Are you watching the beloved Christmas classic MAME (1974) this year?
Gay Celebrity Gossip Politics Health Gay Celebrity Gossip Gay Politics Gay News Gay Rights Gay Photos Gay Videos Gossip Outing Gay Health Gay Travel
I'm planning on curling up with some very alcoholic eggnog and watching this now seasonal standard🎵🎵🎵Put on the Blu RayBump up the thread before the Vance's troll's blocked againFill up the ...
the DataLounge
I'm planning on curling up with some very alcoholic eggnog and watching this now seasonal standard

🎵🎵🎵

Put on the Blu Ray

Bump up the thread before the Vance's troll's blocked again

Fill up the compression stockings

I may be senile now but screw that witch Angie now...

🎵

For we need a little Lucy

Right this minute

Coughing on the soundtrack

Goose fat on the camera...

🎵

Yes, we need a little Lucy

Right this very minute

It was never offered to Angie

So Lucie, dear, enjoy the royalties...

🎵

So miss the high notes

Put on the worst performance that I've ever seen

Dissect the casting

It's time we wondered how M would play the role now...

🎵🎵🎵

This movie was my first exposure to the story of Mame, so it'll always have a place in my heart, but over the years, it can feel like a slog to get through. Especially when compared to the Roz Russell movie which moves pretty well for a movie from the 50's. There's a lot of spirit in it. Lucy's Mame feels like someone filmed the last performance of a retirement home production on matinee day. It's lacking energy and drive, but some scenes do work in spite of everything it has going against it which is somewhat of a miracle in and of itself.

And I think you're right. It does start to pick up steam in the 2nd act portion when Lucy is allowed to play her age and she can loosen up. I feel the same way about the Roz Russell version of Gypsy. If you can get through the impossibly dull first act, the 2nd act is worth it.

Recall reading an interview with daughter of choreographer for Mame (Onna White), who said LB had suffered an injury while skiing several weeks before filming the dance scenes. LB being LB was babying the "lame" leg, but Ms. White was having none of it and pushed Ms. Ball again and again to get her to deliver in the dance numbers especially one that follows fox hunt.

This shows in while LG couldn't carry a tune if you packed it in a suitcase, her kicks in dance number are right up there with female dancers half her age. And why shouldn't she have? Those who only know LB from "I Love Lucy", the "Lucy Show" and the rest either forget or are ignorant of fact LB started out as a dancer. She also in her youth was a damn fine looking woman.

Lucy was genuinely good in [italic]Yours, Mine, and Ours[/italic] which, despite being a cover-up for some horrible real-life behavior, did make money on a small budget when it was released. That's probably why they wanted her for this. They failed to take into account that film not being a musical.

If they really didn't want Angie, then it should have been Doris Day' or Ann-Margret. Doris would have really charmed the husks right off the corn, and Ann would have put the sex appeal back into a role that's usually been played by middle-aged matrons, then you would have seen what Beau saw in her. Florence Henderson and Shirley Jones were busy playing sitcom moms so they couldn't have done it; the latter would have turned it into a mini-[italic]Music Man[/italic] reunion.

[quote]It's better than most of the musicals Hollywood tried at that time: Hair,

Nope

[quote] Fiddler on the Roof

Hell no

[quote] All That Jazz,

Shit no.

[quote]The Wiz

Questionable; both suffer from poor pacing and supporting casts having to prop up miscast female leads

[quote]Funny Lady

Never seen this, but there's a parallel hate thread for it on DL

[quote]Annie

No, and fuck you for even suggesting that that is anywhere near in the same league as this fiasco. The only thing they have in common is Ralph Burns.

[quote]1976

If you mean 1776, then no.

[quote]Bugsy Malone

Never seen this, and Scott Baio being in it doesn't make me want to rush out and see it.

[quote]Bedknobs and Broomsticks

Die in a holocaust of grease fires.

[quote]Song of Norway

Debatable since it has been unavailable for so long

[quote]Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Shit no. I'm glad Mrs. Edwards passed on it because she would have ruined it just like she ruined…

[quote]Star!

No, but only because Mr. Brady and Mr. Drummond were both in it as bit players. Daniel Massey wasn't bad, but maybe if someone other than Mrs. Edwards had been Gertie in it it would not have bombed.

[quote]A Little Night Music...

Never seen it, but if they still flopped with the original creators' involvement, then it must be pretty bad.

[quote]I could keep going on.

Don't. You can stop projecting this movie's flaws onto movies that don't actually suck and that don't make a mockery of their source material (or in the case of [italic]Bedknobs[/italic], actually improve on it).

