[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Julie Christie or Melina Mercouri. Neither Bradford nor Manners knew
that on 8 March Alan Jay Lerner came to the conclusion that Rosalind was
wrong for Coco, even though he was supposed to have written the book and
lyrics with her in mind. Lerner revealed his doubts in a handwritten note
to an unknown source, clearly not Rosalind, in which he also admitted
that directors Mike Nichols and John Schlesinger agreed with him. Whether
Rosalind sensed Lerner s ambivalence about her and said as much to
Frederick, who then informed Manners, is impossible to know. It was clearly
a case of mixed signals.
In a few months, the scenario changed:
France Soir (20 June 1967): Rosalind will do Coco and has Chanel s blessing.
Women s Wear Daily (18 July 1967): Rosalind is vacillating, despite the
encouragement of Frederick and Chanel.
New York Times (27 September 1967): Rosalind will do Coco.
The Times was unaware of the letter that Lerner had written to
Frederick two weeks earlier, on 13 September 1967, in which he unequivo-
cally stated,  This is definitely not for Roz and Roz is definitely not for it.
Lerner was right. His Coco was a formidable creature, craving love but not
242 TRUSTING HIM
knowing how to give or receive it. The show needed a bravura performance,
not a sympathetic one. Unlike Mama Rose, Coco Chanel enjoyed interna-
tional fame. Coco s eleven o clock number,  Always Madmoiselle, begins
on a note of self-pity, as she laments never having the chance to reveal the
love she has within her none of which is evident in the show. But after two
and a half hours, it would not have mattered what Coco said. Lerner wisely
knew that at the end of an evening of self-dramatization (as well as self-
promotion), Coco has to bring the audience, if not to their feet, at least to a
realization that, as Sinatra would have put it, she does things her way:  Who
the devil cares / what a woman wears? / Doesn t mean a stitch / ending up
a witch / in a golden shell. / One is as one does / and by God it was / Life was
as it had to be. / It was not too bad to be / Always mademoiselle. / Right or
wrong, I m glad to be / Gabrielle Chanel!
Coco was not a Rosalind Russell vehicle; nothing suited her from the
score to the book and the lyrics.  The gay, uninhibited, irresistible zest that
Roz uses instead of a voice would be so out of character that she and the
songs would be fighting each other, Lerner wrote Frederick. Previn s music
and Lerner s lyrics were intended for an actress who could sing or, lacking a
trained voice, declaim. A non-singing actress, particularly one who had
done the classics, could substitute an exaggerated rhythm for the melodic
line, much as Robert Preston did in The Music Man, so that the result was
somewhere between speech-song and rap. Previn s score is sufficiently
musical so that a trained singer can perform the numbers as written, as
songs to be sung; a non-singer, as texts to be interpreted dramatically. To
Lerner and Previn, there was only one non-singing actress who could both
attract audiences and convince them that they were watching a musical
despite her nonmusical instincts: Katharine Hepburn.
Frederick replied to Lerner a week later, challenging his assertion that
Rosalind lacked  emotional brittleness and questioning Hepburn s  singing
voice, which Lerner implied she possessed. Actually, Hepburn never had a
singing voice. She started taking voice lessons before rehearsals for Coco
began and continued with them throughout the run of the show. Hepburn
TRUSTING HIM 243
knew that she could perform the role by substituting musical inflection for
song. She succeeded; the numbers sounded as if they came from the far side
of music, but were rhythmic enough to pass for singing.
 The matter is closed, Frederick wired Lerner on 1 October 1967.
Perhaps the unkindest cut of all came when Chanel gave several interviews
in which she commented that Hepburn was the only actress slated for the
part who looked like her. Chanel was right. Hepburn not only looked like
Chanel, but acted like her: imperious, self-absorbed, and unregenerate. That
was also Katharine Hepburn, whose Chanel was a composite of Hepburn s
Terry Randall (Stage Door), Tracy Lord (The Philadelphia Story), and Eleanor of
Aquitaine (A Lion in Winter). Rosalind may have worn Chanel creations, but [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]