Splitsider

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012
Lost Roles
18

The Lost Roles of Gilda Radner

by | March 22nd, 2012

Lost Roles is a weekly column that takes a particular comedic performer or writer and dives deep into all of their movie and TV projects that came close to happening but didn’t for one reason or another. This week, we turn our attention to beloved and much-missed original SNL castmember Gilda Radner.

I’ve recently noticed that, amongst the current crop of comedians and comedic actors, two of the most often-cited influences are for guys, Bill Murray, and for girls, Gilda Radner. These two members of Saturday Night Live's 70s golden era hold a prolific place in the hearts and minds of those in the comedy community. While Bill Murray is still plowing ahead with his fun and unpredictable career, appearing in an eclectic mix of movies, Gilda Radner never got the chance. Radner’s life was tragically taken by cancer in 1989, but her influence on modern comedy abounds. Everyone from Tina Fey to Lena Dunham has cited Gilda Radner as the main person who inspired them to go into comedy, and Radner remains one of the most beloved SNL castmembers ever — even as the show continues to introduce us to new funny people every year.

After leaving SNL, Radner’s movie career never reached the heights of her peers' like Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, and Dan Aykroyd, but her brilliant work on SNL has stood the test of time and ensured her place in comedy history. If Gilda Radner’s life hadn’t ended so early, I imagine she would have achieved movie stardom just like the SNL boys. She certainly had the talent for it.

Throughout her career, Radner was either considered for or offered several high-profile parts in movies and TV that she wasn’t able to accept. Let’s take a look at some of the roles she almost had, including projects that would have seen her collaborating with the Monty Python guys, playing Popeye’s girlfriend, and starring in her own primetime show.

The David Steinberg Show (1976)
In the early 70s, Gilda Radner joined the cast of two influential underground comedy collectives: the famed Second City Theatre in Toronto, where she acted alongside Dan Aykroyd, John Candy, Eugene Levy, Catherine O’Hara, and Joe Flaherty, and the National Lampoon Radio Hour, where she performed with John Belushi, Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, and Christopher Guest. In 1975, Radner’s work on the Second City stage earned her two big offers at the same time: a spot as a “Not Ready for Prime Time Player” on SNL, and a role on The David Steinberg Show, a syndicated Canadian comedy series that was a precursor to The Larry Sanders Show. Talent manager Bernie Brillstein, who represented Lorne Michaels and would eventually rep Radner, had to call her to convince her not to join the cast of The David Steinberg Show, where her Second City compatriots John Candy, Joe Flaherty, Andrea Martin, and Martin Short had been hired. Brillstein had never met Radner at the time, but he was still able to talk her into taking the SNL deal instead, where she quickly became one of the show’s most popular castmembers and had a much larger effect upon pop culture than she would have as a supporting character on a syndicated Canadian TV show.

A primetime NBC variety show (1979)
With Saturday Night Live at the peak of its popularity in 1978, newly-installed NBC president Fred Silverman wanted to capitalize on the show’s success by using its stars to fill out his network’s primetime schedule. Silverman began talks with Gilda Radner and Lorne Michaels to produce a weekly variety show starring Radner that would begin airing in primetime in 1979. Fred Silverman was determined to make Gilda Radner into “the next Lucille Ball” or an edgier Carol Burnett. According to NBC head of programming Paul Klein in Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live, Silverman repeated the mantra “Wednesday night at nine is Gilda Time!” over and over around the office, which sounds kinda creepy.

Gilda Radner and Lorne Michaels met with Silverman to structure a deal over the course of several months, arranging a guaranteed 17-episode commitment and a high salary for Radner, but she and Michaels decided against making the show before things got too far. Radner didn’t want to add five years to her sentence at NBC (the standard TV contract at that point was five years) and was worried that she couldn’t do both SNL and her own show. She also fered breaking up the SNL gang. Silverman was insulted by Radner turning the show down, assuming that Lorne Michaels was pulling the strings. The collapse of the Gilda Radner variety show deal soured relations between Michaels and Silverman. Michaels responded by having John Belushi impersonate the network president on the air and Silverman took action by leaving Lorne Michaels out of discussions about his SNL successor in 1980, which led to Silverman installing Jean Doumanian in the position, a move that nearly killed the show.