[quote]At least Cabaret and Funny Girl were respectable attempts at filming.

Maybe, but [italic]Cabaret[/italic] had to slash and burn the original show to do it.

[quote]And Ball is far more age appropriate than Babs in Hello, Dolly!

Streisand sings the hell out of those songs better than anyone else I've ever heard.

Give it up, you lesbophobic troll. Lucy single-handedly ruined this film with her chain-smoking and her egomania. Streisand's Dolly has aged like fine wine. LucyMAME has aged like bad cheese.

The difference between them is similar to the difference between the movies of [italic]Annie[/italic] and [italic]A Chorus Line[/italic]: the former works as a film, but it's just not the Broadway show. The latter doesn't work as a film and is only a pale shadow of a brilliant original; even the musicale episodes of [italic]Maude[/italic] had better staging!

[italic]Mame[/italic] stays relatively close to the Broadway text and even puts back stuff from earlier adaptations, but does so in a way that just feels so flat and lifeless compared to the movie that it could have been with a qualified female lead.

[quote]Yes, Angie really didn’t compare favourably to Julie Andrews.

Even though Angie can actually act and B&B also outgrossed [italic]Star![/italic], [italic]Darling Lili[/italic], and [italic]The Tamarind Seed[/italic]. Mrs. Edwards has never been able to play anything other than variations of herself. She couldn’t even manage as many hits on TV as Helen Reddy, never mind Angela Lansbury’s mega-hit [italic]Murder She Wrote[/italic]; both their variety shows failed but Helen could at least fall back on hosting [italic]The Midnight Special[/italic]. Julie failed again with an ABC sitcom and a Netflix puppet show that sold trans propaganda to kids using puppets.

Movie musicals would never have been declared dead had Mrs. Edwards not murdered them. She is the devil of Musical Hell just as Bill Cosby is the devil of Movie Hell and Tony Danza is the devil of TV Hell. So you win: I would rather watch LucyMAME with anything than her in it.

Lansbury is a fabulous actress, especially in musical comedy. With the right film director, she can reign it in. Had Cuckor stayed on the film, maybe he could have done it.

I don't think Lucy is a total disaster in Mame. I think there are moments where she's very funny and moments where she's very moving. Had she been dubbed, it might have been an all around better experience, but a lot of the fault is in the almost laugh-free script. It's almost like they intentionally decided to take out most of the laughs. If you watch Auntie Mame, there are still tons of laughs and it's aged pretty well. I never found Mame on stage to be incredibly funny either. They should have thrown out the book from the stage musical and gone back to the original Auntie Mame script.

[quote]That's what she said but it's not true: Ball bought the rights to the film. There was never any doubt that she would be starring in it.

This seems to be a Datalounge myth. Is there anything you know of where this is even mentioned? I can't find anything. I had seen Lansbury in "Mame" as a kid when she toured and played in the round theaters and came out to Long Island. I remember when Lucy was announced, and then she broke her leg skiing and they had to postpone. I thought, what idiot would take a chance like that. George Cukor dropped out and they hired Bea Arthur's husband Gene Saks who had directed "The Odd Couple" & "Barefoot In The Park". Wonder what Cukor would have done with it.

Ball says on Donahue that Lansbury didn't want to do Mame the movie, which is a total lie and Lansbury still hasn't recovered from not doing it. But somehow, Lucy felt that saying it somehow lightened the load on the idea that she stole the role from Lansbury. Interesting that she's very nice about Rex Reed, although she said she didn't read his review. The only thing I can find about the review is that he said the soft focus on Lucy's closeups looked like they seared chicken fat on the lens, which is actually pretty funny. I don't think she read the rest of the reviews at the time of this taping, because they were so savage and Lucy likely wouldn't have been able to put on her game face.

In 1974, Angela Lansbury had received a lot of critical attention for playing superb supporting roles in her youth and in middle age in film, but she had been reduced to playing the lead in Disney's "Bedknobs and Broomstiocks," which would have made her seem unlikely to be able to helm a big star turn Hollywood musical like "Mame." She had not had her big hit yet with "Murder She Wrote," which surprised everyone by being a big hit--she had not been considered viable as a box office attraction except on Broadway by that point.

Lucy had been the biggest TV star in the 50s and 60s, so it was no wonder Hollywood thought she could do it. But she was too old, and she had ruined what little voice she had by smoking and drinking.

