Patty Duke is quite good in Valley of the Dolls

Rumor has it the director filmed a few scenes, then farmed out directorial duties to underlings. That's why some scenes are good and some are laughable.

They drummed you right outa Hollywood so you came crawling back to Broadway! Well Broadway don't go for booze 'n dope.

Well Broadway don't go for booze 'n dope.

Neely was ahead of her time. It did in the 70s.

She's just awful. No one seems to have explained to her that Neely must be likable at some level, so she giuves an exceptionally unpleasant performance as a horrible human being.

My favorite of her terrible lines readings: "Dr. Mitchell says I'm 'self-destructive'. SO WHAT?!"

Is Neely likeable in the book?

OP has terrible taste.

It really is a terrible, shrill performance. The worst in a film full of bad performances.

I think she's tremendous.

Patty Duke was ALWAYS a terrible actress

Patty Duke could be quite good, but this wasn't one of those times.

Susann liked all the ladies' performances except Duke's.

It's pure CAMP. That's why it lives on today!

I question whether winning an Oscar so young inflated Patty's ego and is why she never took an acting class as an adult..or at least I assume she never did because every performance I've seen that she gave as an adult is full of 'indicating' and 'emoting'.

I know in a lot of scenes Patty Duke's performance is definitely over the top. But in some scenes you can really see she knew what she was doing. The line from this movie could definitely be used to capture part of Duke's performance in Valley of the Dolls, when she told the director of her western movie, go to hell. LOL

R9 your comment is absolutely ridiculous. Here is an actress who won an Oscar, three Emmy awards and two Golden globe awards and numerous nominations. I don't think somebody who is a terrible actress would receive such accolades.

I think all the other ladies are perfectly cast: Parkins as the Grace Kelly type, Tate as the morose victim beauty queen, and, of course, Hayward as Lawson is iconic.

Duke isn't bad per se... but when you watch after thinking about it you realize another actress probably could've improved on her. Just not the case with the others.

Is Duke really believable as someone who had such an undeniable talent Hayward would be jealous of her? She's better in the scenes in which she's bemoaning Parkins and Tate's superior looks.

She gets the trainwreck stuff, but in the diva-like way it should be done? I'm less sure on that.

Hollywood didn't think so anyway. Duke was a nightmare on the VOTD and Hollywood decided she just wasn't worth it.

No second, third, or fourth chances like Garland got.

[quote] Is Neely likeable in the book?

At first. The film doesn't really show that the three women are supposed to be friends when they start out. It makes Neely's betrayal of Anne by sleeping with Lyon much more devastating than in the film which they only come across as incidental acquaintances.

Are you HIGH, ClarEE!?

R18 is right, Neely is enjoyable early in the book. She's a tough-cookie, having been a performing and supporting her family since she was a very young. She does transform over the decades and late in the book she becomes an awful person. Of course, Lyon is no prize either and Anne numbs herself through those "dolls" and stays with him for the duration.

R17 I don't know if that's necessarily correct. Maybe when you're talking about feature films, I could see that, but definitely not the television industry. After Valley, Miss Duke did do a feature film called ME, NATALIE, which she won the Golden Globe for, had this been a big hit or she received an Oscar nomination, maybe Hollywood feature films would have welcomed her back 🤔

She did make a decent career for herself in television. Maybe that was part of the problem. Her Neely, despite her skill in some scenes, never comes across as having an insistent star quality.

Susann wanted Streisand, which I bet she would've actually regret had it come to pass.

I don't know if Natalie Wood (who was considered) would've been better. She did a similar kind of role two years before in Inside Daisy Clover.

I don't know how believable Duke is a recording and movie superstar.

But then who would've thought Liza or Barbara would've been if they never had been IRL.

Boobies, Boobies, Boobies!

Nothing but Boobies.

Who needs em?

I did great without em.

Her Emmy speech is riveting TV.

Not good at all

No, OP, she's really not.

R22 I would say in television she had more than a decent career. She won three Emmys and was nominated 11 times. Also she is the youngest person ,(still today) to have a TV show named after herself. And, most of her TV movies were either number one in the ratings or for the given season 👍

But she never got the movie stardom she craved.

Nor did Parkins or Tate but that suited their characters.

*After watching Neely perform It's Impossible*

"Tell Frank, Dean, and Sam they're gonna have to wait"

For what?! Someone to fumigate the set after that performance?

