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

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

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.

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...

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.

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?'"

---

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

Sondheim said "oy".

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

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.

---

The GYPSY screenplay is much worse than the book.

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

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.

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.

"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.

---

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.

---