The film is so strange anyway because the place where most of it happens--the narrow mansion that's supposed to be Mame's Beekman place home--came across as so cold and inhospitable. It's like people are dancing in a mausoleum.

Film rights to musical Mame were not purchased by Lucille Ball, but Warner Bros. and ABC who paid $3 million USD.

Depending upon who you wish to believe Lucille Ball did pony up $5 million USD towards production costs. In return for her "investment" LB was given right of first refusal for lead role (Mame). This generous (ahem) donation also give Ms. Ball strong say so in how things were going to go with production.

Above played out in many ways; such as Madeline Kahn reporting for filming on first day, LG taking one look at her figure and deciding it was all wrong for the frump Agnes Gooch. MK was fired which was fine with her since she was also under contract to do Blazing Saddles (which she preferred IIRC), but wouldn't be paid for Mame if she quit. LB or whoever firing her from Mame meant she got her money anyway, and was free to do BS.

Everyone know Lucille Ball's singing was horrible. Lisa Kirk was brought in to do some dubbing, but when LB got wind of things those tape never saw light of day.

Jerry Herman was so upset about how Mame turned out, and piled on the disaster that was Hello Dolly that no other of his musicals can be made into films without his direct involvement.

By many accounts Lucille Ball did go to see Mame on Broadway, and on at least one occasion went backstage to congratulate Angela Lansbury. Subsequently AL noticed LB in the wings one night taking down notes. She then knew her chances of being cast in film version of Mame were now nil, it was something that was a bitter pill to swallow, and yes AL hasn't quite forgiven nor forgot.

Mr. Jerry Herman at first begged, pleaded and perhaps even cried to get suits to use AL instead of LB; they would not be moved. He resorted to intensely working with Lucille Ball on the musical numbers. But her talents by then were so non existent that she couldn't hold a note for one sentence before losing breath. Simple things like "open a new window" were pieced together from multiple takes. Audio engineers did best they could with technology available, but no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig.....

Allegedly Lucille Ball's desire to be involved (and or even backing) Mame was her feelings about what sort of films were being released in early 1970's USA. Last Tango in Paris, Cabaret, The Exorcist, etc.... Her feelings were where "this country was headed" if you forgive use of that phrase, and she wanted to be a part of offering wholesome family entertainment.

Oh to have been in the background of filming Hello Dolly!

Walter Matthau and Barbra Streisand were at each other. Gene Kelly and Barbra Streisand had a "strained" relationship. Barbara Streisand apparently didn't want to do the film, (but Carol Channing did), and required much stroking and encouragement...

Hello Dolly did respectable numbers at box office, but nothing near what was needed to recover costs and earn nice fat profits. Largely one big reason for this was by early 1970's or even late 1960's demographics for movie audiences were skewing towards under thirty crowd. Young people just weren't into musicals , and with so much counter culture activity going on not to mention Vietnam, Hello Dolly just seemed relevant as Dolly Levi's whalebone corsets.

More to another point *lavish* musicals like Hello Dolly just cost far too much in terms of production than anything they could hope to get in returns. BS's beaded gown alone cost almost ten grand.

What is never explained is how Patrick who is raised by Mame to be open minded, free spirited, and unprejudiced grows up to be a stick in the mud, conservative, snob totally forgetting everything his Aunt taught him. So he really is just a device whereby Mame can be a self righteous do gooder because the fun musical comedy part is used up in the first half.

Gene Saks directed the original musical on stage. His two film comedies Barefoot in the Park and The Odd Couple were big hits.

Lansbury was not dubbed in Till the Clouds Roll By. It is her own voice, she dances well and her performance is delightful.

In an early episode of That Girl Don and Marie try to get tickets to the recently opened smash hit Mame with Angela but tickets are impossible to get. So they end up at the still running Funny Girl with Mimi Hines which I assume at that point was barely hanging on so it's what you went to when nothing you wanted to see was available.

Dolly played roadshow half a year at the Rivoli in NY. A fairly short run when it should have played more than a year like other roadshow hits. SOM usually played a year and a half to 2 in many cities on first run at the same theater. But I do know that by the beginning of the summer of '69 Dolly was playing at those same roadshow theaters on continuous performances. I saw it first at one. It was still in Todd AO and 6 track stereo.

For some reason The 35 mm wide release is not an exact duplication of the 70mm version. It was not cut to make it shorter. However If you watch both versions when Streisand is running towards the camera singing Before the Parade Passes By I believe it might be the wide release version(not 100%sure) as she builds the momentum and runs faster her hat starts coming off and she reaches up with her hand to keep it in place and holds it there until the end of the shot. It is very effective in terms of the urgency she is feeling. The Todd AO version has no hat malfunction and I believe she is using both hands to hold her dress slightly up so she can run for the length of the scene. Somebody made the decision to switch the takes after it's initial 70mm release and I wonder who it was.