She lied and destroyed a young Desi Jr career. How do you reconcile that?

Lied about what?

I don't know but I know Lucy didn't like her and that's good enough for me.

Someone posted an article awhile ago about alternate casting for the original VOTD, listing 3 actresses who would have been far better suited for the roles, and I believe they were all considered in the early stages:

Anne Welles: Candice Bergen

Neely: Liza Minnelli

Jennifer: Raquel Welch

Bergen and Welch would've been good. Welch making more sense too than the smaller breasted Tate.

But casting Liza or Barbra would've turned it into a Liza or Barbra Film.

Not Liza, necessarily. At that point she had attracted some attention but she wasn't yet LIZA WITH A Z!

Isn't Neely based on Judy? I doubt Liza would have played her mom in such an unflattering film.

Was Judy cast as Helen Lawson first?

Neely in the book was largely based on Judy but also partly on Betty Hutton and a few others.

Yes, Judy was originally cast as Lawson but in the end the producers couldn't get her insured because of her health and she had to be let go after making her costume and make up tests, which are on youtube. She took the sequined pants suits made for her with her and wore them in her concerts afterwards.

Plus, she was drunk and drugged out of her mind during early rehearsals and the producers and director Mark Robson realized she'd never make it through shooting and were glad to blame everything on the insurance issues.

Neither Liza nor Judy would've worked in their respective roles.

Just couldn't do the toughness they required.

I forget which one was which but Welch was offered to play the sexpot, but she didn't want that part. She offered to do another part and was turned down.

Welch was under contract to Fox and they wanted her to play Jennifer. She wanted to play Neely.

Parkins auditioned to play Neely (after a lot of pushing to be considered), and after seeing her the team asked her to read for Anne.

OP, it really depends on your definition of "good". Duke gave a fully committed, over-the-top performance that was supreme in it's awfulness, but the type of bad performance than only a great actress could have given. A train-wreck you can't take your eyes off.

Other great examples are Sally Field in Not Without My Daughter, (as well as the cemetery scene in Steel Magnolias), Jessica Lange in Hush, and of course, the other DL Icon, Faye in Mommie Dearest.

The truth is nobody could have played Neely O'Hara but Patty Duke 👍

She's objectively terrible, totally lacking in the star quality and personal attractiveness the part requires, but with double the viciousness. Watching her, you wonder why the hell anyone would want to see more of this bad-tempered little shrew, in person or on screen!

However, her bad performance does put the movie over the top, making it camp instead of the boring mess it would have ben otherwise.

Sharon Tate was the only actress to get decent reviews. Patty blew chunks, in large part, due to bad direction. Duke was a good actress, she just made a few stinkers.

While discussing VOD, Lee Grant reminded Duke of their bigger stinkaroo, Irwin Allen's 1978, "The Swarm". "The bees are coming, the bees are coming".

Sharon Tate was the only effective performance in that movie.

She was extremely photogenic. I've never seen anyone else that perfect looking on film.

Margo Robbie was a great choice to play Sharon as she's the only actress alive who even comes close to her level of beauty.

Patti woulda made a great Fanny Brick.

Robbie isn't as beautiful as Tate, but she played Sharon with sensitivity. Nice to see Robbie Oscar nominated for that particular role.

[quote]Rumor has it the director filmed a few scenes, then farmed out directorial duties to underlings.

Um, that's a crock of crap.

Nothing could be worse than Ms Tate’s line reading of “gee hunny I’m sorry! That old witch oughta be boiled in oil!” And that’s saying something for this movie. Once in a generation face though.

Patty Duke said director Mark Robson gave her bad direction; she already had a way she was going to play Neeley, and he gave her a very hard time of it and made her overplay the character. So she went with it. Boy, did she evah! I think Patty said Robson mistreated Judy on set by having her wait and wait and wait around in her dressing room, knowing that she'd be bored and start to turn to drinking, which got her fired. What a crumb bum.

Patty loved Sharon and stated something to the effect of, "Sharon was so beautiful on the inside that God just made her that way outside, to match."

Take a lesson you miserable bitches.

[quote]Was Judy cast as Helen Lawson first?

Hand over your Gay Card. NOW.

[quote]She took the sequined pants suits made for her with her and wore them in her concerts afterwards.

Fox gifted Garland with the pantsuit. She then had Travilla make her one in red and one in white at $1500 each.

