Cinderella - 1965 - Rodgers & Hammerstein

I was perplexed looking at the cheap costumes and sets - like a high school play. Prince Charming ... was Alan Quartermaine (Stuart Damon). Lesley Ann Warren (original teeth) as Cinderella. Celeste Holm as Fairy Godmother. Pat Carroll as step-sister Prunella.

Eldergays: what were audiences thinking about the costumes and sets? My mom said that "The Sound of Music" ran for months at the local theater and that it was a huge deal. So, I know perceptions were different.

Full movie w/ads is available on/by YouTube.

Didn't the original have Julie Andrews and DL faves Alice Ghostley and Kaye Ballard?

It was always second tier, not in the pantheon of great R&H musicals that dominated Broadway.

I saw it as a little kid and never once contemplated the cost of the set or the costumes.

To my little eyes, the show was magical.

An added plus was the fact that the prince made me feel tingly.

And that's all that mattered.

Yeah it was a TV production but had a definite HS play "stage" look to it. Ugly costumes. The most gorgeous production of the story is The Slipper and the Rose.

I actually love the stylized sets and its ersatz mythical kingdom. It is very much of its time, with mid-60s touches like the roofless ballroom and moonlit "ride" to the ball. Maybe it was trying to approximate what a show on Broadway would look like. I think it's a great cast overall: one never sees enough Jo Van Fleet, LAW was heartbreaking in some scenes, and Pat Carroll & Barbara Ruick perform the best "Stepsisters' Lament" I've ever seen.

When watching old TV shows it's worth keeping in mind what the original audiences of its era would have been watching it on. It wouldn't make much sense to stage a TV show that was going to be watched on pre-HDTV broadcast TV on a cathode ray tube set the same way you would a Broadway musical or a widescreen Technicolor Hollywood feature film.

OP here. Thanks, guys, for your responses. When I saw it on YouTube, I assumed it was something that was released in movie theaters on the big screen. It makes sense that this was produced and released for TV. That explains the costumes and set. I didn't even think that it was probably first broadcast in black and white. I wonder if it was colorized or was shot in color to begin with.

I loved everything about it and still do. Especially the cast.

Never watched it, but this comes the days of talent over spectacle. In other words, pre-Webber. Musicals once upon a time did not need flying chandeliers or helicopters landing on stage to impress audiences.

OP, if you think that Cinderella is cheap looking with sets and costumes like a high school play, you really must have a look at the earlier and first TV version, which has sets and costumes that look even more primitive, like a kindergarten play.

But.....and it's a big BUT! Despite the elementary trappings, the first version has more talent and charm, even in barbaric black and white photography and lighting, that can't be matched on any level by the second attempt.

No one is better than Julie Andrews as Cinderella, Kaye Ballard and Alice Ghostley as her step-sisters, Edie Adams (!) as a gloriously young Fairy Godmother and gorgeous Jon Cypher as Prince Charming. And Ilka Chase as the Step Mother and royal theater couple Howard Lindsay and Dorothy Stickney (he wrote The Sound f Music and Life With Father, which starred the couple on Broadway originally) as the King and Queen are wonderful, too.

They are both delightful and innocent. How old are you, OP? You don't seem to have a deep knowledge of show biz production design.

I can't picture Julie Andrew's as Cinderella. She always looked matronly.

Julie Andrew's...what, r13? And who's Julie Andrew?

Julie's Andrew. They say he's packing.

Here's Julie as Cinderella. Hardly a matron.

[quote]I assumed it was something that was released in movie theaters on the big screen.

And you have proven quite well what it means to assume.

Julie Andrews was an angelic leading lady and the furthest thing from matronly ever.

But I prefer the Leslie Ann Warren version. I love Stuart Damon's prince and Ginger Rogers Queen. And Celeste Holm's fairy godmother. Jo Van fucking Fleet was the Evil Stepmother. She excelled at that over anyone else in that type of role. She was no straw man. She was in East of Eden too.

The Andrews version is better. It has that "50s-creepy" look, but it was more the quality of the recording than the sets. If anything, the sets/costumes were too much a mix of realism and kookiness. The casting, with only a couple of issues, was great.

Warren's looks bad throughout. The 60s look and the casting all through were off.

But mostly I loath the show. The book, the score and the fucking lyrics.

[quote] Jo Van fucking Fleet was the Evil Stepmother.

Yes, she was great in that role.

