Like the glorious cinematography from beginning to end, "Mame" sparkles in true silver-screen opulence and is to the embarrassment of 1950s/1960s musicals and films represented by "Auntie Mame" that 1970s "Stars Wars" is to the embarrassment of 1950s/1960s science-fiction films. On par with 1970s "The Black Stallion" and "The Godfather," the unsurpassed cinematography during a time when silver was still used in film-making, with every shot of Lucy a photographic masterpiece, the lush orchestrations and arrangements of the masterfully-reworked songs brought to shimmering life by the 1970s characteristic most monstrous orchestras in history, the seamless dance numbers and unparalleled choreography, and some of the most touching scenes in all of film, with young-Patrick singing to Lucy after her cameo stage number, all come together in a chef d'oeuvre that elevates this "Queen of Television" to her throne as "The Queen of Film" too. The intellectual and artist apex of this civilization represented by the 1970s is in blazing contrast against the campiest and most kitschy time-period in history represented by 1950s/1960s film, television, and music. And this film, Lucy's most revered trophy, stands as that symbol.

Even before I saw Mame, back in 1973, or '74, I questioned how anyone could think Lucille Ball (of whom I was and am a huge fan) could be right to play the sophisticated-but-with-a-heart-of-gold Auntie Mame. She just had no Mame-like qualities. A lot of the humor of the earlier, non-musical version is just missing here. The Upsons, for example, were funny parodies of upper middle class suburban snobs in the original. No parodies, here; they're just cold and mean. There even seems to be an effort to make the story into a heartrending Stella Dallas-like drama, at times. The touch is heavy where it should be light.Yes, it probably should have been Angela Lansbury, but when has Angela Lansbury ever carried a major film? Bedknobs and Broomsticks? Frankly I doubt she could have rescued this turgid mess, either, and when all is said and done, she's no Rosalind Russell.A bright spot in the mire is Joyce Van Patten, who does a lot with a little as malicious Southern belle Sally Cato. And Robert Preston does well, acting and singing, as Beau. Jane Connell, who replaced Madeleine Kahn, had played Gooch on Broadway 10 years earlier. At almost 50, playing a hapless, soon-to-be-unwed-mother, singing "What Do I Do Now?", she's more pathetic than humorous. The 1958 film had scope. Good storytelling and dramatics. Charm, lightness, sophistication. Good design and direction. And most of all, intelligence. Roz Russell was brilliant, and that certainly helped a lot. This film seems so puny, heartless, flat, and even absurd, at times. You may find yourself shaking your head a lot.

Lucille Ball stars as Mame, an eccentric, avant-garde New Yorker who suddenly becomes the guardian of her orphaned nephew. She opens new vistas for the boy but when the Depression hits, she finds herself a shop clerk. Luckily, one of her first customers is a handsome, wealthy, and single Southern gentleman (Robert Preston).First of all, this is the Worst Movie Ever; not funny bad, but miserably awful in every way. When the story opens, Mame is about 42, but Lucy's 62, looks 72, and sounds 82. Her voice is so low and gravelly, she sounds like Foghorn Leghorn and is about as subtle. When she smiles, she has a frozen leer on her face that makes her look like a mummy, even with the ridiculous soft-focus lens that fools no one. From her first scene, she has no warmth or heart, nothing about her that would make a little boy love her, let alone her hoards of minions.Bea Arthur plays Mame's best friend, but she's made up to look like an ugly man. She and Lucy have no chemistry at all and their witty repartee falls flat.The story moves way too quickly in order to fit in all the songs which are slow and dreary; they could have been saved if Lucy would sing, but she can't. Mame's wardrobe is stylish and striking, but Lucy seems to be posing like a wax figure in them, rather than actually being a fabulously charismatic woman. Watching this movie just makes one remember how much better Rosalind Russell was in the original, non-musical version.

I won't belabor the point made by numerous other posters about how wrong for this role the non-singer/non-dancer, 63-year old Lucille Ball was. I'll just remind folks that THERE WAS A REASON why Ricky tried desperately to keep Lucy out of show biz for all those years!Unfortunately, "Mame" probably would have been a flop under the best of circumstances, coming as it did at the tail end (and I mean the very tip of the tail!) of the traditional Hollywood musical. Despite pouring tens of millions into big-budget musicals during the latter half of the Sixties (several of which nearly sank their respective studios!), by the early Seventies it was painfully apparent that the musical was in it's death-throws. 1972's "Man of La Mancha" and 1973's "Lost Horizon" really put the final nails in the coffin... sadly at the time, no one knew the Last Rites had been performed and they went on with this travesty of a movie. Interesting that it took MGM's retro masterpiece "That's Entertainment" (also released in 1974) for movie-goers to finally realize the old-time Hollywood musical was dead as a doornail. I personally remember the startling contrast between "That's Entertainment" and "Mame" when I saw them both in theaters.Still, financial considerations aside, the producers could have at least opted for a good picture, even if it did end up losing money. Some financial flops, such as 1968's "Finian's Rainbow", are at least nowadays rather well regarded. Some posters have mentioned Rosalind Russell's great turn in 1958 non-musical "Auntie Mame", and it's worth considering what she might have made of the musical role. Though never considered a singer, Miss Russell did a very creditable job as Mama Rose in 1962's "Gypsy". Her low, gravelly voice worked fine in the part, something the producers of "Mame" no doubt hoped to emulate with Miss Ball... sorry, didn't work. Sad that "Mame" came to the screen so late, and Miss Russell was not only aged, but I believe even then suffering from the cancer that finally took her life in 1976.Another obvious choice for the title role would have been the actress who made the part her own during it's long Broadway run -- Angela Lansbury! Her singing and acting skills had a huge part in making the Broadway production such a success. I grew up listening to the Original Cast album, and can say that the gifted Miss Lansbury was perfect for the role, yet without being too "stagy" and "overbearing", in the manner Ethel Merman and Carol Channing always came across on film. Unfortunately, they followed the time-honored tradition of casting a "big name" in the role, feeling Miss Lansbury didn't have enough "star power" for the movie version (that, and Lucy's obsession with playing the role). Ironically, that same type error, made a couple years earlier in "Man of La Mancha" (passing over the talented, beautifully voiced Richard Kiley for the non-singer Peter O'Toole) doomed that film to well-deserved obscurity. What "Mame" might have been with Angela Lansbury reprising her stage role is something we're left to speculate on.