R55 Sharon is a legendary beauty and seemed like a lovely person, but it’s laughable revisionist history to suggest she gave an effective performance in this film. Let alone the ONLY effective performance. Even she knew she was bad.

Patty Duke was too young to play this role. She was a good actress but didn't have the chops yet to play the role of Neely O'Hara - she came off as a shrill teenager. They needed a somewhat older, seasoned actress to play the role of Neely. This role and movie ruined Patty Duke's chances of becoming a big screen film star. She basically went back to TV and stayed there.

She wasn't that bad.

Yes, Sharon didn't like that film, herself. It was stated that her performance was wooden, however, she was still believable and did not overplay the role. One could believe her, which can't be said for anyone else, except for possibly Tony. She was nominated for a Golden Globe, based on her role in VOD.

I’d say Sharon and Barbara Parkins were about on equal footing. Patty was on another planet altogether.

Sharon’s suicide scene is very touching and Patty’s final scene in the alley is also very moving. That speaks volumes for the two actresses because they weren’t exactly working with great material.

Parkins was beautiful and wooden, like nothing going on in subtext in her mind. Tate you felt sadness for her.

One feels sadness watching Tate anyway, which in some twisted way makes the performance work.

It's on TCM on Wednesday.

It's on my shelf right now.

[quote]Patty Duke was ALWAYS a terrible actress

R9 - the gurls will be round to collect your gay card later today.

Robbie wasn't nominated for an Oscar for playing Tate.

Having read the book many times it's always bugged me that Barb played Anne Welles. She's certainly beautiful enough (and suitably icy) but the book makes it very clear that she's a blonde ("she had that light blonde shade of hair that looks real"). Candy Bergen was a good enough actress to play the part but I just can't see her in the role. Maybe Faye? Quelle horreur, but it would have been interesting, but still not RIGHT.

Patty is perfection as Neely. My only quibble is she didn't have curly hair, as Neely in the book did. Well, also, that Patty wasn't a singer. Neely's really the only interesting character in the book, and she shows her real character early on when she says something to Anne like "Those fancy manners are going to stand in your way. You got to make a direct line to what you want." Neely's a monster, but she's a friendly monster, at the beginning anyway.

R70- Tuesday Weld as Anne?

Yes, reply 69 (btw fab number) Robbie was nominated for Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for her role as Sharon in "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood."

Wait 69, not Academy Award. My bad. She got that nom for "I, Tonya".

[quote]Having read the book many times

LOL

Goody Two Shoes Patty Duke wasn't quite believable as Neely O'Hara. Not ready for that role yet.

None of those women could act their way out of a wet paper bag (yes, including poor pretty Sharon Tate) and that’s what makes the movie great. All this talk about alternate casting is irrelevant because who’d want VOTD any other way? Would you really want a “serious” VOTD starring seasoned thespians? Because THAT sounds like a lot of fun.

R71, Tuesday might have been a good choice-at least she would have brought something interesting to the role, and she certainly would have been believable as a secretary turned model. But Tues didn't have the ice-cold sophistication that Barb Parkins had. Weld was always at her best onscreen when she was enthused about something. She could be dull as hell at times, but if there was something in a role that fired her synapses (like in Lord Love A Duck or Pretty Poison) she had an interesting, schizy-quality that is fascinating to watch.

Guess who wanted to play Neely? Miss Debbie Reynolds. That and other VOD tidbits are in this fabulous book.

Patty said on numerous occasions how she came to love the film that she originally hated, because it brought the gays into her life.

The love was mutual.

I always rather like Tate's performance. It wasn't great acting, but she came across as a likable and vulnerable human being, which can't be said for her two co-stars.

And all wearing GOWNS BY TRAVILLA.

R81, Are you wearing a gown by Travilla while typing?

Robie was nominated for Bombshell the year she played Sharon Tate. (BAFTA nominated her for both roles.)

The thing that makes Sharon Tate stand out from the other two main characters is that she is very believable and not overplayed. I’ve been to several screenings of the movie with a gay crowd, and for the most part hers is the only performance that doesn’t generate laughs.

VOD will be on tcm tonite at 9:45

[quote][R81], Are you wearing a gown by Travilla while typing?

A lady never tells.

Just found on YouTube, an audio of Sharon Tate as a Tonight Show guest{Aug. 2, 1967). No video because in the Seventies, much of the older show footage was recorded over, as a cost savings strategy. Posting here because Sharon and Patty were good friends.

