logo
VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
Download
Mame (1974)

Mame (1974)

GENRESMusical
LANGEnglish,Japanese,French,Russian
ACTOR
Lucille BallRobert PrestonBea ArthurBruce Davison
DIRECTOR
Gene Saks

SYNOPSICS

Mame (1974) is a English,Japanese,French,Russian movie. Gene Saks has directed this movie. Lucille Ball,Robert Preston,Bea Arthur,Bruce Davison are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1974. Mame (1974) is considered one of the best Musical movie in India and around the world.

Upon the death of wealthy Chicagoan Edward Dennis in the late 1920s, his nine-year-old son Patrick Dennis becomes the ward of their only living relative, Edward's equally-wealthy New-York-residing sister, Mame Dennis. Edward's will states that Patrick is to be raised Protestant in a "traditional" manner and that the trustee, Mr. Babcock of the Knickerbocker Bank, will pay Mame for expenses incurred in raising Patrick, but he has the right to refuse to pay if he deems that she's not honoring the spirit of Edward's will. Mr. Babcock and Patrick's longtime nanny, the timid Agnes Gooch, are to ensure that Patrick is raised correctly. Edward included these stipulations in his will knowing that his sister is a flamboyant, freewheeling, eccentric woman who can be considered anything but traditional or conventional. Despite the disruption each provides in the other's life, Mame and Patrick form a loving, supportive relationship. Mame wants to provide her sense of guidance to Patrick, which ...

More

Mame (1974) Trailers

Mame (1974) Reviews

  • Absolutely one of my favourite movies

    Comrade Genghis2000-10-15

    Yes, Lucille was filmed in soft focus. No, Lucille did not play Mame exactly like Rosalind Russell. Yes, Warner Brothers was foolish in rejecting Angela Lansbury. But if you are willing to look past that, you will find a WONDERFUL motion picture. Although Paul Zindel perhaps changed more than necessary in his script rewrite, this is still some GREAT material. And one could not have asked for better direction or supporting cast. Gene Saks did a wonderful job on all counts...the cinematography is marvellous (if you can find the wide-screen version) and the whole film is delightfully theatrical. The art direction is to die for; Ball's singing notwithstanding, the musical arrangement is superior to the Broadway recording (possibly excepting "It's Today" and the title number [although it's still very much enjoyable]); and Wayne Fitzgerald's title sequence is one of the best in film history. Although there are a few notes here and there that may make one wince, Ball's singing is really NOT THAT BAD. Folks expecting a musical duplicate of AUNTIE MAME, however, are in for a surprise. Rosalind Russell's performance, which I love, was outrageously campy; Ball interprets Mame quite differently, and plays her much less flamboyantly. Her portrayal is not as inherently funny as Russell's, but Ball is still a grand actress, and she shows real human emotions very well in MAME. Did Angela Lansbury deserve the film role? Most definitely. Lansbury, of whom I am an enormous fan, devoted years of her life to perfecting the role on Broadway (and she DID perfect the role), and she was more than willing to do the film. It is indeed a tragedy that we have no film record of her performance, but that should not be a factor in judging the quality of this film. Ball was perhaps older than the role called for, but she was an able Mame. Everyone around her, especially the great Bea Arthur and the superb Jane Connell (undoubtedly one of the most underappreciated comic actresses alive), is brilliant. What was Ball doing in this picture in the first place? Although she had wanted the part badly ever since AUNTIE MAME was released, it was NOT her financial backing that took this part away from Lansbury. Initially she avidly pursued the role (not even her confidante Desi Arnaz could talk her out of it), but after she broke her leg in 1973 she had a sort of reality check. Realising that she was not in any kind of shape for the part, she told the producers that she was backing out of the movie. Warner Brothers promptly flew a representative out to see her and insist on delaying production for her, saying that she was the only reason the picture was being made in the first place. Lucy was a somewhat insecure person, as well as a person always concerned about others' jobs; feeling that dropping out of the picture would leave everyone else working on it out of a job, she acquiesced. Even when the director begged for Angela Lansbury, Warner Brothers refused on the basis of "star power." It was balderdash, of course, but the business side of show business unfortunately is always in the way of the artistic side.

    More
  • Just enough good elements to take it seriously...