But Rodgers and Hammerstein chose interesting plots for their proper musicals. There were interesting chances for clever lyrics.

But this childish plot in 'Cinderella' is limp and vapid.

Oh for chrissakes, r23, and *that's* why they didn't do it as a full scale Broadway show at the time. I t was a simple project for television which was still close to being in its infancy.

Thank you for bringing Jesus Christ into the conversation, R24.

But this fairy tale gives scope for good music but not for good lyrics.

I loved the twist ending-- a couple of Nigerian princes double-teamed Cinderella while Prince Charming watched.

Julie kept trying to tongue my quim.

[quote]I t was a simple project for television which was still close to being in its infancy.

Um, tv had been around for well over 15 years by then.

[quote] primitive

At least the vision in this doesn't look as dark and muddy as that primitive Tab Hunter/Jane Powell TV version of 'St Louis'.

The 1965 TV production was an annual event for several years, at least until I grew out of this kind of TV fare. It was magical at the time, and I looked forward to seeing Stuart Damon, even before I was ten years old. I can still visualize him singing "Do I Love You Because You're Beautiful". He was wearing tights at the time. Let's face it, I wanted to see him naked, even when I was that age.

[quote] Stuart Damon

His real surname was 'Zonis' from Russia.

I believe Julie Andrews did Cinderella while she was performing on Broadway in My Fair Lady so this was a HUGE event, bringing together Broadway's most exciting leading lady (who many people in America had not seen yet though they might know her from the cast album) with Broadway's most famous composer and lyricist.

Does anyone know how Edie (then billed as Edith) Adams came to be cast as the Fairy Godmother in the first version? I've always loved her in it but her youth and sexy beauty make her seem like an unconventional choice. She's a hipper Fairy Godmother than stupid old Celeste Holm, for sure.

Why do some people think a tv show made in 1965 should have the same production values of a tv show in 2021? It was made in 1965, for God's sake! It was 56 years ago!

"Cinderella" was considered a television event, something special that children, especially little girls, looked forward to. It was kind of like "The Wizard of Oz" in that way. I myself thought it was great Lesley Ann warren was touching and beautiful, Stuart Damon was handsome, Ginger Rogers and Walter Pidgeon were a stately King and Queen, Jo Van Fleet and Barbara Ruick and Pat Carroll were perfect as the evil stepmother and homely step sisters. I thought this version is the best one out of all of them.

Edie Adams (born as Liz Enke) got roles because she was the bimbo wife of the unattractive and inexplicably-famous Ernie Kovacs.

She and Ernie were both nominated for Emmys for his show, r35. Was she still in Li'l Abner at the time, or had she left? Ernie was unique.

I saw an all nude all gay production of Cinderella at De Parade festival in Rotterdam. Cinderalla was Dutch Carribbean with at least 7 soft inches and low hangers. Bigger than the Prince!

[quote] She's a hipper Fairy Godmother than stupid old Celeste Holm, for sure.

Celeste Holm was bland in "All about Eve."

Ernie Kovacs was a beloved pioneer of early improvisational television comedy, even if that comedy (like all comedy) has aged since then. He was even kind of sexy in an off-beat nerdy 1950s way.

And Edie Adams was a gorgeous Broadway soprano who played Eileen in Bernstein's Wonderful Town (based on My Sister EILEEN) and Daisy Mae in Li'l Abner. Ernie had nothing to do with her success. She also did a devastating impression of Marilyn Monroe (and actually resembled her) at the height of MM's career and I wish I could find a clip of that to post here.

This is DL, r40, where Edie's greatest accomplishment was...

Once upon a time, TV was special.

When color came in, it was momentous.

Julie was a Brit.

LAW was quintessentially American.

[quote] LAW

I didn't like her. I may have seen her in two movies but I don't.

I know I'm suspicious of people who need two Christian names. I don't know why.

LAW was perfect a the downtrodden Cinderella and beautiful after her make-over. The music was perfect and sets and costumes seemed dream-like with their muted pastels. This was event t.v.

It's the best one. Actually romantic.

[quote]The most gorgeous production of the story is The Slipper and the Rose.

I know that film has its fans, but a couple of years ago I watched it when it was on TCM.

While it can boast a sumptuous production, the film has some of the most boring songs I've ever heard in a musical.

It's as if the movie just comes to a halt so the cast can sing and dance to some clunky song.

And there sure are a lot of them.

