would have been the best choice for the film; she checks all the boxes: name recognition, voice, dancing and acting ability (I always thought she was under-rated as an actress). At 51 she was more age appropriate and the fact that she continued to perform on Broadway until 1983 proves she was more than capable of fulfilling the demands of the role.
@@dannycarrington1601 The film was a Catastrophe.
Lansbury would not have been able to save it.
They wanted a household name.
She was primarily Broadway at the time.
No Actress could have saved this film.
Not even Meryl Streep.
@@johnflynn9619 oh yes Angela was amazing! There a video on yt that actually shows Angela perform a scene and then Lucy perform th3 same..it's not the voice. It's the non verbal connection Angela has...please do not misunderstand!! I (AS WELL AS THE UNIVERSE ) Will forever love Lucille! She filled my childhood with Joy! While living in less than adequate childhood I could always be comforted by all of her shows I love Lucy. the Lucy show . here's Lucy. Life with Lucy. Loved her on Carson and the variety show guest appearances...but this one. .. Angela was Amazing...
Well, since Lucy bought the rights to the film, I doubt they would have cast anyone else.
Anything Lucille Ball is in is something I enjoy and I personally think she can sing or could sing very well
She was never much of a singer or dancer, and she had to record the songs a bit at a time. She'd record the songs in studios and then move her lips while filming. It's said that her voice was so gone by then that she could only manage a few lines at a time, so it took forever and they had to splice them together. Also said that some notes had to be dubbed because she simply couldn't hit them anymore. All that COULD be rumor but it is true that her voice had suffered greatly over the years from all her smoking.
No voice, but a great show girl! Lucy forever!
Zelmira: Yes Lucy forever as “Lucy Ricardo” BUT NOT AS “Mame! Yech!
Zelmira: AND NO VOICE AT ALL!
I ❤ this movie. Of course...Lansbury would've been incredible But Lucy did a very good job.
wow, I've never seen this movie! It's lovely and lively :) I was looking for I love Lucy shows in colour, but this one came out just cool :) very chill and enjoyable :)
How I wish Vera Charles (Bea Arthur) was part of this opening, though she sung this at the last part of the movie
I love these kinds of movies and lucy
I must say I am thoroughly appalled by the nasty and vicious comments made about LUCY! LUCY did a fine job and there were several poignant moments she brought to this role. When she flops in an operetta in New Haven, CT and her nephew suddenly appears - the two sing a duet that frankly brings me to tears. Yet another scene is during the Great Depression. As she and everyone else is broke - the servants chip in to help her and when she tells them, 'I WILL NEVER FORGET THIS' - only a coldhearted brute would remain unmoved.
Is Lucy the old bitch in red?
Nothing against Lucy but she was miscast (and those same moments are in the Russell movie). Her singing just wasn't what people wanted to hear in a musical. I think she later realized that....she said that making this movie was "about as much fun as watching your house burn down."
I wonder what Rosalyn Russell would have thought? I loved her so much ! Auntie name was an amazing film!
Roz was offered the stage musical but turned it down. Of course, she didn't have much of a singing voice either. She was partly dubbed in "Gypsy" by the great Lisa Kirk. It's rumored that Kirk recorded Mame's songs for the movie when they planned to dub Lucy, but Miss Ball refused point blank to be dubbed by anyone!! As she said, Mame was a woman who stayed up all night, drank like a fish and smoked like a chimney, She shouldn't sound too perfect a singer.
roz and angela were iconic as mame,,,,,lucy was lucy and we lover her efforts.
@@Mandeley100 But at the same time...who goes to a musical to hear a voice like that? Nothing against Lucy as an actress/comedian but her singing in this is simply terrible.
Am I the only one that think that Lucy voice is exactly what voice Mame would have in reality
Yes. Bea Arthur is the only saving grace of this disaster.
I LOVE LUCY, but i more loved when angela did it on bway !!!! what a show !!! and gosh roz russell was fab ! theyr all gr8 !!!!
has there been a book or podcast about the making of this lucy movie? musta been.....interesting...
Lucy is Mame. I am happy she made this joyous musical. The critics didn't know what they were talking about. Lucy's singing is fine not like Angela's brassy screeching rendition. Lucy owns this movie and now is a top selling dvd and blu ray dvd. The critics and people who hated this film don't know their ass from their elbow.
If you think Lansbury screeches, maybe you're the one who doesn't know your ass from your elbow.