A great find r87, she was clearly a sensitive, articulate, lovely person and it’s painful to hear these men talk to her like she’s borderline retarded. Being beautiful can open doors but damn, sometimes she must have felt like she was trapped in a prison.

what are dolls anyway? Quaaludes?

“boobies, boobies, boobies! Nuthin’ but boobies!” —Neely O’Hara walking down the street in NYC.

I saw this film in high school and that’s pretty much all I remember from the film. I had just read the book, which I liked a lot, although it was tragic. I don’t recall the movie living up to the book.

Ann Margaret would have been really good in this role.

Less annoying, whining petulant child and more pre-mariah Carey but that type--running off the rails diva losing everything she once had.

[quote]Ann Margaret would have been really good in this role.

I can't bear her in anything - absolutely the same in every thing she did.

She would have been fine in the role, though.

It's obvious she always believed she was the hottest piece of ass in town.

I think dolls are amphetamines, R89.

Patty Duke, for years, cringed when an interviewer asked her about Valley of the Dolls. Then, she decided to enjoy it and embrace it. She thought it was hilarious, and would watch it with friends. She said it brought such joy, because it’s so over the top and campy.

What astonished me the first time I saw it was how horrible and dated the music was. This was 19 sixty fucking seven - when even bad movie soundtracks were good. The only song that was of the era was the Dionne Warwick song....it was Barbara Parkins's suggestion to get Dionne to do the soundtrack.

R96 K.D. Lang’s cover of the signature song is one of my all time favorites. It’s replaced the original as the definitive version for me.

Here’s Patty’s screen test for Valley of the Dolls. It’s wonderful!

R96 the only way in which Roger Ebert’s execrable sequel bested the original. Now that was a fabulous soundtrack.

"Lucy didn't like her and that's good enough for me"

Actually Lucy liked her, thought she had spunk. But Gary said no.

I think the actors were directing themselves. No talented director would have made those choices. There was no captain at the helm.

It is strange that we get no hint of Neely's incredible talent ("They love me!"). Just that early scene where she's lipsynching at a telethon.

Oops, R89. In the description of the movie, wikipedia says that "dolls" are barbiturates, ie. depressants. In the description of the novel, wikipedia says that "dolls" are both amphetamines and barbiturates. Confusing.

Ann-Margaret was officially 25 when the film was shot, and had the looks and star quality the role required. It would have been a better film if she'd been in it, but I still don't think the stodgy, ill-directed, badly written, badly performed mess ever had a hope of being good. As it was, with Duke playing a chunky little shrew, at least it has camp value!

And yes, I've met a lot of straight men who think that Ann-Margaret WAS the hottest piece of ass in town, or the world, when she was young. Some consider her to have been some sort of idea woman.

Parkins was the female lead on Fox's Peyton Place at the time and Daryl Zanuck wanted her as Anne. True, she wanted to be Neely, but Zanuck explained Anne was the lead role. She worked on both PP and VOD at the same time, sometimes on the same day. Interestingly enough Susann wanted Mia Farrow as Anne, and BETTE DAVIS as Helen, at one point. Mia was not a Fox fave after she left Peyton Place and Sinatra was not wanting her to do any work.

That is amazing R87. Thank you for posting.

I really do think that in a movie filled with really horrible stuff, the worst thing is Neely's utter lack of talent. When she sings at the telethon, host Joey Bishop is acting as if the talent of the century has been found. And, you know, that song is awful. They dubbed in, and the person who dubbed it is barely any better than Duke herself would've been. Why not at least get an impressive singer to do the track? The sets for the movies she's in are just ridicules. She way she's all comfortable in that bonnet she's wearing on set is hysterical.

Then, she's supposed to go off to the nut house, and come back cured, and nicer. But she steals Lyon from Anne. That's another thing. Why would Lyon ever leave Anne for that version on Neely? She's needy, shrill, unpleasant, career on the skids . "Ya know something, Anne? One of the first things I'd liketa have is this fella of yours. Ya better watch out (chuckle)" Haha so absurd.

[quote]Mia was not a Fox fave after she left Peyton Place

Much in the same way she's no longer a DL fave.

I wonder if she would have been any good in this.

Patty always held off telling "her truth" about the director, until....(@ 1:20)

They cut my favorite song, "If Not Then Now When?" wherein Jennifer walks wistfully along the Seine with a balloon (lipsynching to vocalist Julie London):

"If not then now when?

