Gypsy - Different endings?- Page 2

[ABB2357]

Posted: 10/12/11 at 11:08pm

That revised Laurents ending is truly heinous, and I'm shocked critics didn't call him out on it. The whole production was an overwrought display of diva worship. Did Patti really need one final opportunity to chew the (nonexistent) scenery?

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 1:35am

I found the LuPone ending heartbreaking when I saw it live.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 10:37am

Me too, bwayfan. I also--and clearly I'm alone in this--didn't find Louise's laugh to be cruel. It read to me as rueful but accepting: Despite the breakthrough insight Rose seemed to have had momens before, Louise knows that she'll never really change.

But obviously most posters on this thread, at least, did see it as mocking. Maybe I just saw what I wanted to see.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 11:12am

Regi, I'm totally open to the idea that the laugh played differently live v. on YouTube. And I'm happy to take your word for it.

But I do want there to be one person who doesn't leave Rose. Otherwise, I've got a two-and-a-half hour story in which nothing changes.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 11:41am

I think that's pretty much exactly the way I remember Benanti doing the final moments when I saw it live. However, I think it's a viable interpretation, though. Yes, Rose and Louise have reconciled, but Rose is never going to stop being Rose, and Louise is now different. I read the moment as Louise laughing and thinking, "Some things will never change."

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 11:41am

I get that, Gaveston. Again, in my head they're still going to the party together. Louise has her "Oh, Mother!" moment and walks ahead, and Rose turns back for her last moment onstage under the disintegrating lights.

As I say, perhaps that was just what I saw. But I found it quite honest and moving.






Updated On: 10/13/11 at 11:41 AM

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 11:46am

I completely agree with that. It seems like the choices Laurents made for that revival were not for everyone, but for those who agreed with them, they absolutely loved them. That's how I felt.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 12:27pm

As I was reading Laurents sections on "Gypsy" in "Mainly in Directing" and he kept repeating things like "we discovered that in the play we were now discovering [this song or another, he did this several times] no longer fit." Please, the songs were as integral to the show as his book. But Arthur clearly wanted to direct a different work, something other than the Laurents-Styne-Sondheim "Gypsy."

And I agree, his "West Side Story" revival was equally misguided. "Let's get rid of that choreography --- who needs that?" And let's make sure one of the most pivotal moments in the show -- "A Boy Like That / I Have a Love" -- is played in Spanish, so a lot of the audience just won't know what's going on."

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 8:55pm

I believe you, Regi, and I shall imagine that ending as you describe it.

[random person 112]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 8:59pm

I think the ending works with louise being bitter. in real life she was somewhat bitter towards rose, it would make sense for her to hate or look down at rose after it's all over, especially since rose has done so many horrible things to her. Let's be honest lousie can't just be one hundred percent accepting of rose and we shouldn't discount her for it.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 10/13/11 at 11:32pm

random, I don't think anyone has claimed that Louise being bitter toward Rose at the end is unrealistic or unjustified.

The issue is whether it's a satisfying way to end the play.

[FrauleinKost]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 9:10am

I like the ending when Louise walks in to find Rose crying on the floor, murmurssomething about leaving the dishes in the sink, Louise tells her we'll worry about everything tomorrow, and Rose says "oh dear Lord, it is tomorrow".

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/15/11 at 5:01pm

For me the problem with LuPone's ending is that Rose can't have it both ways. She breaks down at the realization of her having neglected Louise all her life ("The way I wanted you to notice me?") and that's the moment when Louise takes on the role of the parent ("It's okay, Rose.") So it makes no sense that after Louise/parent comforts Rose/child, she would leave without her, even if she does laugh at her corny joke about the fur. And it makes no sense that Rose would slip back into the "For me!" mode with a last look/grasp at her name in lights. No, Rose probably won't ever change but something in their relationship has changed in that moment. I can imagine that the next day or a week or a month or a year later Rose might again imagine her name in lights, but not at THAT moment. She's just too spent. IMHO

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 10/15/11 at 7:40pm

Really well put, Wilmington. Sounds like Laurents is trying to cram too much into a scene with only 10 or 12 lines.