@@chrisn7259 lol🤣🤣🤣 Facts!! It goes without saying everybody in the world loves Lucy I'm at the front of the line she's the First lady and queen of comedy!... However Angela Lansbury hands down was amazing in this role. She had natural vivaciousness the nonverbal acting was amazing and she engaged the audience so well.
Lots of people involved in this movie hated it. Bea Arthur said it was a miserable experience and she couldn't stand watching it. Lucy herself said that "making this movie was about as much fun as watching your house burn down" and supposedly later felt it was a mistake. Important to remember, too, that at the time it came out, it was viewed as far too old-fashioned and out-of-date; it was certainly not in synch with what audiences wanted. Musicals were on their way out in general, and audiences instead wanted realism. It's easy to forget that fifty years later.
LOL. I love the way they just turn off her mic at the finale of the number.
Daniel Rosemarin: The should have turned her off instead of just the mic and recast the role; she’s terrible!
@@johnpickford4222
Painful performance
Love ❤ this
the final shot from the top of the staircase to the piano *chefs kiss*
Brennan Staaf Huh? What ABOUT the ‘final shot’, as you say? It’s not even a sentence as you wrote it; it’s got no subject.
What are you saying?!?!
@@UNOwen1 it’s not too difficult to understand what they’re saying. they like the closing scene were Lucille slide down the staircase and transitioned to the piano. simple concept, don’t overthink.
Love it!!!
Diane Langford: Really? “Loved it”? She’s terrible. “Hated it!” But don’t take my word, ask the people who wouldn’t waste their money because she was so poor and the film only made back $6.5 million of the $14 million cost.
who could hate this? it’s realistic, not everyone has good voices, and it sounds amazing, still!
leshawna (Lucille?) ball: Anyone with taste and hearing would hate it. Her singing is flat, out of tune, too slow and not realistic. If you were this party you’d leave, realistically!
@@johnpickford4222 I suppose you're a fine singer yourself???
Exactly. Besides BROADWAY doesn't require great singing voices or even dancing skills.
The best !!
Totally an eccentric woman!
As someone who does perfer Lansbury, I've had the occasion to watch this film in full for the first time and I think a great deal of the comments about Lucille Ball are exaggerated and really just plain ugly. The film manages to still be a fun romp and Ball, at least to me, manages to sell the character well. Might Lansbury have done better? I don't doubt it for a moment- but I'm not finding the same travesty here that some people are, I'm afraid.
Lucy is a great actress but this required someone who could sing. Angela Lansbury should have done it but it's show "business"
Angela Lansbury was doing MAME on Broadway when the news hit that a movie was in development, and Lucy came backstage to praise Angela's performance and assure her that she would DEFINITELY be in the movie...but as Angela was on stage, she saw Lucy in the wings, taking notes, and realized that she'd already lost out on the movie. Lansbury never forgave Lucy or Warners; supposedly she never worked with them again. Rumor has it that Lucy provided some of the funding for this herself, or at least exerted a lot of influence over it being made. Worse musicals had been bigger hits in the past, but sadly it was just out of step with the times in 1974, when musicals were a dying genre and audiences were more interested in realism. One of Lucy's failings was that she kept wanting to bring back old-fashioned comedy without asking herself if that was what audiences really wanted. She didn't move with the times; she could have carried her talents forward into the modern era, but was too stuck in the 50s. It's easy to blame critics for this movie's failure, but lots of films with bad reviews make big bucks. The reality was....it was just out of step with the times. Good or bad, it just wasn't what people wanted to see in 1974.
There are so many Hollywood Urban Legends out there, and this is one of them. The film rights to "Mame" were exclusively co-purchased by Warner Bros & ABC. She never bought the rights, invested her own money, or anything like that. She had casting and director approval, which is still standard practice in most films. She had no financial investment or interest in the show.
The tale that Angela tells - has some truth in it. Details can always get fuzzy over the decades. Lucy never saw "Mame" in New York. She saw the show twice when Angela Lansbury toured the west coast and it played at The Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles in the summer of 1968. She may have come backstage after the performance. But, there is no way that stage management or AEA would allow anyone - famous or not, to watch from the wings and take notes. That just didn't happen.
Perhaps Angela saw her backstage after the show, and saw Lucy writing something down - who knows? That just doesn't make any sense.
Voice by Chesterfield
Philip Morris!
@@scotnick59
I read she hated PM cigs
What year does Mame take place in? The 1958 Auntie Mame seemed more contemporary.
Had it not been a musical, I could have accepted Lucille Ball. If you are going to star in a musical, the least you could do is be able to sing. She couldn't. Why didn't they use Marni Nixon's voice? She dubbed for any leading lady who couldn't carry a tune in a basket.
