Carol Channing Centennial: A Thoroughly Wacky Nomination
Monday, February 1, 2021 at 4:30PM 
Carol Channing was a force of nature. The actress electrified the Broadway stages, originating such famous roles as Lorelei in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and the titular character in Hello, Dolly!, but the husky-voiced sensation with a mega-wat smile went on to find success in front of cameras too. Whether acting or just being herself, there's effervescent energy to Channing's screen presence, a frenetic joy that made her both a camp icon and an entertainment powerhouse whose fame persists to this day, long after her heyday and even her death. Throughout her legendary career, Channing won four Tony Awards, a place in the Grammy Hall of Fame, a Golden Globe, and even an Oscar nomination. Since we're all a bit Oscar-obsessed around here, the star's centennial this week feels like a good time to reminisce about that achievement, its inherent weirdness, and wacky charm…
Depending on who you ask, the 1967 George Roy Hill directed Thoroughly Modern Millie may be described as a classic comedic delight from the roadshow musical era or as an overlong mess whose blatant racism made it age worse than milk in a hothouse. I'm somewhere in the middle of those reactions, though the prejudiced view of Asian people is beyond disgusting and tends to overshadow whatever pleasures the rest of the movie offers. When I was in high school, one of my best friends was a huge fan of Julie Andrews as well as movie musicals. It was through exchanging DVDs with her that I started to fall in love with this genre, Andrews, and classic cinema in general. One of the movies I watched back then was Thoroughly Modern Millie, so it's fair to say that, in my mind, the flick is forever enshrined in a cloud of rosy nostalgia. Maybe that's why I can't completely dismiss it, even if recent re-watches made me balk.
As Daniel Walber pointed out in one of his The Furniture write-ups, Thoroughly Modern Millie presents a parody of the Roaring Twenties through the kaleidoscopic perspective of the Swinging Sixties. Hill and company both celebrate and mock the past. It's as if the picture's always dancing a spastic Charleston between period escapism in love with the libertine materialism of the pre-Depression 20s and a jolly parody of its fashions, social mores, cinematic languages, outdated tastes. Mix that with a streak of romanticism that ends in a queasy note of traditionalism trumping sexual liberation, you get a musical that often feels at odds with itself. It's also way too long, clocking at a gargantuan 138 minutes. The tiresome girth of the duration squelches the humor under its weight.
All that negativism taken care of, let's talk about the movie's saving graces. The production is unashamed and unafraid of indulging in overt artifice, allowing a sense of ridiculous fakery to dictate its design. The costumes are especially fun in their collision of 1920s fashion plate excess and 1960s mod affectations and cartoonish theatricality. The cast also does an admirable job, even the actors stuck in unfortunate yellowface and Orientalist stereotypes. Still, no matter how charming Julie Andrews might be as the titular girl or how much Mary Tyler Moore's sweet disposition may make one smile, Thoroughly Modern Millie is Carol Channing's movie through and through. That's incredible when one considers that the Broadway diva first appears 45 minutes into the story. Her entrance might be late, but it's memorable.
Descending from the sky in a black and white airplane, Muzzy van Hossmere is as much a force of nature as the actress playing her. She's likewise a fabulous entertainer. With a glass of champagne in hand, spilling bubbly through the skies, Muzzy announces herself as a diamond-frosted clown, greeting the main character and the camera with the nonsensical greeting: "Raspberries!" Just like that, Thoroughly Modern Millie's milquetoast parody of 1920s culture finds its most bizarre and unique subject, a woman so spectacular she acts like a bolt of electricity zapping through the screen, striking the audience. Considering how thin the characterization is, it's challenging to defend Channing's work as a great performance. Nonetheless, it's a perfect feat of zany entertainment.
Sometimes, that's enough.