    AlsExGal2019-01-30

    ...for example, Bea Arthur as Vera Charles has one solo and parts of three duets--she steals the film easily, no contest. Robert Preston has one solo & is part of two other numbers, in limited screen time--he does his best to make Lucy look good in the title song and dance and succeeds. The instrumental music is so loud during Lucy's numbers it almost drowns her out, along with other cast members who can't sing. Now for the bad - Lucy didn't have the range to sing the title part and shouldn't have been cast. She ruins her first two songs, then she and the kid cast ruin song number three. From then on she alternates between a very limited tenor range and talk-singing her songs, like Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady (1964). Also, all of the choreography seems slowed down--there is so much blurring of the camera lens one can barely see the pearls Lucy is wearing--they look to be dots. In the end the film just barely avoids disaster and today is considered a bit of a camp classic.

    More
  • A view of the admirability that used to be

    sashajunk2002-02-06

    For those who enjoyed seeing this lively piece in the 1960s, or who liked the novel thirty years ago, Mame could be not only an entertaining sentimental journey, but an interesting view of how times have changed. Lucille Ball is an interesting if not entirely right choice for the main role. She shows Mame Dennis's vivacious personality beautifully, accenting - naturally - the comic aspects of the character. It is a demanding role, covering eleven years from the heyday of the twenties until the start of the forties. Among the character developments are a period of job-hunting, the Southern-belle wooing of a second husband, and the growth involved in raising a child. Her acting is ideal. However, the role asks for a singer equal to the actor, and Ball is not up to it. Her low, aging voice has some depth, especially in the elegiac "Boy with the Bugle," but not the force and clarity of a good singer. The music and lyrics give her a hand, however, with an especial highlight in "Bosom Buddies," the scathing and hilarious duet with Bea Arthur as Vera Charles, "the first lady of American theater." Other catchy tunes you might remember are the title song ("You coax the blues right out of the horn,) Mame," and the romantic, "My Best Girl." Beware of what you may get into as you watch it though: Mame is a piece whose message has become dated. Mame Dennis was a hero to a generation of young novel readers some forty years ago, and those who saw her character on the original musical stage were struck by her energy and her view of the world. "Live!" she says. "Life is a banquet, and most poor sons-of-bitches are starving to death!" But those viewers were from a different era, when women did not work, were expected to be domestic, and her world-hopping would have been seen as radical: an early expression of women's spirit. She was inspirational in her context. Today, though, she represents a different notion. Coming from a vantage point of extreme wealth, her admonition, "Live!" is easy for her to say. She did not create her wealth, but inherited it from her first and second husbands. On her own, Mame cannot provide for herself. When her first inheritance is wiped out in the Great Crash of 1929, Mame gets fired from job after job, relying on her former butler and nanny to pay the bills, until she fortuitously manages to marry into wealth again. So in a modern context, we see Mame not as a freedom-loving feminist expressing herself against the prevailing social constraints, but as a woman who must depend on men to provide her with the necessary element of her freedom: money. In the depression, she could afford to fly around the world and spoil her children on her inherited money, while those who may have wished to be inspired by this spirit could not. Her heroism was not in how she gained her money, but in what she did with it. Even so, taking a two-year honeymoon and holding thirteen parties in two weeks ("She had to cancel one," the butler explains) is hardly politically correct, today. Even her altruistic gesture at the end, when she buys a plot of land for a home for single mothers, is as much a jab at her nephew's future in-laws as pure philanthropy, and the plight of her beneficiaries is only brought home to her when her secretary becomes one of them. It is therefore difficult today, to find Mame unambiguously admirable or inspiring. Her spirit comes from wealth; her wealth is unearned; and is used primarily to pump her own spirit. Her charm notwithstanding, the view of her lifestyle has taken a turn in an age when the wealthy can know how to live, while most poor sons-of-bitches are starving to death. Mame, therefore, is worth a second glance, not only for its tuneful exuberance and wonderful comic moments, not only as a vehicle for a sentimental review of an old favorite, but as a historical piece: a view of the admirability that was.

