Why Barbra?

Barbra Streisand as Dolly is one of the most sterling examples of bad casting that actually ... kind of works. Through sheer star-power and awesome vocals, she delivers what the producers wanted and what audiences expected: a big, splashy performance in an enormous, colorful extravanganza. It wasn't Jerry Herman's DOLLY and it certainly wasn't Thornton Wilder's Dolly (Ruth Gordon on stage, Shirley Booth on screen), but it had something unique nevertheless. I have always personally maintained that the PERFECT on-screen Herman Dolly would have been Judy Holliday. And part of me also wishes Alice Faye might have been given a shot at it, though she was obviously long in the tooth for those close ups. Debbie Reynolds could also have done it and perhaps stolen our hearts in doing so.

One feels the loss of Channing in her signature role. I don't agree with Ernie Lehman that she was too much for the camera. Dolly, like her outstanding Oscar-nominated turn as Muzzy van Hossmere in THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, is a larger-than-life character and the role requires a largeness of spirit. If Lehman thought the proper director couldn't have toned down an excess of energy in front of the camera, then he did not have much confidence in either the performer or his chosen director, Gene Kelly (who resisted the assignment like crazy).

I think it wasn't at all an artistic consideration; it was absolutely a business decision. Just as Jack Warner had passed on then comparatively little-known Julie Andrews in 1962 in favor of signing Audrey Hepburn to protect his enormous investment in MY FAIR LADY, 20th Century Fox and Lehman had to protect their own (eventual) $26 million property (which, adjusted for inflation, is a whopping $159,000,000 today). Channing was out of the running early on, despite her undoubted popularity and high regard within the industry. Ironically, Julie Andrews--on the strength of her box office supremacy--was actually considered for the role and she wisely put the kibosh on that immediately (unlike some other musical/comedy actresses who ended upplaying the role, she was quite lucid about her limitations). Elizabeth Taylor lobbied strenuously for the part (and didn't stop lobbying for a musical role until she had landed A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC in 1977) without success. I think we can all be glad of that.

Streisand, though not a bona-fide movie star at the time she was given the Dolly lead, was nevertheless a huge name from her very successful television appearances and even more successful concerts and recordings. She was considered a sure-bet. Her rave reviews and the spectacular box office returns for FUNNY GIRL seemed to bear that out and, once she copped the Oscar, all was on track for apparently unstoppable success. She even began filming ON A CLEAR DAY (which eventually cost more than $22 million in 1969 values), which was a genuine risk because, unlike both FUNNY GIRL and DOLLY--which had been enormous successes and star vehicles--ON A CLEAR DAY was a middling property with but a single hit title tune that had closed on Broadway after only a few months). Nobody seemed to know that the industry tide had already turned and that, following DOLLY!'s failure to earn back its cost, ON A CLEAR DAY'S losses would dwarf all others from the same approximate time period, including CAMELOT, DOCTOR DOOLITTLE, FINIAN'S RAINBOW, STAR!, DARLING LILI, SWEET CHARITY, PAINT YOUR WAGON, OH, WHAT A LOVELY WAR!, SONG OF NORWAY, SCROOGE, and GOODBYE MR CHIPS).

The publicity lead up to DOLLY! hailed Streisand's sizzling success in FUNNY GIRL and made her seem, indeed, a fresh and exciting prospect--which, as it turns out, is exactly what the story did NOT CALL FOR (nor was it actually true). Fresh and exciting WOULD have been lovely and talented Ann-Margret as Irene Malloy (her screen test was perfection--she'd have been wonderful in the role)--not a far too-young and visibly overweight Streisand channeling Mae West by way of Fanny Brice. Streisand did herself no favors within the industry by supposedly influencing the producers to NOT cast A-M in favor of the darkly beautiful but--shall we say?--mature looking [and obviously dubbed] Marianne McAndrew, hot on the heels of the [to-this-day-unconfirmed] rumors that she'd forced William Wyler/Columbia to nix nearly 100% of Anne Francis's scene-stealing beauty and grace in the release print of FUNNY GIRL. Nor by falling out so publicly with everybody's pal, Walter Matthau. Nor by ... well, whatever.

My own feelings about HELLO, DOLLY! are quite mixed. It's a spectacular, even dazzling production to watch on a big screen. It's impeccably choreographed. Danny Lockin and E.J. Peaker are definitive and simply wonderful in secondary roles that are usually far from memorable. Matthau was born to play Horace Vandergelder. Tommy Tune is impossibly tall and charming. Streisand sings the pants off of every song, and she supports Louis Armstrong well in the unfailingly joyous title song. But Barbra Streisand is never Dolly née Gallagher Levi. Not even during the rare quiet moment ("Love is Only Love"). She has power, force, dynamic energy, intelligence, wit, awesome pipes ... but she is not Dolly. I appreciate her but I don't buy her in the role for a moment. And, as we know from this show, it only ... takes a moment.

"Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind."

Judy Holliday! That's a great "Dolly" idea!!

I thought of Lucy because of the comedy aspect, and she also can act well in serious moments. However - and you have a point - I didn't figure on the "energy" factor. Lucy did well with YOURS MINE AND OURS in '68, but that didn't require Dolly Levi full-tilt energy.

I agree with you on Streisand's energy - constantly flying around, the mile-a-minute rapid-fire line delivery, hoodwinking people into something before they even know what's happening.....all very, very "Dolly". It has always bugged me that she was always slammed for doing this role.