They reminded me of a scene from some Marx Brothers film when Chico starts playing the piano, and Groucho turns to the audience and tells them that just because he has to put up with the music doesn't mean everyone watching has to as well.

Thanks, OP. I loved this as a kid, and I haven't seen it since then. Strangely, I didn't remember the prince at all, but wow, Damon sure was handsome when he was young! I remembered Lesley Ann much more vividly. She was just adorable with those enormous eyes and cute uneven teeth. I don't think all snaggly teeth need to be fixed--just those that are too distracting onscreen. The rest of her looks make up for them.

We didn’t have a color TV for the first few years when this was on and when we finally got a color TV when I was as 8 years old and it became magical. You have to realize there were only 3 TV channels plus PBS back then so the choices were limited and had the country might be watching something if it was a big event.

[quote]Celeste Holm was bland in "All about Eve."

As she was supposed to be.

Interesting to watch LAW and Julie in Victor/Victoria.

Didn't LAW play a trollop in Victor/Victoria?

Leslie Ann's big return to Broadway!

I'm about halfway through the book SOMETHING WONDERFUL: RODGERS AND HAMMERSTEIN'S BROADWAY REVOLUTION by Todd S. Purdum (2018), and I HIGHLY recommend!

R7, the Lesley Ann Warren CINDERELLA was filmed (or, rather, taped) in color and telecast that way, not colorized after the fact.

Thank you. Could the rest of you cunts please stop typing "LAW". It wounds.

LAW was so beautiful. I loved her enormous brown eyes.

There is only one Cinderella now bitches and it is ALW not LAW!

I was always enthralled with this when it came on TV once a year (much to my father’s chagrin). I memorized every song. I quite liked the prince. I remember thinking Leslie had crooked teeth. But to me SHE is Cinderella, not Julie Andrews.

For years I was confused about "Cinderella". I assumed I had seen the Julie Andrews version somewhere because I know I had seen it in black & white, but I hadn't. We only had a b&w tv set until about 1969, or nearabout, so what I had seen was the LAW color version on a b&w tv set. Later I saw the same version in color, but my real memory of it remains in b&w!

The 1957 original was broadcast live and was also in color, but survives only in a black and white kinescope.

The Leslie Ann Warren version is one of my happiest childhood memories. No one in our extended family except my Great Aunt Sophie had a color tv at the time. A couple dozen of us went to her home the night it was broadcast and watched it. My cousins and I still talk about that night and how perfect our lives seemed at the time.

When Leslie Ann Warren did the first take of “My Little Corner”, she was crying so hard she could not be understood. The director told her to lighten it up a bit.

Yes, the 1965 LAW version was a big event when it aired, and I loved rewatching it annually in succeeding years. I think the casting was wonderful.

LOL We saw it once. I think we had to beg our father. R58 triggered me.

We did get to watch Disney and all the other holiday shows.

I adore Celeste Holm. She’s my favorite Fairy Godmother.

DL threads over the years have informed me that she was so difficult and mean that she could cow Satan into abandoning Hell, but I don’t care.

Folks, Lesley Ann Warren spells her name that way, not "Leslie."

Some people trash the '65 version of CINDERELLA as being dull and witless, but I rather like it because it's so straightforward. For the Julie Andrews version, they went for a more satirical tone that doesn't always work. Also, though Jon Cypher was a beautiful man, I don't think he comes across well as the Prince -- he seems rather effeminate to me, and he can't seem to decide whether or not to do a British accent. And though I hate to say this, I think Julie looks unattractive in much of that version, maybe partly due to bad lighting and camera work and the awful quality of the kinescope. I've always guessed that was one of the main reasons why Jack L. Warner refused to cast her in the film of MY FAIR LADY.

I saw the Andrews “Cinderella” when it was broadcast live on Sunday, March 31, 1957. Extensive publicity made it a national must-watch at the time, and the cast lp was released the next day, and has been in print, in one format or another, ever since. It was really a once-in-a-lifetime event.

I found the LAW version pallid and treacly in comparison, lacking the earlier tongue-in-cheek approach. Without that approach, songs like “Impossible” and “Stepsisters Lament” stand out as satire, and “Your Majesties” has been eliminated altogether.

And I agree that the Andrews version, even in b&w with some creaky early TV techniques, is still joyous to behold.

[quote]I found the LAW version pallid and treacly in comparison, lacking the earlier tongue-in-cheek approach. Without that approach, songs like “Impossible” and “Stepsisters Lament” stand out as satire, and “Your Majesties” has been eliminated altogether. And I agree that the Andrews version, even in b&w with some creaky early TV techniques, is still joyous to behold.

