16 hours ago, EricMontreal22 said:

Keep in mind that virtually every actor on Citizen Kane was new to movies (including future film regulars Agnes Moorehead and Joseph Cotten).  Ten of them came from Orson Welles' own rep company, Mercury Actors.  Ruth Warrick in fact was one of the few with prior, minor, Hollywood work (Warrick thinks he cast her because she looked like his mother when she was young).  It also was a commercial *flop* big time and only a mild critical hit.  To go from Citizen Kane to GL ten years later, before Kane had really earned the reputation we now give it, would just seem like business as usual, really.

 

KANE was still considered an important film in the 1940s. It ran into trouble because of Hearst, but to some, that would give it a distinct advantage. Warrick was in some hits in the 40s. SONG OF THE SOUTH was probably the most commercially successful film she appeared in during that time. But other films, made at Fox and Paramount were hits too. She didn't become a highly sought after lead actress, but did establish a reputation as a lead in B films, and as a supporting player in A films.

 

Many of them went to New York to do work on TV anthology shows. People bigger than Ruth Warrick, like Mary Astor who started in silent films and had earned an Oscar in 1941. Film roles for these women were drying up in the early 50s, but continued employment could be found on television.

8 hours ago, SFK said:

Folks in this thread seem to be pretty hard on Marj Dusay has Alex. And yet, as much as I adore her, I think the originally intended recast, Robin Strasser, wouldn't have been the right fit. What do you all think?

God no!!! She is so over the top she would make Marj look understated. Plus, Alex should look more waspy.

 

I personally love Marj and I think with the correct writing and a LOT of direction she could have done it.  She would have never been Bev...but she was capable as grittier Alex, and as I mentioned, one of my fave Alex scenes is her face off with FauxAnnie in the attic...." Ya got a BARK on ya, don't ya honey, but I have dealt with far WORSE then YOU!" WIth more material like that Marj would have been great.  BevAlex was drawing room and MarjAlex was more of an eccentric rich lady out with her dogs and horses.

 

I wish they had just let Alex go and have Marj be a new character but just as tough. I think it was  TPTB vision of Alex that sucked..she became an ineffectual shrieking harpy.  Again, Marj would have been great as a major stockholder in Spaulding who was rich as hell and racing horses drinking bourbon and breeding dogs and giving Alan hell ever step of the way. Didn't Henry date a showgirl for a while. (I know, suspension of belief that it was a show..girl..) He could have married her and left all his stock..fighting Alan, embarassing Vanessa, hanging out with Nola and Reva..

There was nothing that said Brandon couldn't have fathered another illegitimate child (aside from Victoria and Amanda) while married to Alan and Alexandra's mother.

I know a lot of people wanted Constance Towers as Alex, but as great as she is, I can’t see it. Agreed that they should have let Alexandra go and written in a new grande dame.

There was a certain charm and exuberance Bev possessed that couldn't easily be replicated or even explained properly, which is why GL and AW went in vastly different directions when they recast her roles. 

Did we ever learn the name of Alexandra and Alan's mother? That was a whole part of the backstory that went largely unexplored.

15 minutes ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

Did we ever learn the name of Alexandra and Alan's mother? That was a whole part of the backstory that went largely unexplored.

Her name was Penelope. She appeared in flasbacks in 1984. During the Susan Piper story. Penelope killed Sharina's brother Conrad.

7 minutes ago, victoria foxton said:

Her name was Penelope. She appeared in flasbacks in 1984. During the Susan Piper story. Penelope killed Sharina's brother Conrad.

 

Thanks. I vaguely recall those scenes.

Well yes--exactly the point I was making and why I think it's pretty ridiculous to consider that actors in her situation would crumple up at having to do Guiding Light (although I should point out her role on GL lasted nearly 2 years and while very much a supporting role as a nurse, was *not* an "under-five").

7 minutes ago, EricMontreal22 said:

Well yes--exactly the point I was making and why I think it's pretty ridiculous to consider that actors in her situation would crumple up at having to do Guiding Light (although I should point out her role on GL lasted nearly 2 years and while very much a supporting role as a nurse, was *not* an "under-five").

