How to Marry a Millionaire follows three beautiful women trying to capture a millionaire for a husband. Simple plot, yes? But that doesn't mean it's predictable in an irritating way! As I just said, movies can be enjoyable, and even fantastic, with a simple idea and to-the-point context (including humor). As you should be aware, humor in the 1950s was much different than it is today. In this new decade of 2010s, humor is classified as awkward jokes that, generally, are not accepted as funny, so much so that they, in turn, do become hilarious. This form of humor is demonstrated by actors such as Jason Segal (in an absolutely unfunny way) and, maybe, Michael Cera (in which case it is amusing). The source of humor of our modern era is not the issue here (though it may be in future posts). Back to the classic film, How to Marry a Millionaire involves three separate love stories that end with each woman marrying exactly what they were not looking for: someone poor, whether they be a forest ranger, a formerly rich man "on the lamb", or a secretly rich man who acts poor, which is yet another gag present in such 1950s films. (Extended sentence. I hope there was no trouble in deciphering my point.) Overall, the film was a sheer delight in re-experiencing, and, therefore, would surely entertain you for the first time, if you haven't yet seen it. (Not to make rash judgement, but you probably haven't, and that is not your fault. Society, it seems, has made classic films a pretentious genre, one only so-called "pseudo-intellectuals" or people searching for bragging rights, have come to admire. Once again, I'm uncertain whether there is a point to this off-tangent dribble, but please consider adding many beloved classic films to your upcoming movie night.)
Moving on to my purpose. As I watched this pleasant comedy again, I could not help but envision a modern remakes, for the subject of this movie is widely known and (deep inside) loved. Yes, even those cynical, intellectual critics have a soft spot for these simple classic plots. I enjoy this process of imagining an alternate reality, which, in other words, is a potential remake. (All this is in the introduction, take a glance.) The most crucial part of creating a remake, or screen adaption or anything similar, is the choice of the cast; each member must be considerate of their preceding counterpart and compatible with their fellow cast mates. While my own list may not be completely accurate in respect for the original (as was my casting list with The Lost Symbol), just be open-minded and not so concerned about the inconsequential details. (May I remind you that Michelle Williams looks nothing like Marilyn Monroe, yet they pulled off a decent film either way.) Here are the lovely ladies:
|Catherine Zeta-Jones as Schatze Page|
Stunning picture, isn't it?
|Kristen Wiig as Loco Dempsey|
Her flawless comic timing and facial humor make her (one of) the top choices.
|Amy Adams as Loco Dempsey|
She just has the face and talent (Miss Pettigrew) for a 1950s-esque comedy.
|Scarlett Johansson as Pola Debevoise|
One of many pictures where she is the near-perfect modern Marilyn.
There you have it. Yet another possible casting list produced by the never-ceasing imagination of my mind. (Was that redundant?) I rather enjoy these little posts, don't you? Why wouldn't you? Please, if you are willing, comment below for your own suggestions of who should portray whom, or even criticize/praise my choices. You could also suggest other films of which I can provide alternate casting choices. Please, no books, because I highly doubt we would have the same taste in literature. Have a marvelous future.