LuPone GYPSY & other shows created without the possibility of a repl. cast

[logan0215]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:19pm

I know that GYPSY is to be a "limited run" and is a star vehicle for Patti, but why are shows being mounted without the possibility of ever running without the opening cast intact?

Why couldn't this revival of GYPSY run after Patti is done with a replacement? Judy Kaye, Christine Ebersole, anyone?

There have been plenty of productions that were derived from the star power of the lead, but stayed open. What prompted me to ask this is hearing how Anne Baxter was a replacement in Applause! after Bacall had left.

Are these shows being too heavily marketed for one star? Why are shows being created to simply be doomed after their lead leaves?

I remember the talk of Grey Gardens' stability if it had run after Christine would have left, and I ask, why the hell not?

Updated On: 2/12/08 at 07:19 PM

[george95]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:27pm

How about the Boy from Oz? Didn't they go so far as to cancel performances when Hugh Jackman took a day off?

[logan0215]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:29pm

They did.

But in that instance, popular opinion was that Hugh's talent hugely overshadowed the quality of the actual material.

With GG and Gypsy, the shows can stand on their own with a miriad of other actors (well actresses in those 2 cases) so you'd think they would be able to survive.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:29pm

This production of Gypsy is not billed as a limited engagement and is on sale through October 5th. That being said I doubt it would last long enough to get to a replacement cast anyway.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:31pm

Who would've wanted to see The Boy from Oz WITHOUT Hugh Jackman?

As for Gypsy, Patti LuPone is the reason the show is happening. Who out there has enough of a name to keep the show open AND would be willing to be a replacement?

[logan0215]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:34pm

Thats sort of the bone that I'm trying to pick.

Its seems that some of these shows are becoming over-dependant on their opening cast so much so that people foresee their closing as soon as a lead leaves.

Yes, we all know that GYPSY is happening because of LuPone/Laurents and the CC production, but the average theater-goer seeing GYPSY for the actual material would be able to see it with a "replacement."

[antiandrewx]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:39pm

I want Donna Murphy to be Rose!

[adamgreer]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:40pm

Grey Gardens wasn't selling that well with Christine Ebersole at the time of its closing (and Ebersole's departure). There was no reason to think that it would sell at all without its Tony award winning star.

[logan0215]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:44pm

This is true.

But before sales were threatening it's staying open, people were discussing replacements and many felt it should just close with Ebersole's departure.

I just feel like if you were to ask a user on this board who would replace LuPone, the majority would raise an eyebrow and say "wouldn't it just close when she leaves?"

It just feels assumed.

Updated On: 2/12/08 at 07:44 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 7:55pm

But that's the whole point. This isn't your run-of-the-mill revival. This is a star-boasting production. There's no reason for it to stay open once LuPone leaves. It's her show.

For HER!

[logan0215]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 8:01pm

Again, I totally agree.

But, for instance (thanks to your avatar) what if they could have gotten Candace Bergen to take over for Kathleen as Mrs. Robinson?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 8:04pm

America would have cried.

Actually, Lorraine Bracco took over for Turner and got quite positive reviews. However, once Turner/Biggs/Silverstone left, nobody cared anymore.

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 8:17pm

This one may not run its intended 'Limited Season' even with Patti still in it.
'Limited Season' is always a good excuse to take a show off when the producers see fit!

[logan0215]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 8:25pm

I don't know... maybe it just feels very pessimistic.

MAME ran for close to 4 years with a handful of actresses taking over the role after TONY-winning Lansbury left the production.

I just feel this GYPSY production was very well done with a great calibre of talent in the cast and directed so well to the point that none of the numbers felt "throw-away" so therefore it deserves to continue even after LuPone leaves.

Yes, LuPone is to thank for a chunk of this, but there was so much else at play in the CC production that made it outstanding that stands to be lost if it simply closes post-LuPone.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 8:29pm

LuPone, Laurents, and the rave reviews from every paper except the Times are the reasons why this is transfering.

[logan0215]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 8:45pm

I'm not disputing that in the least.

Blah , whatever forget it.

Maybe LuPONE GYPSY (to be read as one word I suppose) is not the correct example.

I'm just pointing out that it seems a reoccuring theme that great shows that, yes, include a powerhouse lead should be given the chance to continue if the rest of the production is just as good.

[desiree armfeldt]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 9:23pm

logan---I totally agree with you.

I understand the opposite example/train of thought: that shows like Mame ran without the title character. However, LUPONE GYPSY seems to be a little different of the case. It would be awkward for another major powerhouse such as Ebersole or Murphy joined the cast, and the marquis had to be all changed EBERSOLE GYPSY or so forth. That's a little strange.

[Brick]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 9:24pm

And compared to the 2003 revival with Bernadette? No one was talking about replacements for her.

I think this topic is really strange, as many productions are mounted much the same way as this.

[logan0215]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 10:47pm

I mentioned Applause! earlier.

It opened with Bacall because she was a huge celebrity doing this piece. On all accounts we can agree that she was the draw for the show.

The role of Margo was then played by 2 other actresses and the show ran for 2 years and nearly 900 performances.

How is "Lauren Bacall - Applause!" (note the name above the title status of the production) changing to Anne Baxter then Arlene Dahl - Applause! not strange but "LuPone Gypsy" having someone else take over the lead role "strange"

[bwayguy22089]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 11:20pm

This might sound stupid lol, but I thought it would be cool if Patti took matinees off and Debra Monk did them. The two of them in one production...Anyway, I just thought it'd be a cool idea.

[luvcaroline]

Posted: 2/12/08 at 11:35pm

After seeing her in Sweeney Todd, I would absolutely be ecstatic to see Judy Kaye in this!

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/13/08 at 1:43am

I love the idea. I don't think every show needs to run for two years to somehow be legit. Star-driven shows are standard, and frankly, if I was a star, I'd love to have a show centered around me and my talents.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 2/13/08 at 10:02am

After Patti leaves, they shoul have 1 month replacement Roses, so that the time committment isn't huge and we can see all sorts of wonderful stars try their hand at the role.

It'd never happen, but it'd be a nice trick.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 2/13/08 at 11:28am

The only reason this revival is happening is to have Patti LuPone play Mama Rose on Broadway. That's it. Nobody was really yearning for another revival of Gypsy; it's purely for Patti. Therefore, once she leaves, there really isn't any reason to keep it open.

For a show like Applause, that was a new show that used a big-named star; correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the thought process was, "I want to see Lauren Bacall on Broadway. Let's write a show for her!" Because, essentially, that is the thought process with this revival: "I want to see Patti as Mama Rose. Let's revive Gypsy!"

[labwyfan]

Posted: 2/13/08 at 12:20pm

I saw Linda Lavin take over for Tyne Daily (in GYPSY on Bwy). The show closed within weeks.