I have never understood the vitriol directed at this movie and Lucille Ball.
Sure, she was probably a bit too old to play Mame and her voice wasn’t all that great - HOWEVER - the sets and costumes were terrific (what a townhouse), the supporting cast was perfect and the movie was very entertaining.
As for the desire of many people that Angela Lansbury (who I think is great) play Mame in the movie - with the original Broadway orchestrations - especially in “It’s Today” - I think the slower tempo is more keeping with the jazz period and the more intimate setting of a movie - than the big, brassy Broadway version - which would’ve overwhelmed the screen and didn’t particularly sound like a song from the late 1920s.
The songs are horrible and the story, ridiculous.
And that’s why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.
1920’s had more than jazz, there are many upbeat hyper songs from the 20’s that gain in tempo and tone as it progresses
I agree fully! Lucille Ball was a very popular star and comedian. However, when we reach the 1970's - the critics turned against her and very harshly may I add. Remember her brief return to sitcom with LIFE WITH LUCY in '86???? She was unfairly savaged by the press and her show was unceremoniously dumped by the network. Are these beloved stars NOT owed even a bit of sentimentality or gratitude for their joy????? I notice that American culture on a whole has long taken the wrong turn.....very anyone even thinks of providing NOSTALGIA ---- the press is at the starting gate - ready to pounce on anything that has to do with nostalgia and/or sentimentality? WHY????? Is our own world today any great shakes??????
@@billobrien5118 I remember watching LIFE WITH LUCY and it just made me cringe; I didn't think it was funny at all. One of Lucy's strengths was physical comedy, and she was far too old for that sort of stuff by then. She also didn't move with the times; her comedy style was still very 1950s and seemed out of date in 1986. It's easy to blame critics, but let's be honest, lots of stuff that critics hate becomes a huge hit....remember THE DUKES OF HAZZARD? The problem with LIFE WITH LUCY was that Lucy was just too out of step with the times and couldn't create what audiences of 1986 wanted.
Am I imagining it or did the female dancer (at 3:00) whack the face of the guy behind her? He even winced.
This works much better watching it on mute. It looks up beat and fast paced, but sounds too slow and lacking a strong lead voice.
Just change it too 1.25x sounds so much better
😂 She still sounds awful
Ms. Bonnie Franklin Lucas. Would you ask Ryan Gosling and Ryan Reynolds if they mind Lucille Ball and Vivian Vance being you. I'm sorry, they were around in the 1960s. It's not my fault. Love, Don xoxo
This should have been better than it was.
Just speed it up a little
You can change the setting to 1.25 but UA-cam doesn't have a setting that makes chain-smokers sound like they can sing.
@@dannycarrington1601 come on, it's lucy
@@dannycarrington1601 Good one.
"Fine....you're doing splendidly." 🤣
@@mahlerfan14 Haha
To Ms. Lucille Ball. Oh Crap! I already am judged as old and outdated like a Victorian Woman because of Barbara Streisand. How will I ever explain you and Vivian Vance as IMPORTANT to me!?!?!?! Love, Don xoxo
確かにこの映画を観て憎む気持ちなんて、忘れてました
Love Lucy but she was not meant for this. Unfortunately rather than giving Broadway performers the movie role, they give it to people who can't sing and dance.
Painful.
Lucy was an Incredible Talent. RIP
But, this film was her biggest mistake.
Too many "Here's Lucy" mannerisms! And this song is supposed to be joyous, but Lucy plays it like a stiff. Watch her as she's dancing with a partner--she might as well have been a mannequin.
Rod Labbe she’s such a prude, when she does the line ‘for making merry’ (0:55), her (usual) croak is almost inaudible (it’s NOT a goof; it’s her).
Your spot-on about the’ Lucy mannerisms’, and they’re terrible here in a film (a you probably know, in a film, the performer needs to play ‘down’ - as opposed to TV, , where she’s play it ‘up’ - over the top, a as it were).
For those who don’t know how Lucy got this film, it’s an ‘interesting’ one, and she’d been trying to get it since the original stage play version (and - had she made a musical version... at THAT time - even though it didn’t exist - it must’ve been been a good picture. But she’s WAY past the ‘sell by’ date, here).
Going into this she had a broken leg, and she should’ve just said (after a few days at most); I’m sorry, I can’t go on. It’s not that my heart isn’t in it, it’s just that I’m not right for this at this point in my life, and I’d like to suggest Ms Lansbury - who created the musical-version of Ms Mame Dennis on Broadway take over’.