Maybe you really feel that way, or maybe you can't be objective because the first one made such an impression on you at a very young age. Again, although the original does have some wonderful moments, I think a lot of the attempted satire and humor in it has not aged well at all. I don't understand your comment about "Impossible" and the "Stepsisters' Lament," I think both of those songs work just fine in the Lesley Ann Warren version. And though the "Your Majesties" song has a nice, sprightly melody, some of the jokes in that are pretty lame.

Also, as I noted, Julie looks quite unattractive at several points in the surviving kinescope, for whatever combination of reasons.

Julie was stoutly British. Leslie was a waif. You could empathize with Leslie. Julie was a young woman. Leslie came across as a little girl.

That is the essence of the differences of the performances.

Leslie made/makes me cry. Julie gives a wonderful performance.

I get what the poster meant who said Julie was matronly. I would say she always seemed mature and controlled, whereas Lesley was very much the dewy ingenue.

I agree with r69, r70. I saw the LAW version when it first aired and Julie's version 40 years later. You're not being any more objective than r69. It's all a matter of personal taste. Lesley Ann may be more typically "photogenic pretty", but I'll take Julie's patrician beauty and her *far* superior pipes. Plus Lesley Ann does that weird thing with her mouth.

R73, I think I am being more objective than R69, but whatever. Of course, Julie had a far more beautiful voice than Lesley, but one could argue that Lesley's more "untrained" sound was a better fit for that character. I think the truth is that both versions of CINDERELLA have their pluses and minuses, I just object when some people claim that the first version is vastly superior and the second one is a washout. That said, the first version will always hold a place in history as one of the most popular television events of all time.

Well, r75, LAW's version is far from a washout. It *was* very popular at the time. I won't argue about that. I simply prefer Julie's voice and the Broadway sophistication of her version. LAW's is more Hollywood.

Great point, r76! Lesley's version is more Hollywood but Julie's is more Broadway.

I saw the Julie version when I was 8 years old, utterly enthralled. I looked forward to the remake, and perhaps by then I was too old (I started seeing Broadway musicals in 1965), but I was very disappointed.

I'll add, r77, (and perhaps it's subjective), but Julie has more star quality than Lesley Ann.

Isn't it safe to say that the favorite Cinderella was the one you saw as a child?

As for Jo VanFleet, I always loved her enemas.

[quote]Isn't it safe to say that the favorite Cinderella was the one you saw as a child?

That's true for me. I had just turned 6 when I saw the Julie Andrews broadcast. I liked it (and all these years later have grown to love it), but just about a month earlier, my mother took me to see the Disney Cinderella, which had its first theatrical re-release in 1957. We only had a black and white television at that point, so when I saw the Disney cartoon on a big screen in dazzling color, I was utterly enchanted by it. My mother later bought me a record with the Disney songs, which I played constantly. (Yes, my mother turned me gay.) The Disney version still holds a special place in my heart.

I forgot to mention that "Cinderella" was the first movie I saw in a movie theater after seeing nothing but black and white television, and that clearly had a lot to do with its impact on me.

[quote]Well, [R75], LAW's version is far from a washout. It *was* very popular at the time. I won't argue about that. I simply prefer Julie's voice and the Broadway sophistication of her version. LAW's is more Hollywood.

I know what you mean, but I think some of the "Broadway sophistication" of the first version is more faux-sophistication and has not worn well -- for example, that silly "joke" about one of the stepsisters having been named Portia after the character in THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. Oh, really???

In notes that Richard Rodgers wrote for the 1965 version, he said that he felt maybe he and Hammerstein had "kidded the plot" of the story a bit too much in writing the first version, and he was happy that the script for the second version was more straightforward. Of course, he could have just been saying that in the way that writers almost always say only nice things about new versions of their work, but I do think there's a lot of truth in it.

Oh Kiddo, r83, the Disney version for me all the way!

Eleanor Audley was the voice and look for the stepmother.

[quote]Eleanor Audley was the voice and look for the stepmother.

And for Maleficent in "Sleeping Beauty." She even did live-action modeling for the animators.

R83. ‘I was utterly enchanted”……MARY!

Yes, R89, that restoration of the '65 CINDERELLA looks beautiful, even on YouTube. Too bad the "soundtrack" album is not actually the soundtrack, so the stereo audio can't really be synched up with the video.