Seems today is tomorrow, but then

Day is night, night is day

Help me find my way

Where am I to begin?"

Here's Patty's own assessment of her performance, in one of her lines as Neely: "You call this acting?"

When I first became aware of Patty Duke, she was Patty Duke Astin. As I kid, I didn't realize they were two names. I thought it was Patty Dukastin.

Something about her when I was 7 or 8 really attracted me to her. It might be partly just the gay thing. I loved her on Match Game, and Tattletales. But most of all, she and John Astin (who I knew well as Gomez) every year would host the New York local portion of the Jerry Lewis Telethon. I was so sad the year I tuned in, and they were not doing it, but Sammy Davis Jr. did it. Even though Sammy told one of Jerry's kids who Patty and John had been close to they told him to say hello and that they missed him.

What REALLY sucked was the next year when Tony Orlando was it. And he did it every year after that.

She plays a very stupid, slappable drug addict.

Op is obviously joking

I think you can make a good argument for her Fayeness in Mommie Dearest. That is at turns terrible and brilliant. But Patty in Dolls isn't nearly as interesting. It's a small performance. Uninteresting.

I agree. Though Faye acts like an opera diva appearing in a little community theater production, there isn't one second when you don't know that you are watching a PERFORMANCE by a GREAT ACTRESS. Maybe not a great performance, but that's a little beside the point.

I agree. Though Faye acts like an opera diva appearing in a little community theater production, there isn't one second when you don't know that you are watching a PERFORMANCE by a GREAT ACTRESS. Maybe not a great performance, but that's a little beside the point.

[quote]When I first became aware of Patty Duke, she was Patty Duke Astin. As I kid, I didn't realize they were two names. I thought it was Patty Dukastin.

When I was very young, I thought that Frank Sinatra was the name of a singing duo: Franks and Atra.

When I was a kid I could not figure out why Patty was the star. I thought the one who played Cathy was a much better actress. I thought she should have played Neely.

I just watched this last night. Patty Duke was actually pretty good up until the second half where she got addicted to her dolls. She went a little over the top.

But the worst actress in the movie was Susan Hayward. I'll never understand why people love her. In every movie she's in, she shouts every line like she's onstage and is trying to get the people in the cheap seats to hear her.

And what was up with that stupid musical number where all the hanging colored glass pieces were floating around her? So hilariously bad.

Neely O'Hara in the book is very Judy-like--a puppyish charm as a young woman that partially obscures endless neediness and grinding ambition. More pretty than beautiful, with recurring weight problems but overwhelming talent.

Liza would have been a perfect choice for the part, and Judy was actually good friends with Jacqueline Susann who assured her Neely wasn't based on her (yeah, right). Why Liza wasn't cast is a mystery, as she was an up-and-coming star at that point.

Helen Lawson was based on Ethel Merman. They needed an actress more in that vein. Ginger Rogers or Lucille Ball would have worked: Lawson is a brash former showgirl who made it big through talent and strategic fucking.

[quote]And what was up with that stupid musical number where all the hanging colored glass pieces were floating around her? So hilariously bad.

The fact that it's hilariously bad makes it a high point of the movie. (Hayward's singing was dubbed by Margaret Whiting, who later married gay porn star Jack Wrangler.) I guess the hanging colored glass pieces were supposed to represent the tree that Helen Lawson is going to plant. What I find most funny is that the number is supposedly from a big Broadway musical but looks like something you'd see on a low-budget 1960s TV variety show.

The falls (hairpieces for you youngsters) were spectacular. They were the true stars of the movie.

You bet we were!

R121 Yes! It looked like something you'd see on The Ed Sullivan Show, not at the Ziegfeld Theatre.

R118 You are terribly wrong. Susan Hayward was the best thing about this movie and kept it from being a complete disaster. Her portrayal of Helen Lawson was iconic. And she made sure that the producers gave Judy Garland her $50,000 working fee before she (Susan) took the part. A great dame!!

The one and only.

"Why Liza wasn't cast is a mystery, as she was an up-and-coming star at that point."

Would Liza have taken the part if it had been offered???

R127 Maybe Liza realized the movie was going to be dreck so she wasn't interested

Liza's career was just beginning to take off when "Valley of the Dolls" was being made. It isn't as though she missed some golden opportunity by not appearing in that crapfest, which certainly did nothing for the careers of Patty Duke or Barbara Parkins.