And yes it has gotten much better with time(Jerry Herman has said he has come to like it) though Crawford is still horrible and painful to watch. What were Kelly, Edens and Lehman thinking? Streisand still thinks it is lousy and wonders what is wrong with people who tell her they like it very much. Even if you think she's too young it is still a killer of a performance and it is remarkable that she commandeers this galleon of a musical production and Funny Girl hadn't even opened yet. Nobody knew how the moviegoing audience would respond to her. Well I guess except her. She was determined to flatten people to the back wall of the theater.

[quote] It is universally acknowledged that there was nobody else but Streisand in '68 who could pull off a huge insanely expensive movie musical.

That is obviously not true, as it pertains to Babs' necessity being 'universally acknowledged.' But it does point out the bigger problem. Hollywood chose to produce a "....huge insanely expensive movie musical." The 14th Street set was too big. The Harmonia Gardens was too big. Sure, Todd-AO wants it wants, but comedy does, too. There are 2,500 people in the 14th Street Parade scene. At every turn, the producers over-shot the runway with the film version of "Hello, Dolly!" The production overpowers the story and eats big chunks of it before the story concludes.

Then there is the problem of Michael Kidd's shitty choreography that is, again, too big, too athletic, and mostly without charm. Everything Gower Champion did on Broadway is better than anything Michael Kidd did for the movie. That goes double for the "Hello, Dolly!" number itself.

They envisioned a production that was too big and then hired Ernest Lehman to produce. His only other film as a producer was "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf." They agreed not to release the film until the Broadway production closed, or the show broke My Fair Lady's record for the longest run. That left them with a finished film they could not release. The film was so very expensive because the producers made it so. Unnecessarily. Foolishly, too. There was nothing about the property itself that demanded it.

What in the world are you talking about? Then you tell me who should have done the role?

And how exactly do you do a 14th street parade without thousands of extras? Have you ever seen pictures of NY City parades at the beginning of the century? They were beyond massive. And the gilded age produced spectacular buildings everywhere there was money in a city. Thank god for John Box. Also Sharraff's costumes are awesome.

And the hat shop scene is a comedy tour de force beautifully acted and directed. It helps that Crawford spends it in an armoire. Also the turkey dinner is hilarious.

I'll give you though Kidd's choreography. Yes it is pretty bad but it has one wonderful moment. In Dancing when Peaker and Lockin dance and he turns and does a back flip with the rest of the corps in the back watching. I also like the Egyptian frieze bit in the Hello Dolly number. Yeah I know not much in a musical with a lot of dancing. The Waiter's Gallop is excruciating. They should have cut it. But they needed to fill out a roadshow time slot. Like the Jewish wedding in Millie. And amazingly neither were cut when they went to wide release. Continuous performances! Popular Prices! Exactly as seen on Broadway at $5.00!

I don't have a problem with Streisand. She has commanding presence in every scene and she delivers a performance that pushes the whole thing forward. The film is far too big and yet she fills it up. This she does despite being miscast. She sings it sumptuously. As Streisand does a creditable job, but is still miscast, and according to R271, there was no one else at the time who could play the role, then perhaps it was unwise to spend $20 mil blowing the thing up to the size of Texas. Perhaps it was unwise to make the film at all. Just wait 20 years for Streisand to age into the part, though she would never be believable as a woman whose last name was Gallagher.

The musical play "Hello, Dolly!" has not one revolutionary aspect. It is as traditiomal as can be. Ergo, it probably is best served by more traditional casting, i.e., a woman old enough to be seasoned, wise, a widow, and very lonely. None of those women working successfully in the business at that time could be slotted into the film that Barbra made. But a smaller and more charming film... yes. All of them have been named above. Again and again.

And if you want to bitch that none of them would sell tickets, my reply is that if the film were smaller, a hell of a lot fewer tickets would need to be sold.

And it still might lose money. Even the film that got made still outgrossed both the other Fox musicals of the late 1960s. LucyMAME had the original Broadway director and choreographer and cost half as much and still lost money.