Within the movie, the Muzzy represents the epitome of what Millie wants to be, a jazz baby of unlimited fortune, unbridled joie de vivre, and unbelievable glamour. Curiously, she often feels like the most anachronistic element in this deeply anachronistic movie. Channing's presence is pure 60s. Her look owes everything to the glitz of 1967 and nothing to the Roaring Twenties. Indeed, every detail of her star turn, from vocal cadence to dance moves, seems to belong to a plane of existence entirely divorced from any specific historical epoch. In many ways, it makes sense. After all, she's so temporarily dislocated, Channing's Muzzy is more modern than modernity itself. Whatever the alchemy at hand, the result is the same – whenever Channing's onscreen, it's impossible to look anywhere else.
Look no further than the song "Jazz Baby" to see the actress's specific brand of stardom at work. The tune itself is so grating it becomes charming while the dancing makes up for its disjointedness with manic enthusiasm. That's part of Channing's magic, how she can be so wrong but feel so right at the same time. Amid the turgid racist humor, the actress is always able to put a smile on my face. If nothing else, she's so strange that the only way of remaining sane is to give in to the crazy and have fun with it. Still, even though we may laugh our head off while watching Thoroughly Modern Millie, nobody can have more fun than Channing playing Muzzy. Even when fighting villains, this jazz baby never loses her smile or her enthusiasm. The threat of murder is just another pretext to put on a show and wield a glittery belt as a weapon.
At the 40th Academy Awards, Thoroughly Modern Millie received seven nominations, including a golden citation for Carol Channing. While I'd hesitate before nominating the actress, I can't say I'm unhappy at her honor. It's the sort of crackerjack madness that AMPAS rarely honors and, if there was one person capable of making Muzzy into an Oscar-worthy role, that's Carol Channing. She might have even come close to winning the statuette, as strange as that might seem. The Globes went with her as their champion, and critics often singled her out as the movie's MVP. In summary, Carol Channing was a legend worthy of our adoration, and her Oscar nomination is as wonderfully implausible as she was. It feels fitting that hers still the only Best Supporting Actress nominated performance to feature the performer being fired out of a canon.
To finish things in perfect Carol Channing fashion there's just one thing to add. Once again… RASPBERRIES!
Reader Comments (13)
Carol Channing should have won. The competition is incredibly weak, admittedly. She manages to effortlessly be what the rest of the movie just thinks it is. Besides the racist stuff, almost - but not quite - too idiotic to take seriously, for example the two supposedly Chinese henchman get the elevator to work to the tune of "Japanese Sandman". There's also a Jewish wedding that has nothing to do with anything else in the movie (a play for the Fiddler on the Roof fans?) that could have easily been cut.
The 1967 supporting actress lineup is certainly not of the categories greatest and I too would vote for Channing. It’s such a fun and exciting turn which up against rather dull competition would’ve been such a great win. I do not like the film much and find it painfully blah but Channing is the one bright spot serving it like no other could
I continue to be amazed at people’s anti-Estelle Parsons Oscar feelings. I think she’s amazing in Bonnie and Clyde and heads and shoulders above the other nominees. There’s so much integrity to what she’s doing and totally of a piece with the movie she’s in and both she and the movie make it clear at the end that she’s the one who’s suffered the most yet ultimately no one really cares for her. And the relationship between her and Hackman is so lovely because you can see they both genuinely have deep affection for each other. It’s not one of the great wins and that she was one of the films only oscars is a bit galling, but I am always surprised at how negatively people respond to her having one.
Channing is fun in Millie, and it’s a cool offbeat nomination. There’s no character there at all and so beyond offering us the magic that is her (thus making how one responds to her as a performer being the sole way to judge the performance) I can’t even really imagine the argument that she deserved to win.
She certainly brightens up an already starbusting glare of a movie but a nomination is ok but not a win,1967's line up is weak,out of the nominees i'd have gone for the quiet dignity of Beah Richards but my vote is with the unnominated critics fave that year Marjorie Rhodes in The Family Way.
