MovieChat Forums > Sweet Charity (1969) Discussion > If Shirley had turned down the role - wh...

If Shirley had turned down the role - who could have played it?


I was watching the movie the other day, and started thinking - If Shirley had not accepted the role, who else in Hollywood - who was a big enough marquee name *and* a strong dancer - could have done it?

Gwen didn't get the nod, as we saw, so we rule her out. I honestly can't think of anyone else who was big box office - at that time - who would have been right. Thoughts?

"Everytime I want to have a little fun-SHE turns out!" (Baron Bomburst)

reply

Who else... Liza?

reply

Wow, she would have been great!
But would they have given her the role in 1968? she wasn't a "huge" name yet.
But good choice, artistically!

"Everytime I want to have a little fun-SHE turns out!" (Baron Bomburst)

reply

Goldie Hawn would have been a good choice, she could sing and dance and was very sexy in a cute way - and Charity wasn't supposed to be too smart and Goldie played the dumb blonde very well (the film opened the same year as Goldie's Oscar winning "Cactus Flower"

reply

Gwen Verdon! She was already playing the role on Broadway!

reply

If Shirley had turned it down...then it would have been great for Universal to have taken a chance on Gwen!

"Everytime I want to have a little fun-SHE turns out!" (Baron Bomburst)

reply

I also think they may have gone with Gwen if Shirley had said no. People who say that Gwen was not big enough tend to forget about "Damn Yankees".

reply

I watched DY last night, in fact. Gwen came off great onscreen.
I think Universal may have been in that "We need a Hollywood name" mentality.
Other than Shirely or Gwen, I honestly can't think of a song and dance actress in Hollywood at that time who would have been suitable. Liza Minnelli was far too young at that point.

"Everytime I want to have a little fun-SHE turns out!" (Baron Bomburst)

reply

Before the film version of Sweet Charity went into production (and when Ross Hunter was still attached to the project as producer), there were items in the Hollywood trades stating Gwen Verdon might play the lead in the movie with Jack Lemmon as her leading man. I don't know if the studio ever seriously considered this, but Lemmon's participation would have provided some box office insurance. But not long after that it was announced Shirley MacLaine would be playing Charity.

And as I'm sure I've mentioned to you before, Ann-Margret was the only big Hollywood "name" at the time (outside of MacLaine) who could have played Charity - at least, IMHO.

reply

Thank you murph!
I can see Lemmon as Oscar beautifully (a "Felix Unger" type of character), but would he have accepted it? Oscar doesn't come on until halfway through the movie, and even though he is the male lead, his role is a definite "second billing" size role.

I agree with you about Ann-Margret. There was nobody in Hollywood at that time who would have been right for it other than Annie or Shirley.

"Everytime I want to have a little fun-SHE turns out!" (Baron Bomburst)

reply

I once saw a stage production of Sweet Charity in which Charlie, Vittorio and Oscar were played by the same actor, and this created a male lead that might have attracted a star for a Broadway revival (which I think was the question that this production outside New York was intended to answer).

I'm glad we have John McMartin's terrific Oscar on film, but wouldn't it have been interesting and unusual to see someone like Lemmon take on a triple role opposite Verdon's (or Maclaine's) Charity? That sort of odd stunt might have helped the box office performance.


The money is quickly spent but the shame remains.

reply

THAT would have been a terrific idea! It recalls what Lemmon did in IRMA LA DOUCE (again, opposite Shirley).

That this film didn't do well is a sin. I'm only glad that in the ensuing years, it took on a renewed life.






"I'm the only person here I've never heard of" - Charity Hope Valentine, SWEET CHARITY

reply

Audrey would have been a great choice.

reply

Audrey Hepburn as a gum-chewing, tattooed, borderline-tramp who doesn't know what a stenotypist is? Are you serious? I can't imagine anyone less appropriate for the role. Why not Jessica Tandy?


The money is quickly spent but the shame remains.

reply

I can't think of a worse choice.

reply

Saw concert revival last night with same actor as all three.

reply

I once played Big Daddy and Vittorio in a production of this show.

reply

I could only imagine Dick Van Dyke in the role of Oscar. In fact it almost seems as though John McMartin was trying to channel Dick Van Dyke in his performance, which makes me wonder whether Van Dyke may have been the film makers first choice to play the role.

reply

Apart from Liza or Goldie-Barbra?

reply

Barbra? She can't dance.

reply

Julie Andrews?

reply

Nobody would have considered it at the time but Cher might have ben a good choice.

reply


Ann-Margret was much too young and beautiful to play the lead. Such a hottie could a snag any man she wants and she would never have had the need to work as a taxi dancer, at any age.

reply

Remember, though, that Sweet Charity isn't the story of an unattractive woman who can't find a man; it's about a trusting, hopeful woman who is frequently used (and sometime abused) by men. And sometimes beautiful women can find themselves in that situation; they can even find themselves in the "rent-a-body" business.

What the role really requires is an actress who's appealing, vulnerable and a strong dancer, and Ann-Margret certainly has those qualities.

As for her age, Ann-Margret was around 28 when the movie was being filmed, which would have put her in the correct age range for the role -

http://www.stageagent.com/Shows/View/742

I'm not saying she should have played the part over MacLaine; however, I do believe that if MacLaine had turned the role down, Ann-Margret would have been the best option among Hollywood's leading ladies at that time.

reply

[deleted]

Shirley MacLaine is every bit as beautiful and sexy as Ann-Margret.

reply

Cher never could have pulled off that choreography.

reply

I always thought Angela Landsbury could've pulled it off. She certainly had the dancing, acting and singing chops (a complete triple threat). She also had some decent Hollywood cred.

The one problem is she probably was at least 10 years to old at that point (she was at the time 43-44. That was probably Gwen Verdon's biggest strike against her as well (Gwen was actually 10 months older then Angela).

It is something you could get away with on the stage, but in the harsh light of the movie camera... not so much... and you'd have to really change the the underlying fundamentals of the character Charity at that point.

reply

I'm going to throw out a possibility that is a bit off the wall.

I'm not certain just how strong of a dancer she was, but I know that she got her start specifically as a dancer.

She had name recognition, though from TV rather than Hollywood movies.

At the time she was 33 (2 years younger than MacLaine), right in the right age range.

The appealing, trusting, and hopeful were certainly right in her screen persona. However, the low rent taxi dancer would have been something of a shift in her image.

How about Mary Tyler Moore as a possible fall back plan? Laura Petrie down on her luck, out of the suburbs, and gone downtown?

reply

[deleted]

If not Gwen Verdon, then I think Debbie Reynolds could have done very well as Charity. [She and MacLaine had competed for the role of Molly Brown a few years earlier.]

reply

Ann Marget most certainly could have played Charity

reply

Probably Liza Minnelli who went on to do another Fosse doozy called Cabaret. Then again, at the time, she was probably about 10 years too young.

reply

There were no shortage of great ladies, off the top of my head. I think that Shirley Jones and Mitzi Gaynor would have been great

reply

I know shirley Jones is more versatile than her goody-goody image might imply, but her vocal style would have been all wrong for Charity, and she might have looked too wholesome. Mitzi Gaynor could certainly have done it, but she is an acquired taste with many people and her box-office days were behind her. Shirley MacLaine was perfectly cast. It's difficult to picture anyone else doing the role justice, just as Fanny Brice belongs to Streisand and Sally Bowles belongs to Liza.

reply

[deleted]

It's hard to imagine anyone owning the role the way Shirley did, but I would have been interested in seeing Natalie Wood's take on it.

reply