Instead of the variety series, Lorne Michaels and Gilda Radner teamed up for Gilda Live!, a Broadway show based around Radner’s talents that was later turned into an unsuccessful movie and album. While Radner never had a lot of success in movies, staying on TV for a variety show might have been the best thing for her career at the time. You can’t blame her for wanting to move on, though, as years of SNL’s intense schedule and long hours had tired her out (she was one of the few members of the original SNL gang running on adrenaline instead of cocaine). Primetime variety shows were dying out in the late 70s too, so it would have been a strange time to throw Gilda Radner into this soon-to-be-antiquated format.

Popeye (1980)
The role: Olive Oyl
Who got it: Shelly Duvall
A castmember on SNL at the time filming began, Gilda Radner was who the studio wanted for the lead female role in director Robert Altman’s live action musical adaptation of the Popeye cartoons. Altman wanted Shelley Duvall for the part and got his way, casting Duvall opposite Robin Williams's Popeye when Radner turned the offer down. The resulting movie flopped with critics and didn’t win over audiences like the filmmakers had expected. Radner explained her decision to pass on Popeye to People magazine in 1979, saying, “It’s very tempting to do Olive Oyl because I grew up with her and dress like her. But I really don’t know what to do… It would be like spitting at your parents.”

Arthur (1981)
The role: Linda Marolla
Who got it: Liza Minnelli
When casting the now-classic comedy Arthur, the filmmakers looked at a lot of different actors and actresses for the roles of Arthur and his love interest Linda Marolla. According to IMDb, Gilda Radner was considered for the part of Linda, along with Goldie Hawn, Diane Keaton, and Meryl Streep, before losing out to Liza Minnelli. Radner would have been at home in this sweet romantic comedy and it would have been much better (and more successful) than any of the rom-coms she made with her real-life husband Gene Wilder, but I don't know if her chemistry with male lead Dudley Moore would have been as strong as Minnelli's was. Minnelli was clearly a great choice here, doing a surprisingly good job with the screenplay's snappy comic dialogue. Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli worked well together, but Gilda Radner's Second City and SNL costar John Belushi allegedly turned down the part of Arthur, which makes a Belushi/Radner version of the movie seem like a missed opportunity.

Time Bandits (1981)
The role: Mrs. Ogre
Who got it: Katherine Helmond
In Michael Palin's published collection of his 80s era diaries Halfway to Hollywood, the British comedian recalls a casting battle over the role of the ogre's elderly wife in the movie Time Bandits. Palin wanted Ruth Gordon (Harold and Maude) for the part, but the studio was pushing for Gilda Radner, then hot off of SNL where she regularly played old lady Emily Litella. Says Palin, "She may do a great old lady, but Ruth Gordon is a great old lady." Neither Gordon nor Radner won the part, as it ended up going to Soap actress Katherine Helmond.

Fatal Attraction (1987)
The role: Alex Forrest
Who got it: Glenn Close
According to IMDb, Gilda Radner was considered for the part of psychotic stalker Alex Forrest in Fatal Attraction. This was a very different movie, both in terms of genre and the character she was playing, from anything Radner had done in the past, but maybe it would have been cool to see her switch things up a bit. The filmmakers ended up going with the much more logical casting choice of Glenn Close. Radner was diagnosed with ovarian cancer right around the time of Fatal Attraction's production, though, and sadly didn't film another movie before her death.

Hosting Saturday Night Live (1988)
With her cancer in remission at the time, Gilda Radner was scheduled to return to host Saturday Night Live in the spring of 1988, which would have made her the first female former castmember to host the show and only the second former member of the original cast (after Chevy Chase) to host. It would have been an excellent homecoming for Gilda Radner, as Lorne Michaels and a good chunk of the original writing staff had returned to SNL by this point, but a Writer's Guild strike forced production on all TV shows and movies to shut down for a few months. By the time the strike was over, Gilda Radner's cancer had returned and she wasn't able to host the show before she passed away.