I could sense the real affection for Carol you put in the piece thanks Claudio.
LOL, Parsons was a MESSSSSSS in Bonnie and Clyde. Such an awful nomination/win and a disgrace that in the same movie that sported one of Hackman and Dunaway's finest hours, the only acting award went to...that.
Parsons SHOULD have won the following year for Rachel, Rachel, where she was tremendous, but alas...
But ya, that lineup was a disaster anyways.
Estelle Parsons in Bonnie & Clyde made Renee Zelwegger in Cold Mountain seem tame.
mary tyler moore's sweet dorothy brown should have been a contender - she's by far my favourite thing in this thoroughly messy movie
Claudio, you make a strong case for Channing, but Millie for me is Julie Andrews movie. Coming as it did after The Sound of Music, I was used to and very comforted by Julie's presence. I agree Carol would have been more fun as an Best Supporting Oscar winner (was she there? does anyone know?) than Estelle Parsons, who had one of the scariest scenes in the mostly playful Bonnie and Clyde. A shame, I agree, that B&C didn't at least win an Oscar for costumes.
I'd love Millie more if they hadn't stretched it out to fit the Roadshow needs of an entrance/intermission/exit music setup but it has a lot of charms. Almost all exclusively coming from the females in the cast.
I don't know if I'd say Carol owns the film, I think it's Julie's picture, but she certainly makes a huge impact. The part fits her like a glove and I suspect it was crafted that way which is why it was her only significant success on the silver screen. She was unique and special but not in a way that translated well on film, live performance was her home. I've seen the few other movie appearances she made and she comes across much too BIG-of course the vehicles-The First Traveling Saleslady and especially Skidoo were sorry affairs and of no benefit to anyone involved. Although in the first she and Clint Eastwood make one of the most atypical couples in film history.
As fun as she is the nomination was an accolade to her stature more than the role. Out of the actual nominees my vote would have gone to Mildred Natwick's fun mother in Barefoot in the Park.
Get fucked morons ragging on Parsons deserved victory. She curbstomped the competition that year.
I have always felt that in some odd way Carol Channing in Thoroughly Modern Millie was auditioning for the film version of Hello, Dolly! She needed to prove her mettle as a movie actress to assure nervous studio executives that she could recreate the fervor her performance on Broadway had.
Producer Ernest Lehman saw TMM and reportedly felt that Channing was satisfactory in a supporting role but an overwhelming personality for a lead. Lehman upped the wage to a cool million to win new star Barbra Streisand to the project. Apparently Lehman was blind to how miscast the 27 year old Jewish actress was for the role of a middle aged Irish widow.
Channing later remembered, "I was doing Hello, Dolly! at Expo '67 at the time, and when they announced the star for the movie on that great day I had the feeling I was Mark Twain and had just died and become an observer at my funeral."
Much as I otherwise adore Channing, she's dead last for me in her Supporting Actress lineup. While a memorable turn, she isn't able to much lift the disastrous proceedings around her. And I actually think her competition that year is quite solid.
Amy Camus -- I actually think that the '67 lineup is a very interesting collection of performances. It's got actresses working at wildly different registers and tones which is rare.
Eoin Daly -- Of the nominees, I'd probably vote for either Ross or Richards.
Peter -- I often find that being a character isn't a necessity for good performances. Maybe this is just years of Theatre school showing themselves. I got it drilled into me that characters aren't a necessity of drama and not everyone in a show must or should be a character.
markgordonuk -- Thanks. I do really love her. She was an icon.
Drew -- I too prefer Parsons in Rachel Rachel.
rrrich7 -- Costume design was very competitive that year.
joel6 -- The roadshow format resulted in such overlong movies. Yikes.
thevoid99 -- Please try to be cordial, even when you disagree.
James -- That's heartbreaking. As much as I love Streisand, she was terribly miscast in Hello, Dolly!
Thank you all for the feedback.