You say the production was too much yet it was that that received Oscars from Hollywood and not any of the actual performers. All its Oscars were technical ones, and when you look at a production like that today and consider that not a single solitary was computer was involved in making it, it truly is a sight to behold. No Broadway stage could capture that. You have to be able to give them something that a stage cannot. That’s part of the reason [italic]The Sound of Music[/italic] made so much money: no theatrical experience could actually re-create actually doing it in Austria in the places where the real story took place.

Jerry Herman was willing to give Hollywood a second chance after StreisanDOLLY! This preemptively cost us a film version of [italic]La Cage [/italic] before it ever existed, or any of his other shows.

[quote] ... it truly is a sight to behold.

Yes. But it does not pair well with comedy. "Hello, Dolly!" is a frothy comedy with some moments of great heart. It is very light. The film's production is not light. Not in any way. The scale is leviathan.

Things are much better scaled in the scenes filmed in Garrison, NY. The $25,000 dollar gold beaded dress is just silly. If Dolly could afford that dress, she could attract a better husband than Horace Vandergelder. Just as if Dolly is 27 years old, she can attract a better husband than Horace Vandergelder.

If the production keeps fudging the details, they end up with something less than optimal. There is much to like about this movie, but it clearly seems to be sub-optimal in some big ways.

[quote] "Hello, Dolly!" is a frothy comedy with some moments of great heart. It is very light.

If we’d have left you in charge of its production, it would have looked like a home movie.

At least this doesn’t force you to overlook the horrific behavior of the Catholic Church in order to enjoy and like a certain other Fox musical from that decade I could name. Homophobia is a reason StreisanDOLLY! gets more of the blame than it deserves for the decline and fall of Darryl F. Zanuck. Danny Lockin was gay and so is Jerry Herman. Homophobia is also the same reason Roddy McDowall got cut of a bunch of the movies he got cut out of, and also the reason his own movie that he directed was taken away from him in the editing room.

[quote] The big problem with LUCY/MAME is the godawful script by Paul Zindel. How on earth does "The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds" qualify a writer for a screen adaptation of MAME? Lucy didn't get the Comden and Green script that Roz got to work with. NO ONE could make the film script play well. Lucy was an experienced performer and an experienced producer. She should have spotted the problem with the script and demanded that it be entirely re-written.

Did they even ask Ernest Lehman? Maybe he could’ve given them some thing she could actually work with, at least in the book scenes.

Of course, Lucy screwed over writers before. They dumbed down her TV character just to avoid paying Jess Oppenheimer royalties.

R238 for the win.

Mame found out early on via terms of her late brother's will that she got Patrick, but his money (and heavy influence over education) rested with trustees of Knickerbocker Bank.

Upon their first meeting Mr. Babcock admits he was prejudiced against Mame due to her reputation, but upon their meeting the latter charmed the pants off former so he was willing to give her slightly more of a free hand. Mame abused that trust by putting Patrick into that "free love" school which caused trustee to act; Patrick was removed to an institution that provided a "conservative education" (as per terms of his late father's will), and Mr. Babcock threatened to try and prevent Mame from getting him back on school holidays.

Apparently Patrick fell under the influence of his boarding school mates (likely helped along by Mr. Babcock) which would be natural since ten months of year he would have been away at school. IIRC the Upsons were close to or at least knew Mr. Babcock well which was how Patrick and Gloria came to meet.

Until he came of age Patrick's money came not from Mame, but his trustee including pocket funds. Thus as in real life Patrick's trustee was an active part of his young life; that is just how things go when one's money is managed by executors, trustees, and attorneys.

Song of the South is a wonderful film and needs no excuses and no trigger warnings before it. It is sheer insanity that Disney has it hidden away as if it were a film condoning sex with a minor. And it denies us the beautiful performance of James Baskett one of the few major performances by an African American in a Hollywood film of the era. How much more idiotic can it get? I mean honestly do African Americans want the film banned? Will peoples rights be violated if the film is released? GWTW is far worse. People have a problem with Ruth Warrick berating Uncle Remus very stupidly not getting the point that she's clearly shown to be the intolerant one. It's the whole point of the scene.

The script was, indeed, the main issue with Mame. If it were better and the direction had been more engaging, Ball could have survived the inherent miscasting and at least turn in something more human, funny, and charming. As someone else pointed out, it's amazing that Ball agreed to green light that shooting script at all until it gave her more to work with.

Hello, Dolly still retains most of the good stuff from the musical with a few less favorable diversions. It might feel overstuffed and bloated, but more works with it than doesn't work. Streisand is also miscast which makes some elements of her performance a bit lackluster, but she does nail some of the comedy and, of course, sings it beautifully.