[quote] Some people trash the '65 version of CINDERELLA as being dull and witless.

Who does that? I was always under the impression that this is one of the most beloved versions, a special event for tv audiences. It's wonderful.

I find the JA version too panto and arch.

[quote]Some people trash the '65 version of CINDERELLA as being dull and witless.

[quote]Who does that?

Well, for example, some people in this very thread, though maybe it not quite such harsh terms.

None of them can compare to...

None of them can compare to Prokofiev's version.

He really knows how to make very large orchestra dance. And his chimes at midnight (at 1.14 in the full score) are genuinely scary.

[quote]I saw the Andrews “Cinderella” when it was broadcast live on Sunday, March 31, 1957.

My God, you are old.

[quote] My God, you are old.

As you will be too, R97.

"Cinderfella" is nauseating. I remember seeing it a long time ago; I remember some awful scene where the Princess, who is in love with the lowly Jerry Lewis character, professes her love for him. I think he feels unworthy of her, so her distains her affection for him. She's elegantly dressed and jeweled; to show him he has no reason to feel unworthy she starts running after him, tearing off various items of clothing and accessories, to show him that if feels he's only worthy of a poor girl then she'll be a poor girl. It was grotesque! But this is from the same guy who did "The Day The Clown Cried" , a movie about a clown who entertains children before they get sent to the gas chamber, so what do you expect?

But, r97, at least we're reminiscing about Julie Andrews appearing in the debut of a new Rodgers and Hammerstein musical on network TV and not a Britney Spears "music" video like you'll be doing in 40 years.

I was very drawn to this 1965 "Cinderella" TV adaptation, and the campy characterizations and memorable costumes. And the Prince's tights-clad legs. While I think about it further, I do believe this was one of the first things I watched that helped me feel I was a little boy who was going to grow up being, uhm, "different..." :)

R6 makes a good point. Today I watch and rediscover on YouTube old shows, commercials and specials that include some I forgot ever existed, and somehow I don't remember them sounding and looking that way. I have to remember that when originally aired, they would have sounded and looked differently in regards to the transmission, sound and visual quality and TV equipment that were available at the time. Now all digitally remastered visually and audibly, they're still not the same as when first aired and heard.

Hey, you bitches. What about me? My Cinderella movies is brand-new! And Cinderella doesn't need no stinkin' prince in my version!

There's a lot of mileage in the tale.

Does no one remember my version? It's also from the 1950s.

Dear Ms Caron, your version was 'imbécile'.

You were four foot high and being romanced by a very tall man wearing a very tall, fake-looking wig.

If I am not mistaken, the highly publicized 1957 version was so in-demand it aired simultaneously on two of the three major networks. It was produced for CBS but I believe also aired on ABC in some markets.

Over 100 million Americans tuned in to see this live presentation. I bet it was very exciting.

On the steps of the palace makes it seem like Sondheim has been writing the exact same song for 50 years.

I know he hasn't but it sure sounds like it.

Leave the sewing to the women...

I think I read somewhere the sixties version was created because the fifties version couldn’t be repeated. The kinescope of the broadcast wasn’t good enough to repeat. They wanted an update that could be repeated annually, and was for many years. It wasn’t until much later that the technology could make the kinescope something watchable.

I like both for different reasons. I grew up with the Lesley version and had no idea about the Julie version until much later. Both have some casting that is better than the other. I love Alice and Kaye as the stepsisters and much prefer Stuart as the prince.

However, I won’t ever pick the Brandi version.

R35, Blasphemy! Ernie Kovacs was a comedic genius! OMG. If you weren't around to see the Nairobi Trio, or Percy Dovetonsils, or his show in general, you can have no idea.

It's people like you who didn't get Norm Macdonald, either.

[quote]I think I read somewhere the sixties version was created because the fifties version couldn’t be repeated. The kinescope of the broadcast wasn’t good enough to repeat. They wanted an update that could be repeated annually, and was for many years. It wasn’t until much later that the technology could make the kinescope something watchable.

That's close to the truth, but not quite. The kinescope of the original version only existed in poor quality black-and-white, so they weren't going to keep repeating that as color TV became the standard. Years later, the kinescope was released on home video for historical value and because it does have some big names in the cast, especially Julie, but though they were able to clean it up a bit, the video and audio quality are still substandard.