Liza would have brightened the movie up considerably. Duke is miscast and Parkins is barely there at all. Even with the shitty script, a movie with Bergen, Minnelli, and Welch would have been a better film.

I agree r130 that she would have put the "sparkle" into the character but I alsoI think Liza was too vulnerable to play the nasty Neely. The sweet, gosh golly Neely in the beginning, yes, but I can't see her changing into the hard ass Neely became.

The only believable thing about casting her would be the doll popping

R125 Susan Hayward wasn't an actress. She was an ACTRESS!!!

the whole wig thing is ridiculous when all she reveals is a great full head of gray hair. it was absurd.

& apparently there was a mishap on set when they recorded the scene - which put Patty in bad books with Susan for the rest of the shoot.

The original 1967 NYtimes review

[quote]BAD as Jacqueline Susann's "Valley of the Dolls" is as a book, the movie Mark Robson has made from it is that bad or worse.It's an unbelievably hackneyed and mawkish mish-mash of backstage plots

R123 in the book Helen has lost most of her hair, so that's why she is wearing a wig. Susan Hayward refuse to wear a bald cap, so you're right the scene makes no sense

[quote] all the hanging colored glass pieces were floating around her

That were severely streaked and fingerprinted.

OP is unastute in the way a comatose patient cannot be trusted to babysit.

[quote]Her screams at the end NEELY O"HARA!!! are kind of chilling.

She also screams out Anne's name....who, in the movie, is just [bold]an acquaintance[/bold] whose boyfriend she fucked.

I think I read that Susan Hayward had recently gone into remission for cancer (not sure what type) when VOD filmed and was not comfortable appearing bald onscreen in light of that. Considering she was a last minute replacement, I can see why a concessions (essentially having a full head of blonde hair underneath the wig) were made.

Travilla flew down to Susan's Florida home with his redrawn sketches of Hayward in costume to help convince her to take the role. She hated all of them, labeling each as "a dog."

The last time I watched Valley of the Dolls, for like the 10x time in 4 decades, I decided I was never going to watch it again. It's such dreck.

Barbra wouldn't have been a very good Neely BUT LIZA WOULD'VE TORN THIS SHIT UP!!

The thing that does work with Duke's performance is the idea that "America's Sweetheart" is really just a nasty little midget.

Reading these comments, my first thought was how dare we consider anyone but Patty for Neely. That role belongs to her, and to me it's sacrilege to think otherwise.

However, now that Ann-Margret has been mentioned....wow, I could absolutely see that. She had that feisty, desperate, needy, ambitious quality, and as Carnal Knowledge showed, she could play self-destructive. Her musical numbers would have been great. So her I would happily accept. I also believe she would have devoured the scenery as fantastically as Patty.

But Ann-Margetet could actually act! I don't know if she'd started doing so at this point in her career, but by the early 70s she was out of starlet mode and being considered for Oscars. She would have been good if she's played Neely while in her sexy starlet mode, but if she'd let loose and brought some real fire to the story...

It's just that i can't conceive of this story being done well. I have no idea how a good performance would have played, and if the Neely had been good, whether they'd have had to fire Parkins.

Barbara Parkins is the most boring actress I've ever seen in a major motion picture. Her monotone voice sounds like a cheap YouTube AI narration.

Can’t you just hear Ann-Margret singing “It’s Impossible” with all her gusto? And snarling “boobies boobies boobies.”

Is Parkins Italian? When she put the snob face on, she looked ethnic, not WASPY.

I've said this before - Barbara Parkins was a friend of my parents when she moved to England shortly after she made this movie. She was a very nice person and was sweet with little kiddie me. She enjoys the attention the movie gets from the gays. She came to London in more recent years (post-2000) for some camp movie festival that was headlining with VOTDs and looked up my father for old times.

Just googled her - she was Canadian - never knew that.

As engaging, interesting, and sometimes warm a presence as Patty Duke Astin was, she never EVER "sparked." And Neely had to have rare star quality- according to the script of the movie anyway. The book is a bit different. A girl who Helen considers a threat is fired from the musical, and Neely is Helen's handpicked replacement. Because in the book, Neely is merely an adequate singer, but in the movie, when Joey Bishop hears her sing for the first time, he acts like she's Barbra Streisand.

Anyway yes Ann-Margret for the movie version would've been better, but there really is no fixing that awful script.

The Ann-Margret Troll is all over this thread