Gilda Radner died on May 20, 1989 – a Saturday. Radner's friend and frequent costar Steve Martin was set to host SNL that night, but it was decided to scrap Martin's prepared monologue and to have him use the time at the top of the show to tearfully say goodbye to Gilda and to introduce a clip of the two of them together in the classic sketch "Dancing in the Dark." Not only one of the funniest SNL castmembers ever, but also one of the funniest people ever, Gilda Radner is still very much missed and is an inspiration to every generation of comedic performer that has followed in her footsteps. I'll leave you with Steve Martin's heartbreaking tribute to Gilda on the day of her passing. It's a more honest and touching encapsulation of Radner's life and legacy than anything I could possibly write:

Bradford Evans is sorry for making everyone sad.

Previously in Lost Roles
Complete Lost Roles archives

Tags:

arthur, bill murray, gilda radner, Lorne Michaels, lost roles, popeye, saturday night live, snl

  • JSteph

    The female performers you're saying Gilda Radner influenced aren't "girls." It's sexist and patronizing for you to refer to women that way.

    • Lord Haw Haw

      The scolding, schoolmarmish tone you've adopted isn't "attractive." It's sanctimonious and obnoxious for you to lecture another person that way.

    • Agent M

      @JSteph …I was waiting for that. Must be tiring to constantly chase after your next outrage.

    • http://twitter.com/bradfordevans Bradford Evans

      @JSteph What about shows like "New Girl" and "2 Broke Girls?"

    • JSteph

      @Bradford Evans Calling women girls is patronizing by definition, so … yeah, also sexist. And "2 Broke Girls" is racist to boot, so that one's a real winner. I love Gilda Radner and love seeing posts about her, but women comedians around today have to fight tooth and nail to be taken seriously just as much as they did in the '70s when she rose to prominence. To turn around and call them by a word used for children is patronizing. It doesn't mean you're being willfully sexist, but what's wrong with thinking about the words you use?

      Lord Haw Haw and Agent M, you've certainly shown me the error of my ways. I'll get right on not pointing out sexism so I can be more attractive to anonymous internet strangers.

    • Jason Farr@facebook

      @Stephanie You're right. People should think about the words they use. I think your initial post was a bit aggressive sounding and gives the impression you are accusing him of being willfully sexist. But you imply that he wasn't willfully being sexist. I'm not going to say using the word "girls" is wrong or not. I won't argue with you about that. But you could take the same advice and be more careful with your words couldn't you? Maybe there was a more gentle way to say, "Hey, Bradford, given everything else I've read of yours and even what you said in this very article I get the impression you're a nice guy. So I'm sure you don't mean it. But to use the word 'girls' in place of 'women' is considered inappropriate. Just thought you should know." Isn't educating someone and not immediately jumping down their throat a better approach?

    • Stephanie

      @Jason Farr@facebook I get what you're saying, but my original post only sounds aggressive because treating women like children is the norm. It's not as simple as referring to them as girls; it's also in things like assuming I'm going to be disappointed by finding out my having a problem with sexism makes me unattractive to random men who post comments on Splitsider. Yeah, it would sound less harsh to qualify the initial post with something along the lines of "I've read other things you've written and don't have a problem with you personally, just with your word choice here," but I don't look at as my job to be as sensitive as possible when pointing out something is wrong. If Bradford saw my comment and took a second to think about his wording or saw it and dismissed it as trolling, either one of those is his choice. But calling women comedians girls when they already have to deal with so much "women can't be funny" bullshit only adds to the myriad sexism they experience. I'm not going to lose sleep over the possibility that I hurt a guy's feelings for saying he wrote something sexist.

    • http://twitter.com/bradfordevans Bradford Evans

      @Stephanie I wasn't offended by what you said or bothered that you pointed it out. It's a fair point and something I didn't think about while I was writing the piece. I wasn't trying to be willfully sexist, but I'm not entirely sure it was sexist in the first place. I get what you're saying and I'm glad you shared your opinion, but I think you're blowing things out of proportion a little bit. I refer to guys as boys occasionally (as one commenter points out below, the Farley/Sandler era of the show was often called a "boys' club"), and I don't think using "boys" or "girls" is patronizing to either gender.

