A bit of trivia about that film. The original casting had Grant as the bishop and Niven as the angel, but they reversed it after screen tests.
Do you think it worked out better the way they filmed it, or would the reversed roles have worked better? I personally think the filmed version is probably better.
Grant was known to be "Charitable" with His Roles, where other Actors were concerned. He did the same with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., in, "Gunga Din".
shareI think Niven was playing a little against type in the role as the bishop. He has usually been the charmer in most of the films I have seen him in. But I doubt if he would have out-charmed Grant's portrayal as the angel.
shareBut I doubt if he would have out-charmed Grant's portrayal as the angel.
Goldwyn knew how to get a grumpy performance out of David Niven by giving the role of the angel to Cary Grant. But, like you, I prefer to see David Niven given the chance to show his charm on screen.
shareI was reading Niven's book 'The Man behind the Balloon' and in it, it was said that Goldwyn was simply strong-armed into giving Grant the role of the angel. Niven went up to grant and made his case but Grant wouldn't budge. Even Loretta Young tried to convince Grant, telling him to consider what Niven was going through (having just lost his beloved Primmie a year ago) but Grant simply said they were making movies not running a missionary service in the Congo..
shareI will try to track down 'The Man Behind The Balloon.' I do see more clearly how David Niven was peeved about the casting now that you have told me more about what laid behind it. Thanks. I hope that I can get hold of a copy of that book.
shareYou're welcome. Do look for it on Ebay as I found it can be quite a bit more expensive at Amazon.
share[deleted]
Well, now that you mention it, that makes sense. Cause the whole time I was watching this, I felt that their roles should have been reversed. Grant would have been better as the bishop, and Niven was perfect to play a charming angel!
The casting really messed up that one!
Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!
I agree completely with pt100. As I said in another thread here, I really don't think it would have been as good w/Grant's and Niven's roles reversed. I think they both played their parts to best effect; and I don't think it would have been as believable that Grant, as the bishop, would be paranoid about Niven's stealing away his wife--or Sylvester's mistaking Dudley for her husband.
This sentence is false. -- The Zurich Gnome
They both did really well with their characters. I cant imagine it any other way.
share