What I could never understand is, given how much money they spent on the original, the huge names involved, and all the advertising of the telecast that resulted in the largest audience in history to that time, couldn't they have made a high-quality COLOR kinescope of the show? I'm almost positive that the technology existed to do something like that.

[quote] There is only one Cinderella now bitches

Agree that Kovacs was brilliant, but Percy Dovetonsils was as offensive a stereotype of gay men as Stepin Fetchit was of black men. Growing up, that was one of the only representations of the "effete" male that I had access too, and in my household he was an object of humor and ridicule.

Thanks R114. I didn’t know all of the details. I do know that the fifties version we see now was fixed with current tech so it looks less like the kinescope did. It is too bad they didn’t think to record it in color. I suppose tv was so young then they didn’t know how things would be repeated and become events each year.

You're welcome, R117. Again, they were able to improve the tech quality of the CINDERELLA kinescope a bit, but it's still an old, somewhat fuzzy, black and white video well below modern standards, whereas a black and white movie shot on 35mm film in the 1930s can look great on HD video if it's well restored.

Of course you're right that the concept of repeat showings of TV telecasts was not yet imbedded in people's minds in 1957, but that CINDERELLA was such a huge event that I'm amazed everyone was so short-sighted as to NOT figure out how to properly preserve it on color film.

Tyler Perry needs to make a Madea Cinderella. It can all be a surrealistic dream after Madea is knocked unconscious with a Jack O’Lantern by her beautiful niece, for being a mean babysitter on Halloween.

When I was a kid I loved the LAW version. But seeing it again a year or so ago on youtube, I was stunned how at what a low-budget mess it was. As the OP suggests, the sets, the costumes, etc., were so cheap it really comes off like an amateur production.

And there's no reason it couldn't have had a larger budget and better production values. This wasn't 1948, it was 1965. This made Green Acres look like Gone with the Wind. Lesley Ann Warren's performance still holds up well, but Ginger Rogers & Walter Pidgeon are on life support, and Jo Van Fleet is waaaaay too old for her part, as are Pat Carroll and Celeste 'The Fairy Great-Godmother' Holm (who could barely sing).

And of course, compared to the 1997 version, this one literally pales in comparison on all levels. At least Whoopi Goldberg and Victor Garber tried to have fun with their roles -- and Bernadette Peters & Jason Alexander had some great chemistry together. And the two who played the wicked step-sisters actually looked like they could be SISTERS to Brandy, instead of her aunts.

Brandy wasn't anywhere near as good as Lesley Anne Warren, and Whitney may have ruined parts with her insistence on an extra number that she could belt out at the end, but overall, the production was far superior. Say what you want about the cast -- but when it comes to the sets, the costumes, the art direction, the choreography and camera work -- especially during the waltz with Paolo Montalban and Brandy -- well, there's just no comparison. A lot of it was filmed on the same soundstage as the Wizard of Oz.

It used to be on Youtube (with ads), but Disney+ pulled it a few months back.

Still, there's a 'making of' video, that shows some of what went into the production.

R120, your opinion that the 1997 is better than the 1965 overall negates everything else you said.

I'll give it to you that the actresses who played the stepsisters in the '65 version were really too old for those parts, but Jo Van Fleet was about 51 and Celeste Holm was 48 when that show was taped, so neither of them were too old for the stepmother and the Fairy Godmother. I'm wondering, what idea do you have as to how the Fairy Godmother is supposed to be? (And I think Holm's singing is just fine in that show and on the album.)

[quote] And of course, compared to the 1997 version, this one literally pales in comparison on all levels.

No, it doesn't. The 1997version was CRAP. Sheer crap.

In what way R122? Especially compared to the 1965 high school play?

R121, perhaps 'overall' was the wrong choice of words. Instead, I'd say 'in general' it was. The sets, the photography, the orchestrations, the choreography, the acting/singing -- were all better -- as compared to the old, stodgy version.

[quote]In what way [R122]? Especially compared to the 1965 high school play?

Too many Negros.

[quote] In what way [R122]? Especially compared to the 1965 high school play?

It had none of the charm of the 1965 version. And having superior production values (I guess something made in 1997 would have more sophisticated production values than something made in 1965) doesn't guarantee quality. And the cast in 1965 definitely was more entertaining and appealing than the one in 1997. The 1997 was nothing but a showy mess.

[quote]It had none of the charm of the 1965 version. And having superior production values (I guess something made in 1997 would have more sophisticated production values than something made in 1965) doesn't guarantee quality. And the cast in 1965 definitely was more entertaining and appealing than the one in 1997. The 1997 was nothing but a showy mess.

