I've always felt this guy was a waste...couldn't they have found someone better to be the third guy? He's no match for Gene or Frank. Oscar Levant (another not so terribly talented actor) would have been an improvment. Does anyone have a suggestion on who could have played this part better...like Van Johnson!
shareLawrence Tierney might have been a good substitute.
I'm always mildly amused at how, in the opening number, Munshin pronounces "over" and "Dover." I see that he was a New Yorker, but so am I and I never heard any New Yorker say "over" in such a peculiar manner.
To create a contrast with the other sailors - the swaggering Gabey and the innocent Chip - Ozzie has often been cast with actors who have a strongly comedic (some would even say goofy) persona. For example, the role was played in the original Broadway production by Adolph Green and in the original London production by Elliott Gould. Jules Munshin was under contract to MGM at the time, and since he'd clicked so well with Kelly, Sinatra and co-director Stanley Donen in the previous year's Take Me Out To The Ball Game, it came as no surprise when he was cast as Ozzie.
Munshin made little impression on me when I first saw On The Town, but now I can't imagine the film without him. I'm not sure who else might have been cast for the part from the MGM talent pool, but I think Van Johnson was too smooth to play Ozzie, and I couldn't in a million years accept the jittery Oscar Levant as a healthy, vigorous sailor.
Van Johnson was a VERY under rated actor. He could play drama, comedy...even slap stick. And he didn't play "smooth" all the time (case in point - "The Last Time I Saw Paris" and "Invitation") I just think he would have been better because of his own personal charm and the chemistry he had with Gene Kelly (Brigadoon).
shareOh, I'm not saying Van Johnson wasn't a good actor; he gave a number of well-received performances throughout his career. But his fair-haired, "boy next door' persona was all wrong for Ozzie, especially when you consider the way the role was developed onscreen; Johnson simply wasn't the "Prehistoric Man" type. And when Claire sings the song, she couldn't be more explicit - Van Johnson is not her cup of tea:What has Gable got for me?
Or Mrs. Johnson's blond boy Van?
I want a happy ape
With no English drape -
A prehistoric man!
The lyrics make it clear: Ozzie isn't Van Johnson, nor should he be.
OK...point taken. But I still think someone else could have been better in that role. I know you don't agree, but that's just my opinion...Fred Astaire, Danny Kaye, Donald O'Connor...even Dan Dailey, Bob Hope or Red Skelton (not sure the ages would be right, though) all have way more charisma.
shareAll of the actors you've mentioned are terrifically charismatic, but you have to keep the specifics of the Ozzie character in mind - you need a character type who's not refined, who's not a "movie star" or a "dapper dan." You need someone who's got the panache to pull off the musical numbers, but is also the "happy ape" type who'd fit the description of "primitive" and "prehistoric" (and is also, as you mentioned, age-appropriate).
And that eliminates most of the actors you've mentioned.
I'm sure Jules Munshin wasn't the only one who could have played the role, but I don't think he's as bad as you make him out to be.
Piggy-backing on these great observations, I think Munshin was added because the first two sailors were already played by leading men- Kelly and Sinatra. Munshin, if you will, represented the comic relief/character actor, and balanced the trio. Another comic type like Sid Caesar or Carl Reiner could've been used as well, but Munshin was flawless. I was glad to see him graduate from novelty roles (like the fastidious waiter in "Easter Parade" who elaborately demonstrates the making of 'Salade Francois') to this film.
shareNone of those listed in ragoode1's post would have taken the job. Ego would never have allowed them to take a "bit part" like this. They wouldn't have accepted being one of the six leads (I'm including Alice Pierce) and quite frankly, Munshin part is fifth in that hierarchy. They would've been lost in the mix and/or demanded their parts be enlarged and new songs written to showcase their talents more equally with Sinatra and Kelly, which would have lengthened the show/movie, raised costs, and ultimate, ruined what was already a well-selling show on Broadway.
In particular, Astaire always performed as the more polished, graceful, classical dancer. Kelly was ushering in a more "everyman", athletic and modern style of dance. All of the dances in this film are of that type.
Hope and Skelton would've gone way over the top in making the part more comical, and to a degree, so would O'Connor. In doing so, they would've stuck out like sore thumbs cloying to get attention by hamming it up. It wouldn't have played well. Dan Dailey...very debatable because he always played older than he was - audiences might have trouble imagining him as in the 18-24 age range of most WWII sailors.
So, I think Munshin was a perfect choice. He could do the comedy without overdoing it, he wasn't competing as a dancer with Kelly, he fits into the mix of other castmembers well, and he was a "name" in theater and comedy, without being a big enough name to demand changes be made in the show. To go back to Ragoode1's post - all the others listed have way more charisma. But too much charisma would've ruined the role.
Danny Kaye or Red Skelton would have been good.
shareFred Astaire???
He had just made a glorious comeback in EASTER PARADE the year before, and was a major star again.
Can you imagine him playing third fiddle to Kelly and Sinatra?
I can't.
Can you imagine him playing third fiddle to Kelly and Sinatra?
I can't.
Another thought...
There's the scene/song at the beginning of the movie ("Prehistoric Man") with Ann Miller in the museum. Not to be overly insulting to Jules, but they did need a guy who looked like a caveman. Van Johnson certainly wouldn't have fit the part!
I love Jules Munshin and always have - of the three sailors, he was my favorite when I first saw the movie (just as he was my favorite in "Take Me Out to the Ballgame"). He's part of what connects Kelly and Sinatra and provides contrast; his timing is wonderful; his attraction isn't "pretty" but rough, honest and forthright. For me, Kelly and Sinatra were pre-programmed as romantic lead; Munshin was purely himself, and I loved him for his support and the freedom it allowed him.
Watch him also as one of the commissars in "Silk Stockings" and also in a lovely little spot in a small highlight spot in "Easter Parade".
I think he was close to perfect in this role.
I certainly cannot think of anyone else in this role (not that I've given it much thought), so that says something.
Kaye wasn't under contract to MGM, plus he was too big a name to take a supporting role like "Gabey." Keenan Wynn is a better choice IF Munshin hadn't done it.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"
I like Jules Munschin in the film. No other dancer/actor has his rubber legs.
shareHe kind of has the goofy-guy role that most characters have in a threesome. Think of the Three Stooges (Curly) or even more recently, the Hangover with Zach Galiafinakis. There's always one stooge of the three. I liked Munshin in Take Me Out To the Ballgame better although his role had less screen time. I think his role here was fine and he was a good physical comedian. Realistically, I think the producers probably wanted someone who would not upstage Kelly or Sinatra while also being okay playing the third wheel. I also believe Munshin was friends with Kelly.
My memory foam pillow says it can't remember my face. I can tell its lying.
Why Not???
Never heard of him before --- or after needed someone to fill the gap -- he could carry a tune and keep up on the steps