    • Jason Farr@facebook

      @Stephanie It's not your job, but doesn't the problem you're pointing come back to people not trying to be more sensitive when making statements? If Bradford should be more mindful of how he speaks…so should you, right? So should we all.
      But I'm not necessarily convinced that saying "girls" is sexist in every context. I definitely think it is in many. But your post made me ask a female and she said it isn't across the board even considered sexist. So it makes me think you might be reading a tone into it as you suggest in so many words that I did with your initial post. Is it not at all possible that Bradford was using the term "girls" colloquially and not for the purpose of demeaning women? Can females only be called "women" and never referred to colloquially in other terms like males have "men," "dudes," "guys," "fellas?"
      I definitely hear you, but to a point. I don't know that "girls" is considered offensive across the board like other words are. I think it depends on the tone when it comes to "girls." Like, the way Hugh Hefner says it. That's definitely said in a demeaning tone. And the worst of it is, Hefner doesn't *intend* to demean women when he says it, but you can tell in his tone that it is dismissive. However, the way Bradford used it, I don't know if I'd classify that as the same thing. Tone makes a difference does it not? Just like someone can say "woman" in a way that is offensive. What you're saying should be considered, no doubt, but I think this might not have been the best example of a man dismissing women.

    • Stephanie

      @Bradford Evans, it's patronizing to both genders, by definition of the word. But it definitely makes a difference what context it's used in. For example, there's a difference between Shane McGowan singing "Let me go, boys" in a Pogues song and someone saying the phrase "Boys will be boys," which (when people are talking about men, not actual boys) can be used to dismiss asshole behavior, but also implies men have no control over themselves. I don't like calling women girls (or calling men boys) in any context, but there's a difference between calling women girls just as a counterpart to "guy" and, say, using a term like "girl's basketball." I have friends of both genders who use the word the same way they would "guy," and while I don't like it, I don't find it as disturbing as when people use it in reference to a woman in a field hostile to them or where women have to claw through a lot of bullshit just to be taken seriously. I'm not an athlete or a comedian, but I sympathize a lot with women in those fields because they have to put up with more bullshit than what perhaps a woman doctor or lawyer would (although, I'm not a doctor or lawyer, so I could be wrong there). To be fair, what made seeing the word "girls" in your article frustrating to me is that I was coming to it from the context of knowing women comedians have to put up with a lot of bullshit, and you obviously just meant "girl" as "female guy." I know calling a someone in her early 20's a woman doesn't feel natural for most people, so the problem there is more that there isn't a "guys" or "bros" or "dudes" for women as it is blatant sexism. I think it was especially jarring for me to see the word right away in your article because even though Gilda Radner was the first person hired for SNL, she still had to deal with that "women can't be funny" attitude. I saw a doc about the show's early years that talked about how Jane Curtin couldn't stand John Belushi because he had that attitude, although he would say Gilda was an exception. We're both just looking at the word's use differently, which is not the worst thing in the world. As I've said I don't like the word in any context, but what people say isn't up to me (nor would I want it to be). We're not going to feel the same way about the word "girl." Not a huge deal.

      @Jason Farr@facebook, you're right that everyone should be mindful of what they say, but there's a difference between being careful that what you say doesn't stereotype an entire group of people and being careful that what you say doesn't come across as hostile to an individual. Both are nice things to think about, but when I see something that is condescending to a whole group, it's hard for me to give a fuck about individual feelings. Again, I think it comes back to the context you're bringing to it, and I think it's harder to understand that attitude of "Fuck it, I don't have to explain myself to you" when you're coming from a position of privelege.

      I honestly think it's really awesome that you talked to a friend about the calling adult women girls issue. Internet comment boards are a place where you can be an asshole with impunity if you want to, so it's refreshing to see you see an issue and actually think about it and discuss it. The fact is the woman you talked to isn't offended by the use of the word "girls" across the board and I am. She doesn't speak for me and I don't speak for her, and (I'm assuming) neither of us claims to speak for the other. As I said above, calling women girls and calling men boys is patronizing by definition, so when I say I'm bothered by the use in any context, it's for that reason, not that I think all women would agree with me. But I think you've hit the nail on the head about two things: it is a colloquially used word, and the tone matters. We're not going to agree about whether it's OK to use, and that's not a big deal. We'd probably be living in a post-apocalyptic nightmare at this point if it actually made a difference when people on the internet don't agree. But one last bone to pick: I don't think "this might not have been the best example of a man dismissing women" is a good enough reason for why I shouldn't say anything or be bothered by the sentence that I posted on initially. No matter what the issue is you see people discussing, it's almost invariably going to be at best a microcosm of a larger problem. If people only talked about or worried about the most egregious examples of social issues, we'd spend more energy trying to determine what the most egregious examples are, and worse, it sort of gives people a license not to think about what they say. I mean, you've pinpointed Hugh Hefner as someone who seems to dismiss women, and I doubt many women are clamoring to argue with you. But there's a men's rights movement out there with some members crazy enough to register feminists and post personal information about them online. (I think the site's called register-her.com. Trust me, it's not worth my energy to look it up.) It's INSANE, and it's certainly worse than anything Hugh Hefner could say about women, but does it mean I shouldn't worry about what good ole Hugh says now? No matter what the issue, there's always going to be someone saying something more offensive, but sometimes the problem isn't which idea is the worst, but which idea is the most widespread.