Thank you. Compare the sets in any similar TV show filmed in the mid 1960s or earlier and I very much doubt you'll find them to be any more elaborate or "better." The people in TV just didn't spend a lot of money on sets in those days, feeling that the money would be better spent elsewhere. Don't forget that the largest TV screen in 1965 was maybe 25 inches, which is why the focus in those shows is so much on close-ups and medium shots rather than wide shots that are going to take in more of the sets.

Those groovy cone trees are GREAT!

Stuart Damon was a last-minute replacement to play the prince. That's why his costumes were ill-fitting.

Jack Jones was the original prince but he was fired because he was a lousy actor.

R129, I hadn't heard that. How "last minute" was it?

R3, well put.

I saw it as a kid and didn't notice the lackluster sets et. al. until years later.

I put this head and shoulders above many other Cinderella productions.

The diverse one with Whoopi and others was meh...but if I say that I guess I'm racist.

[quote] Those groovy cone trees are GREAT!

Those dreadful cone trees were very much in keeping with the decorating styles of the day. Go back and look at TV specials, especially Christmas shows, and they used a similar tacky, pared-down aesthetic.

What do you guys think about "Ever After: A Cinderella Story"? It's not a musical, so maybe apples and oranges. I liked this version of Cinderella a lot. (1998, Drew Barrymore as Cinderella, Anjelica Huston as stepmother.)

R133, I loved Drew in that.

I'm just a poor Cinderella...

Does anybody remember on Michael Reidel / Susan Haskins Theatre Talk ....a publicist (i believe) talking about Lesley Ann Warren hating a yellow chaise lounge on the set of Swing?/ demanding the fabric color changed / it didn't happen and she took a knife to it and shredded it? Hilarious!

Like Beverly Sills at La Scala, when they wouldn’t change the color of her gown. Snip snip!

I'm able to see the good in all the versions of this musical. Each has its charms. I grew up on the Lesley Ann Warren version and it still charms me the most. Her performance is especially moving and the low budget high school musical sets and costumes only add to the coziness of the whole thing.

R127 "Compare the sets in any similar TV show filmed in the mid 1960s or earlier and I very much doubt you'll find them to be any more elaborate or "better."

The Beverly HIllbillies, Bewitched, My Three Sons, Leave it to Beaver, The Man From Uncle, The Twilight Zone...my gawd, even Green Acres had better sets. And they were cranked out on a weekly basis -- 26 shows a year.

Seriously, there was no excuse -- especially with the talent involved -- for those cheap, cardboard sets.

[quote] Seriously, there was no excuse -- especially with the talent involved -- for those cheap, cardboard sets.

Except for maybe there wasn't enough of a budget to create elaborate, expensive sets. And The Beverly HIllbillies, Bewitched, My Three Sons, Leave it to Beaver, The Man From Uncle, The Twilight Zone., , Green Acres had "better sets?" You're got to be kidding. They looked like what they were: shows made decades ago.

R140, All those shows used actual exteriors, instead of cheap, claustrophic painted sets. Yes, they were made decades ago, but duh...so was that cheap version of Cinderella. You might actually look at it again on youtube. It looks like the budget was about $217.

[quote] so was that cheap version of Cinderella. You might actually look at it again on youtube. It looks like the budget was about $217.

It doesn't look nearly as cheap as you make it out to be. You seem to think they should have spent millions on the sets. You're just one of those ridiculous people who believe productions during that era should look like ones produced today.

[quote]The Beverly HIllbillies, Bewitched, My Three Sons, Leave it to Beaver, The Man From Uncle, The Twilight Zone...my gawd, even Green Acres had better sets. And they were cranked out on a weekly basis -- 26 shows a year.

Comparing those shows to CINDERELLA displays your shocking ignorance. All of those shows were sit-coms shot on FILM, with many scenes taking place outdoors and "on location." CINDERELLA was shot on videotape completely on a soundstage, with no exteriors whatsoever. You idiot.

r130 CBS originally cast Jack Jones as the prince, but replaced him with Damon when they realized Jones' singing voice sounded more appropriate for pop music, and that he couldn't act. Damon's agent had to lend him the airfare to Los Angeles from New York in order to play the prince.

R143, Sigh. Why in the world couldn't Cinderella have been shot on film?

R143: "...your shocking ignorance." That was funny.

