6 page article on the Legend of Arthur Laurents...

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 1:29pm

The most interesting part is what Sondheim has to say

Sondheim held on until a few years ago, when yet another Laurents jab appeared in an article. Sondheim declined to “stir up any goblins” by discussing specifics but said, “It’s not that I don’t talk to him—we have a working relationship. But the friendship is kaput, and we once were really close. I was the last long-term friend of his to say ‘enough already.’ The best part of our relationship was wonderful. He was a joy to write with. It was only when rehearsals started that the trouble began, especially if another director was involved. And he was always a great foul-weather friend: comforting, smart, a good guidance counselor. When I had my first serious love affair and it broke up, I was destroyed, and Arthur was one of the two people who steered me through the shoals. It’s when you’re miserable that he’s at his best. If you’re happy or, especially, successful—watch out. Arthur is the master of the imagined slight. I had the temerity to question some of the things he did to Gypsy when it transferred from City Center to Broadway—oy, was that a mistake. The screaming hasn’t stopped since."

http://nymag.com/arts/theater/profiles/55341/


Updated On: 3/16/09 at 01:29 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 1:33pm

Just finished skimming through it. Fascinating.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 1:37pm

If it's possible for someone to be both bat sh*t crazy and incredibly genius at the same time, Laurents is the master of it.

Really, really interesting article.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 2:55pm

Laurents is NOT a genius.

Bernstein, Robbins and Sondheim are geniuses.

Laurents is a lesser degree of talent.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 3:06pm

Well its good to know that Sondheim has started to stand up to him. I think he didn't want to question Laurents for a long time because he felt that he owed his start to him. Interesting...

[jv92]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 3:07pm

Arthur Laurents really is a bitch. Enough said.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 3:16pm

Well, alright you said it. I didn't.

I was just going to leave it at "he's bat sh*t crazy" but I thought I'd be murdered.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 3:18pm

My favorite is Mary Rodgers's response: "Call me back when he’s dead."

And Sam Mendes: "I do not wish to comment on Arthur Laurents, despite the many opportunities recently afforded me.”"

Updated On: 3/16/09 at 03:18 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 3:22pm

I could have said this, but the "ex-friend" says it better:

"...he’s trying to bring the spotlight back to his own work by minimizing the contributions of the others," says one ex-friend. "He’s Rose at the climax of Gypsy, bellowing 'Someone tell me, when is it my turn?'"

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 4:16pm

I respect his work, but he is really some DIVA, lol.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 4:23pm

Ha! I love that quote from his ex-friend.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 4:25pm

He's not a diva. He's a sociopath.

Updated On: 3/16/09 at 04:25 PM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 4:35pm

Sondheim said "oy".

Seems like Arthur has a lot of "ex-friends".

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 4:48pm

"Call me back when he's dead."

Could there be another one sentence that implies more contempt and fear, or even as much as?

What an ///hole.

[dayao]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 5:00pm

There is a very good reason why Laurents was the only member of the key creative team to not work on the film version of WEST SIDE STORY: his book was and still is the weakest thing in the stage production. Regardless of what you may think of the 1961 film, Ernest Lehman cleaned up Laurents flawed book and fashioned a screenplay that maintained a beautiful balance between the romance and tension in the story and his juxtaposition of the musical numbers was a stroke of sheer brilliance (especially switching "Cool" and "Krupke", although there had been serious talk of switching the two numbers in the stage original but the logistics of a set change at the time prevented it).

Laurents did not participate on the film version of GYPSY either and again regardless of what you think about the film, Leonard Spigelgass' screenplay is largely superior to Laurents' original book.

Laurents is a good writer but musicals are not his forte and he is definitely not a genius.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 5:27pm

Leonard Spigelgass' screenplay is largely superior to Laurents' original book.


- You've got to be kidding. The screenplay is AWFUL. From the rewritten beginning, to Rose narrating every scene, to the corny lines like "yesterday's mashed potatoes." The screenplay is awful. The original book is brilliant.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 5:29pm

The GYPSY screenplay is much worse than the book.

The WEST SIDE STORY screenplay, however, is much better than the book.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 5:34pm

The only differences I really notice in the WSS screenplay are the switch of COOL and KRUPKE, moving I FEEL PRETTY, and adding the guys in AMERICA. Oh and the removal of "sperm to worm" because they weren't allowed to say sperm. Updated On: 3/16/09 at 05:34 PM

[jv92]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 5:37pm

I'm no Arthur-lover, but I don't like the film of West Side or the screenplay of the film. Or Gypsy's screenplay and film. But I swear he's wrong on everything else.

[dayao]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 5:55pm

It is really a matter of opinion but I think the screenplay improves GYPSY. But you have to like the movie to feel this way and I do like the movie. I realize that this is a minority opinion, just as my opinion is also a minority one that the recent stage revival with Patti Lupone was terrible and she was the worst Madame Rose I ever had the misfortune to witness on stage or film. I think the original book is awful, the weakest element in an otherwise excellent musical. But the score is so fantastic, it carries the flawed book and makes it less noticeable on stage but all the flaws would be painfully obvious on film, I think.

The screenplay for WEST SIDE STORY is generally regarded as superior to the stage play. The changes Lehman made may seem subtle, but they significantly alter and improve the pacing and propulsion of the story.

Updated On: 3/16/09 at 05:55 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 5:58pm

I think the original book is awful,

- You keep saying GYPSY has an awful book. But you don't back up your opinion. I backed up my opinion on why the screenplay is awful. The GYPSY book is generally considered the greatest book of a musical.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 6:11pm

I don't much care for the GYPSY book, either. My reasoning is that, to me, the book is repetitive and obvious, and never helped me to feel a connection with Mama.

But maybe I'm too young for the show. Maybe, when I'm older, I'll see GYPSY (and OUR TOWN) again, and I'll be able to relate. For now, I can't.

(and I will say that the book READS very well. It just doesn't play well.)

Updated On: 3/16/09 at 06:11 PM

[dayao]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 6:14pm

"The GYPSY book is generally considered the greatest book of a musical. "

By Who? The general public or Musical Theater scholars? Either way it is just an opinion, as valid as yours or mine. I was under the impression that the book for MY FAIR LADY was and still is the most brilliant for any musical. I've read this in numerous places over the years and happen to agree with this assessment.

The reason I think the book for GYPSY is awful is that I find the pacing of the story very jittery; the scenes play like a series of vaudeville blackouts and, although this may have been Laurents' intention, I think this undermines the story, at least for me. But I do believe that the score for GYPSY is one of the handful of greatest (perhaps the greatest) ever composed for any musical play and my dislike of the book does not in any way ruin my enjoyment of GYPSY on the stage. Now, Patti Lupone is another matter.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 6:15pm

Yeah, the score is a masterpiece.

[BDrischBDemented]

Posted: 3/16/09 at 6:17pm

dayao, in what parts do you think the "Gypsy" screenplay improved upon the stage show's book? As much as I kinda like the movie, I really can't find any specific instance that the movie's script surpasses the stage show. lj889 already commented on the unneeded voiceover from Rose, and I think most of the other changes leave me feeling ambivalent (the scene after "Everything's Coming Up Roses" with the three of them on the train) or that the change was incredibly unneeded (making Herbie into Uncle Jocko, switching around "Small World" and "Some People"). In particular Rose reading June's letter out loud just felt completely unnecessary, it always had more punch for me when you don't know exactly what June has said.