    • Jason Farr@facebook

      @Stephanie For one I will say thanks for commending that. I don't deserve credit for something people should do, but I will graciously say thanks for noting that. It's encouraging. Secondly I want to point out that I'm sorry if my comments came off in a way that conveyed you shouldn't say anything when it's a small bone to pick. You're absolutely right when you say, "If people only talked about or worried about the most egregious examples of social issues, we'd spend more energy trying to determine what the most egregious examples are, and worse, it sort of gives people a license not to think about what they say." We can't wait for the egregious moments to stand up for a cause. That's waiting far too late. Because we can avoid the egregious incidents when we address the smaller ones. I think you SHOULD say something. I just thought that maybe this was one to approach in a way that doesn't condemn the Bradfords out there who don't mean any harm. I say this as a guy who wants to reach people for things I am passionate about. But some people who share my passion can be aggressive when making a valid point and it turns people off. You're right, there is a difference between having a simple discussion about something and being careful in that context to not offend vs. pointing out an injustice that has gotten so out of hand that it's sickening. But I think care and concern for people's feelings has got to still be carefully guided because when a person is hostile or comes off hostile they turn people off. It's maybe more important to be mindful in those moments because the point you're trying to make is so much more important. Do you know what I mean? You clearly have a big heart and are a good person. Your head and your heart are in the right place. And I love you for that! That's awesome! Keep speaking up! I just wanted to point out the significance of how one responds when it comes to something you're passionate about and something that is really emotional. It's so easy to respond with the emotional side of things when one is passionate about the topic. But we have to make sure we bring everybody in a loving way because that's how we actually change people's hearts. That's the bottom issue here. It's not about changing the words we use (no longer saying "girls" to refer to women as a whole) but changing our hearts so that we do the right thing and behave the right way. You have changed my mind about things though! Your words made me think, "Why did it even matter to say who "guys" often cite and who "girls" often cite as an influence?" Because I undoubtedly cite Tina Fey and Maya Rudolph and Amy Poehler and Gilda Radner as influences. And I'm a dude. And I'm almost certain Amy Poehler was just as influenced by Bill Murray as she is by Gilda Radner. So why does it matter to separate men and women like that? Why not just say, "the most often cited influences are Bill Murray and Gilda Radner?" But I digress. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and having a peaceable discussion with me about it.

  • http://twitter.com/petegaines petejayhawk

    The male performers you're saying Gilda Radner influenced aren't "guys." It's sexist and patronizing for you to refer to men that way.

  • A Good Question

    I'm very curious as to how Gilda as Alex Forrest would have gone. There's a long history of comedians playing psychos and villains, and sometimes it works out pretty well. Alan Arkin in "Wait Until Dark" is a classic example.

    • Agent M

      @A Good Question … I was thinking of Robin Williams in Insomnia or One Hour Photo. So many comics seem bruised, obsessive and introspective, so psycho killer may not be a huge leap!

  • Megh Wright

    Girl, this is the most heartbreaking Lost Roles yet.

  • Pulse

    Don't they constantly refer to the Sandler era of SNL to a "Boys Club"?

  • Ava Adore

    Also note that her ex-husband, G.E. Smith, is behind Steve Martin and leading the band.

  • Marci McCann@facebook

    I'm not a comedian or anything like that…but I've loved Gilda since I was about 10 or 11, and my mom brought home an SNL video compilation of her greatest skits. Everything I see of hers makes me love and admire her more and more. I agree with Megh, heartbreaking to see this but so glad to see people still recognize how amazing she is. Thanks!

-->