A kinescope film is simply made by attaching a camera to a TV monitor, and filming the picture, at the very low resolution of the monitor. These were always B&W, because of the amount of time it would have taken to process a color film. It was unsatisfactory to everyone at the time, but they had no other viable option, which is why Desi Arnaz insisted on actual film for I Love Lucy.

Peter Pan was broadcast live, in color, in 1955, and never intended to be seen again. It was so successful, it was done again, live, in 1956. But then in 1960, when there was color videotape available, it was recorded again on a soundstage, so it could be broadcast many times. Mary Martin filmed it during the day, while appearing in "The Sound of Music" on Broadway in the evenings.

This is the best version imo. It's not very well costumed at all (hideously costumed, in fact) and the set design's absurdist and surrealist and even brutalist....

but that's not why you watch something like this. The magic comes from the rapturous Rodgers and Hammerstein score, and the beautiful vocals... and Lesley Ann Warren and Stuart Damon sound absolutely angelic in "Do I Love You Because You're Beautiful?" It's just beautiful harmonizing, and it's just very timeless to me.

Totally worth watching.

The 1997 version is awful except for Brandy and Paolo Montalban (who are both very sweet). They kept exporting in other Richard Rodgers songs, often ones not even written with Oscar Hammerstein (like "The Sweetest Sounds" and "Falling in Love with love") in places where they made little sense. They also got rid of some of the original numbers from the actual production of "Cinderella" written by R&H, like the "Royal Dressing Room Scene." And Jason Alexander was dreadful.

I grew up with abusive parents so I felt LAW’s pain. It was something I was able to relate to even at 8 yrs old and her performance is so much deeper than most who have played the role.

I think the 1965 design was aiming to look like a Broadway musical, not a Hollywood fairy tale film, hence the minimal abstracted set pieces. But it looks more like a low budget TV variety hour.

And actually, set and costume design on Broadway was far more sophisticated than what we got in Cinderella in 1965. They should have hired Oliver Smith and Irene Sharaff for the sets and costumes. Clearly the design was not a priority.

[quote] They also got rid of some of the original numbers from the actual production of "Cinderella" written by R&H, like the "Royal Dressing Room Scene."

It stinks anyway.

Agree in part w/ R149. The best parts were w/Brandy and Montalban, especially the '10 minutes Ago' number, with their talent, charm, and the amazing camerawork. And yeah, Jason Alexander was probably the worst of the rest of the cast, especially his number.

I often have wondered if Montalban had to 'audition' for Rob Marshall, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron...

I doubt many kids who started watching the 1965 show every year were concerned about the set or the costumes. It's whom the show was made for. Budgetary needs were minimal.

Here's a clip of Jane Powell -- at 12 minutes into the video -- in a dance number from a Ray Bolger show from 1959.

Check out the sets, the lighting, the special effects and even the choreography and movement in that one number. All far better than Cinderella six years later.

The producers of the '65 CINDERELLA chose to go with a stylized look for the sets and, to a lesser extent, the costumes -- as did the producers of the original version. You may not like that, but there's no need to go on and on about how bad and cheap looking they are, because it's really not true.

That house looks like something in a Keebler Elves commercial...

I like looking at the cobbled-together, corn-ball costumes and sets (what color is Cinderella's ball gown?).

As a Marvel fan, I've become so conditioned to seeing CGI. It was thrilling to see 2014 "Godzilla" on the big screen.

But it's nice to be reminded that actual manual labor, such as it is, at one time was all there was.

I love it. It's the touching one.

[quote] (what color is Cinderella's ball gown?).

Shades of white and off white? I thought the neckline was dreadful; made of fur, with black things sticking out of it (or so it looked to me). I liked the sparkly skirt, though.

[quote] the neckline was dreadful; made of fur, with black things sticking out of it

Their garments are edged in ermine, which has been used in royal clothing for centuries. In a lot of royal portraiture the subjects often wore ermine.

The color of her dress appears to be champagne.

Ilka Chase played Charlotte Vale’s sister in law in Now, Voyager.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pa3TmqOorZ6csm%2BvzqZmraCimq6le5Fya2ltY2mCbq%2FIp5ueqpWhuaJ5kHJtbmWipLGosdGsZKGZnaKys7%2FTnqCn

 Share!

• Share on Facebook
   
• Tweet
   
• Share on Google+
   
• Post to Tumblr
   
• Pin it
   
• Submit to Reddit