 

I think you're splitting hairs and being argumentative again. From the blurb posted by the other poster, I gather she started as an under 5 on Guiding Light. Nobody said she remained an under 5. And I don't think you understand the Hollywood star system very well. Of course 'crumple up' was just a figure of speech you seem to be attacking, but if Julia Roberts suddenly found herself out of work and was only being offered an under 5 on a soap, she'd probably want to crumple up and die. It's a massive thing for a star's ego to take that they have been reduced this low in the pecking order. Some of them flip out when they can no longer play a lead and have to go to supporting roles. Many of them feel soaps are way beneath them. So the point of our discussing Warrick is to commend the way she didn't just give up and how she totally reinvented herself on soaps. If you can't agree with that, then you are choosing to be argumentative again.

So I've been watching the 1988 videos recently reposted on Youtube.. and I actually think I know get why Blake was eventually recast with Sherry Stringfield in mid 1989.  I think once the plan was officially in place to bring Beth into the picture, the actress playing Blake had to be replaced since Elizabeth D had spent a year playing Blake as tortured and remorseful, plus she and Grant A had chemistry.  The second that Sherry Stringfield walked into the room on her first day as Blake, gone was the tortured public relations guru.  Sherry S was anything, but tortured.  She had a sarcastic wit (just like her mama Holly) and was much colder than Elizabeth D was in the part without any of the torture/angst.  You could buy her being the heavy in Phillip/Beth's love story more so than if Elizabeth D kept playing the part.. imho.

3 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

So I've been watching the 1988 videos recently reposted on Youtube.. and I actually think I know get why Blake was eventually recast with Sherry Stringfield in mid 1989.  I think once the plan was officially in place to bring Beth into the picture, the actress playing Blake had to be replaced since Elizabeth D had spent a year playing Blake as tortured and remorseful, plus she and Grant A had chemistry.  The second that Sherry Stringfield walked into the room on her first day as Blake, gone was the tortured public relations guru.  Sherry S was anything, but tortured.  She had a sarcastic wit (just like her mama Holly) and was much colder than Elizabeth D was in the part without any of the torture/angst.  You could buy her being the heavy in Phillip/Beth's love story more so than if Elizabeth D kept playing the part.. imho.

 

I think recasting also helped them make Blake look more like Roger & Holly. Stringfield and Keifer shared a physical resemblance to Garrett and Zaslow. Elizabeth Dennehy, who was cast before it was decided that Blake would turn out to be Chrissie Thorpe, looked like she belonged in a different family.

10 minutes ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

I think recasting also helped them make Blake look more like Roger & Holly. Stringfield and Keifer shared a physical resemblance to Garrett and Zaslow. Elizabeth Dennehy, who was cast before it was decided that Blake would turn out to be Chrissie Thorpe, looked like she belonged in a different family.

 

I think you might be right, but I do think Dennehy had the tortured quality that Garrett had as Holly back in the 70s.  At the same time, Dennehy and Aleksander had more chemistry as a couple than Stringfield and Aleksander did as well.  Plus, Stringfield was 21/22 when she started as Blake so she looked young enough to play daughter to Garrett/Zaslow as well.

7 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

 

I think you might be right, but I do think Dennehy had the tortured quality that Garrett had as Holly back in the 70s.  At the same time, Dennehy and Aleksander had more chemistry as a couple than Stringfield and Aleksander did as well.  Plus, Stringfield was 21/22 when she started as Blake so she looked young enough to play daughter to Garrett/Zaslow as well.

 

Yes, Stringfield was younger...but in my opinion seemed a little more butch in the role. I liked Dennehy but something about her didn't fit the character. I think Keifer was the best, though admittedly Keifer was better at the domestic scenes than the business-related stuff. Keifer didn't have the strong writing that Dennehy and Stringfield had under Pam Long.

2 hours ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

I think you're splitting hairs and being argumentative again. From the blurb posted by the other poster, I gather she started as an under 5 on Guiding Light. Nobody said she remained an under 5.

Reading comprehension is something that can be learned--fear not!  What was said was that Ruth (and in the book she clearly is joking here) said she would happily accept an under 5 walk on role just to get Irna to even consider her for an actual role.  But that is not what happened.