When the book was published, in 1954, Mame could stand in counterpoint to its much more conservative era. That dynamic still worked at the end of 1958 when the film debuted.

The musical MAME opened on Broadway in 1966. That was absolutely the last moment the character Mame could surprise anyone or be viewed as unconventional or rebellious. The Summer of Love happened in 1967 By the time MAME closed on Broadway in 1970, history had overtaken it and it had become pointless.

Under even the best circumstances, a movie version, starring anybody, was entirely unnecessary in 1974, and had been for years. A character who had been boldly rebellious was now just quaint.

Maybe there was an actress, younger and more dangerous, who could have made something of it, but ossified Republican Lucy only compounded the problem. A property past its prime was led by an actress past her prime.

Ann Margret was about 32 when the movie was shot and the concept of a child bringing this young, gorgeous bohemian stability is interesting. They could have even had Robert Smith as Beauregard. But when they stayed with the older Auntie Mame, it naturally becomes an old musical. Roz Russell said Cher should have done it because she could bring something new to the work. Although I disagree with Cher, I do think that by casting much younger, they wouldn't fall into the pit of trying to recreate the original.

The original performers pitched were reportedly Angie, Bette Davis as Vera and Carol Burnett as Gooch. Davis would have brought the movie star luster and Burnett the TV audience so having Lansbury in the lead was no longer about her singlehandedly carrying a major motion picture.

Come to think of it, a young Mame could really be poignant. She could be more of a Holly Golightly type character who has to mature to take care of this kid that's just been thrust into her life. It would be interesting to see both of the characters grow up - one in a literal way and the other in a figurative way.

If Mame is too old, there's a slightly sad quality to her in the same way you'd pity a 65 year old groupie. It just seems like they're trying too hard to cling on to their youth and prove that they're different than normal older people.

The same pathetic troll defending this film also posted this:

[quote]Caitlyn Jenner looks beautiful!

[quote]Better than the average cislesbian anyway.

You really are a cunt and a bigot in addition to being the philistine of philistines. Now, there are good things in this film, but they don't add up to a satisfying whole, but for you to disingenuously act like Rosalind Russell and Angela Lansbury were inferior to her in any way just shows how impossible it is for you to be taken seriously. To even entertain the notion that someone who had just dropped two of the biggest bombs of the Roadshow era, bombs big enough to negate her previous hits, would be better makes you beyond the pale. You're what's wrong with movie musicals. You will grasp at any straw to defend the indefensible only to tear down things that actually have artistic merit in order to do it.

[quote] Come to think of it, a young Mame could really be poignant. She could be more of a Holly Golightly type character who has to mature to take care of this kid that's just been thrust into her life. It would be interesting to see both of the characters grow up - one in a literal way and the other in a figurative way....If Mame is too old, there's a slightly sad quality to her in the same way you'd pity a 65 year old groupie. It just seems like they're trying too hard to cling on to their youth and prove that they're different than normal older people.

I agree Mame should be young, she's free, uninhibited and full of life and now she has to put her fun life on hold for Patrick. An older Mame is tired, and maybe ready to settle down anyway.

The rock musicals have largely aged worse than LucyMAME. They were dated from their inception to their execution. At least this had good source material to work with, and the themes of racism and anti-semitism were and are still very much timely. The material wasn't the problem: the clumsy execution of it was.

The older I get, the more I realize Frank Sinatra was right about rock when he called it "phony and false" and called its performers "cretinous goons." John Lennon proved it by beating his first wife and inflicting Yoko Ono on the world. She makes Lucy sound like Maria Callas. Hell, she makes Charlie Callas sound like Maria Callas. Disco was a welcome rebellion against rock, but it barely made a blip on the movie musical radar outside of that Village People thing and a couple others; I do not consider [italic]Saturday Night Fever[/italic] a musical.

Regarding the costume design, and how bad Bea Arthur looked in particular -- I work in film preservation and recently dealt with several hours of footage shot in the mid to late 1920's - essentially home movies of some very well off people -- and I was struck by how unflattering the clothes worn by most of the women were. In the footage the elderly women still mostly wear more edwardian style stuff, and look old / old fashioned; but the women in their 40's / 50's who chose current styles really do look odd, and these are people who I'm sure were buying very expensive, well made clothes in the most current styles.

The straight lines, dropped waists and cloche hats really only look good on an idealized flapper type - young, thin and with a flat chest; on more matronly women they look awful, but these women wanted to be in style, thought they looked great, and I'm sure Vera Charles would have done the same. Bea looking terrible is actually correct for the period.