I say let Rose and Louise have their reconciliation. I doubt any viewer is so naive as to think the future will be all "sunshine and lollipops" with two personalities as strong as those women.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/15/11 at 9:07pm

Saw the Lansbury GYPSY in London in June of 74, and I'll never forget that penultimate moment, the first time it was every tried, with Rose's bows extending past their acceptance in real time by the real audience. Chilly, more than a little scary, despite being heart-breaking, and Angela's (Laurents dictated) triumph. She made it work the best of the all the Rose's I've seen, and I've seen 'em all except Merman.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/16/11 at 12:14am

Except, Wilmingtom, she's not seeing her name in lights; she's seeing her name in lights disintegrating, disappearing.

To me, that's very different.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/16/11 at 12:26am

^ Exactly, that's much different. I still love that ending.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 10/16/11 at 1:28am

But she's still grabbing at it. Her name might be disintegrating in lights, but she's still grasping for it. What I don't like about that ending is that it is such a literal representation of an idea that is so at odds with the text. There is nothing in the text in the final scene that says Rose is still grasping at the past. The whole point of the scene is that the past has caught up with Rose, she has now, finally, after decades, accepted her fate and is ready to move on. She isn't happier, she isn't more content and she certainly isn't any stronger, but she IS moving on. If she's still reaching for what might have been, what's the point? It's certainly a "new" way to look at the final scene, but it doesn't make it any more effective than any interpretation of the scene before it.

If there was one thing I disliked about that production (and I disliked a few things), it was that it was so ANALYTICAL. Every new "idea" was so calculated and didn't sync up with the text. There was no reason for half of the line readings or staging. It was still a fine production and Benanti was sensational, but so much of Laurents' "ideas" were just so planned and didn't feel like they came from the text.

[sanfrankid1]

Posted: 10/16/11 at 3:21am

Re Zan Charisse I also verified just now on IMDB she was the niece having met Zan about 1970,71? I was apprenticing at the South Shore Music Circus in
Cohassett, Mass and Zan Charisse played Louise opposite Janis Paige's Rose.I was so excited to fly to London and see Gypsy several times,and again in Boston.Wow Ms.Lansbury rocked the audience, I can still feel the excitement in the audience during her Rose'sTurn bows.
Updated On: 10/16/11 at 03:21 AM

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 10/16/11 at 8:53am

Even after watching thousands of plays since then, I still remember the overwhelming feeling I had as a kid watching Merman do "Rose's Turn" at the Imperial in December 1960. She finished the number, stood stock still and let the applause continue, until Louise (then Julienne Marie) entered. I flew to London just to see Lansbury as Rose, thinking it might not come to New York, and I recall being shocked as she began bowing at the end of the number. At first I was confused, as was most of the audience, who would applaud more each time she bowed again. It was Arthur's decision as librettist/director to do this, and while it is a valid dramatic choice, audiences are still sometimes confused as to how to respond. Have others had a similar reaction?

[beaemma]

Posted: 10/16/11 at 3:21pm

I saw Lansbury's Rose in Chicago and New York and will never forget the impact of those final moments. Yes, the audience was confused at first; but as the bows continued while the applause diminished, you could FEEL the audience gradually catching on that she was bowing to the applause in her head. Lansbury accomplished this with the subtlest shift in her facial expression. It was one of the most thrilling moments I've ever experienced in the theatre.

[random person 112]

Posted: 10/16/11 at 3:23pm

I would prefer an ending where rose and louise didn't reconcile as it's how it did really end and frankly while the audience may like rose it's still an ending that makes sense.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 10/16/11 at 6:33pm

"I would prefer an ending where rose and louise didn't reconcile as it's how it did really end and frankly while the audience may like rose it's still an ending that makes sense."

It makes sense but then I wonder why I've been watching Rose's story for three hours.

And why add on that last little scene after Rose's turn anyway? You might as well end the show with Rose's big "turn"! After all, she and Louise have already "broken up" in the dressing room.

Laurents fought for that last scene and I think he was right to do so. Without it, Rose is simply left by everyone who loves her, one by one. (And I as a viewer might as well go home at intermission.) With it, Rose finally faces a little reality about herself and is thus able to have some kind of relationship with another (Louise).