giovedì 14 aprile 2016

Best Actress in a Supporting Role 1967: Carol Channing in Thoroughly Modern Millie

Carol Channing received her only Oscar nomination for her performance as Muzzy van Hossmere in Thoroughly Modern Millie. 



Thoroughly Modern Millie is a very average comedy about the adventures of a young, naive woman in the "roaring twenties". While it's not an awful movie, it's not one I found very interesting or amusing whatsoever: it's pretty watchable but it's nothing particularly special. It's very nice and colorful with a few good, catchy songs but that's it. The cast isn't particularly special: Julie Andrews and James Foxx are sweet enough and Mary Tyler Moore is actually pretty charming, but John Gavin delivers an extremely wooden performance and Beatrice Lillie is an extremely weak and forgettable villain. 

Carol Channing plays Muzzy, an eccentric widow who likes to do crazy stuff and throw expensive parties who befriends Millie and her friends. From the first moment in which she appears, Channing seems to be pretty much set on the idea of making Muzzy an extremely larger-than-life, wacky character: I suppose that it's the right approach for this kind of role but in every single moment of her performance Channing overplays the role to maximum to the point of becoming an extremely unbearable, almost insufferable character killing any sort of amusement that might have come out of her performance. There isn't a single thing that she seems to get right in her performance: her line-delivery manages to be extremely over-the-top yet strangely robotic at the same time; her facial-expressions are mostly overdone and they are always basically the same (either a wide-eyed, smiling face or a concerned, supposedly sad one); her body language is broad and exaggerated and always sort of  not spontaneous and unnatural. To be fair, the role itself isn't far from being a caricature and the writing regarding Muzzy is rather repetitive (her routine, which consists in doing something crazy, unexpected and "funny" while uttering her catchphrase "Raspberries!", gets very tiresome very quickly): but Channing herself does nothing herself to prevent her character from becoming a broad, cartoonish joke that ends up being dreadfully unfunny. 

There is one scene that I come close to liking which would be her big number, "Jazz Baby" which is an extremely catchy and enjoyable song and Carol Channing has a unique, beautiful singing voice but even this scene still feels somehow mixed because while her singing is great she still does some rather odd acting choices during the scene and again her body movements feel somehow forced.

I might have liked her performance a little bit more if she had acted at least decently in her few serious moments where she isn't required to be particularly wacky but even in those scenes Channing doesn't tone down her acting. She doesn't bring any poignancy or emotional weight to them but instead comes off as somewhat dull and stilted. The scene in which she opens up a bit more about her deceased husband feels particularly like a missed opportunity because it could have been a touching, heartfelt moment - instead it is extremely unremarkable and forgettable. Even when the script gives the occasion to humanize the character, Channing makes Muzzy more of a parody rather than a honest character. Also the twist at the end of the movie regarding Muzzy doesn't really work very much and this is mostly because Channing didn't really earn that moment at all. 

In the end, this is in my opinion a very poor performance by Carol Channing: while the role itself was pretty much a cartoon, she still could have been quite enjoyable but she squanders any sort of potential that the role might have offered. She delivers an annoying and overbearing turn and while she puts a lot of energy in the performance and is clearly having a lot of fun, I was not amused to say the least.

1.5/5

6 commenti:

  1. You destroyed any desire I had to watch this film for her performance lol

    Mary Taylor Moore would made a fine nominee?

    RispondiElimina
    Risposte
    1. As much as I don't like Channing's performance, I somehow can see why someone would find her funny. I think she's pretty bad but it's an interesting performance so I'd suggest you to see it nonetheless.

      As for Mary Tyler Moore, I think she gives the best performance in the movie. It's nothing amazing but it's a pretty lovely performance. As for a nomination I think it would have been a bit too much but I wouldn't have complained much about it and she definitely was worthier than Richards and Channing.

      Elimina
  2. My high school (I'm in college now) did the musical, and it was pretty good, I liked the songs and the characters, so I do want to see the movie. My only issues could be the villain, John Gavin, and Carol Channing (especially after reading this). As of now I have seen 3 of Gavin's movies: Imitation of Life, Spartacus, and Psycho (all of which are personal favorites). Unfortunately, he was the weakest link in all three movies (to me anyways). Luckily for him, this movie might not be the case.

    By the way, may I have your ratings for the rest of the cast?

    RispondiElimina
    Risposte
    1. John Gavin is a very wooden actor in general. I too like Imitation of Life, Spartacus and Psycho quite a lot but he's very bland in all of them.

      My ratings on the cast:
      Andrews - 3
      Fox - 3
      Moore - 3
      Gavin - 2
      Lillie - 2 (although she's very close to being downgraded)
      Andrews and Fox too are very weak 3s and they're both close to a lower rating but I decided to be a bit generous because they probably made the movie a bit more tolerable to me.

      Elimina
  3. John Gavin had a great agent and minimal talent, but I never really thought he was horrible. Just extremely bland.

    RispondiElimina
    Risposte
    1. I don't find him truly terrible either. He is never distractingly bad, he is just extremely flat and wooden.

      Elimina