    More
  • A wonderful movie -- still shining after all these years.

    superstar492000-03-24

    I love this movie from start to finish, always have. I think those who have heavily criticized this film are either anti Lucille Ball (oh my) or have first impressions of the Auntie Mame character by Rosalind Russell and Angela Lansbury. When I watch a movie, I want to be entertained. The first time I saw "Mame" back in the Seventies I just loved it. It's a great story, the songs are memorable, and Beatrice Arthur almost steals the show as Vera (she should have received an Oscar nomination as Best Supporting Actress). I am not looking for perfection as so many of the reviewers here seem to. Lucy does a fine job as far as I'm concerned. She has me totally enthralled for three hours and I am sure that's exactly what Miss Ball set out to do. Way to go, Lucy!

    More
  • Often criticised, but a thoroughly enjoyable musical comedy!

    ozziefilmbuff2001-06-04

    I thoroughly enjoyed 'Mame', though I admit to being a biased Lucille Ball fan. Set during the late 1920's and early 1930's, an orphaned nine year old boy goes to live with his wealthy and highly eccentric socialite aunt (Lucille Ball), who delights in teaching him to live life to the fullest. A repertoire of spirited, memorable songs accompany a complex story chronicling the relationship between a boy and his aunt. Unfortunately, the darker side of human nature dominated within the hostile critiques of 'Mame' at the time of it's release... offensive reviews which deeply hurt Lucille Ball personally. Indeed, 'Mame' was maimed by the critics in 1974. Had 'Mame' been released in the 1940's, 50's or even the 1960's, (with Lucille Ball in the leading role), this delightful musical would have been a major success and Lucy would have won critical acclaim. Unfortunately, by the 1970's the golden era of the Hollywood movie musical was over (in my humble opinion, the film musical died not long after 'Thoroughly Modern Millie' in 1966 ... hopefully, ' Moulin Rouge' will bring it back, or at the very least restore it's dated image, fingers crossed!). Techniques and tastes had changed by the time 'Mame' hit the screen. Audiences were no longer accustomed to leading characters bursting into song spontaneously, ('Cabaret' in 1972 being the only memorable success of this period, complete with it's own different musical style). Therefore, 'Mame' was doomed from the very beginning. To make matters worse, Lucille Ball had been (and remains) solidly typecast as a comedienne [albeit a highly talented one], and would always encounter difficulty in winning over hostile critics who refused to positively endorse her as anything else. Yet Lucy could act, (as had been proven within her touching portrayal of a homeless woman in 'Stone Pillows'), and despite being judged from her somewhat deeper, slower vocal renditions within 'Mame', she **could** sing (her musical talent was showcased within 'Sorrowful Jones' in the 1940's). I personally believe she would have been awarded a 'lifetime achievement' academy award had she survived past 1989, (also, I believe she would have done justice to the portrayal of the older 'Rose' character in 'Titanic', but I digress)... The sets and costumes are sumptuous. In fact, after viewing the film I decided to re-decorate my home in the art-deco style which was the height of fashion within the period in which 'Mame' was set. I first viewed 'Mame' late at night, when I was half asleep, on the ABC (that is, the Australian Broadcasting Co-operation) about three years ago and mistook it for a much earlier production owing to the filming techniques. Of course, a much older Lucille Ball gave the age of the film away, but the filming technique gives this film an 'authentic' feel. Because Lucy happened to be in her 60's at the time of production (somewhat older than Angela Lansbury, who starred in the Broadway stage production and, to her credit, would have also made a *great* Mame), the 'soft' lens was used in some of her close-up shots to make her appear younger. While criticised from time to time, I found the lighting and image texture to closely imitate similar techniques commonplace within the 1920's and 1930's. The film comes across 'authentic', complimenting the art-deco sets and flamboyant costumes. In short, I **love** this film. Don't let the critics rain on Mame's parade. Even the stuffiest cynics *must* concede that the film has it's moments... The 'moon lady' sequence had me in stitches, (as Lucy ascended upon a stage before a theatre-going audience clumsily perched on a cardboard crescent moon). And who can forget Mame's demands for "straight scotch" when shocked by her nephew's [proposed] in-laws and her revolting, belching Southern 'mother-in-law'!? Bea Authur (a one-time 'golden girl'), also steals a number of scenes before the memorable finale. A must see... indeed, let Lucy's Mame "coax those blues right out of your heart"

    More

Hot Search