THAT would’ve gotten Ms BALL BEST putt imaginable.
Instead, as is said in a book I have, she ‘never fully recovered from the damage this did to her career - both personally and professionally’.
Lucille Ball started playing it safe once she was an established star (I would say probably midway through "The Lucy Show", around the time Vivian Vance left). She would pull facial expressions and mannerisms out of her "bag of tricks" instead of behaving naturally. When offered the writers from "M*A*S*H" for "Life With Lucy", Ball refused and insisted the same writers who had been with her since her radio show prior to "I Love Lucy". Ball even brought back several "I Love Lucy" crew members (several coming out of retirement) including a sound man who had lost most of his hearing.
@@dannycarrington1601
Very Funny.
Especially about the man who lost his hearing.
Lucy - Great Star - should not have done this film.
She was primarily a comedy actress.
This was a depressing story.
HORRIFIC MISCASTING!!!
LUCY CAN’T SING!!!
What's "HOFFIFIC"?
TOO OLD FOR THE ROLE
She was rich enough to buy the rights for herself, unfortunately.
They had Angela Lansbury …
She was too old to move fluidly.. as for the voice i can allow cause lets face it an auntie mame would have had lots of vidka and cigs!! But sorry lucy just wasnt cut for this....if it were today pic kate mulgrew!!! Niw that would be an auntie mame!!
How embarrassing
you cant tell your head from your ass. this is a masterpiece
The movie version is a total stinker. Just view the opener!
I adore the Rosalind Russell version, smart, educated, fun, incredibly well written, paced, performed, with pathos, joy, a wry sense of wit and plenty of charm.
It's smart, touching and timeless.
But this... is... awful.
Horribly mis-cast - Lucy can't dance or sing in a MUSICAL, and the staging of the musical numbers is obscenely over-acted, stuffed with stereotypes and desperate extras trying to upstage one another.
It's also MEAN. Vain. Cruel.
It is frantic and inauthentic
Instead of a transformative story about love, grief, transformation, acceptance and endurance we get a frantic, 70's era distasteful farce.
How disrespectful.
I am so grateful I never even heard of this version as a child or young person... the story of Mame Dennis deserves better.
Jane Connell was far too old for Agnes Gootch
Ugh. Her performance is lifeless, and the chorus extras are blatantly non-characters simply dressed fancily and placed in the scene to smile stiffly and stand out of the way until they are needed for a specific movement or dance step. There is no feeling of joy or enthusiasm for life in this scene that was supposed to introduce the audience to the vivacious character of Mame.
This set the pace of what was to happen in the rest of the film, which sadly interpreted the dialogue and interactions within the script in a rather dark, mean and sleazy manner.
SHE CANT DANCE WELL , EWW
I'll leave my comment to the critic of The New Yorker, who said; 'the sound is somewhere between a bark and a croak. Did Luciell Lucille Ball sync her own singing, or did Dick Cavett dub for her? After more than 40 years in movies and television, did she discover in herself an unfulfilled ambition to be a flaming drag queen'?
This filn is one of THE worst, as anyone (with a brain and a modicum of intelligence can tell. Hell; even people who are blind will be offended by that basso voice, and anyone who's deaf will be offended by the copious gauze and Vaseline used - as well as her 'flying lift'').
The only conceivable reason anyone would like this (aside from being a connoisseur of dreck - which I DO collect), is my 'wart theory'.
If anyone's had something - it could be a wart - just something with them for a considerable amount of time, that's not ... how can I put it... beneficial, in ANY way, and during this time, all they want is for that day to come when it's treated.
The day DOES finally come, and though they ARE relived..., they also - oddly - miss it.
This film’s exactly like that. This film is in my archive. It's a special print I had from close to the original, done in 4k UHD.
Of course this film doesn’t y it deserve, need to be seen in 'glorious digital detail' (especially NOT Ms Ball), which makes it all the more twisted (though I do have a large collection of classic films,I also have a nice sized collection of well-known, rare, some never having been released disasters.
I can only stomach watching pieces of this at any one time (I think if I were forced to sit through it, in its entirety, I'd suffer the same effect that befell Captain Kirk and anyone rose who was subjected to that ‘therapeutic’ machine (Dagger of the Mind), which left Kirk a screaming mess, and killed others.
Yes; one CAN get burnt looking directly into the sun... same goes for looking at or listening to ‘froggy’ (Ms Ball).
A very vicious comment!
The review was vicious at the time and YOU are evil for re-posting it.
God she was AWFUL!