Arthur Laurents on the Gypsy films and the 2003 revival

[FoscasBohemianDream]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 1:44am

I am reading the book of interviews called "The Art of the American Musical: conversations with the creators." The book is a series of interviews with theater artists such as Tommy Tune, Jason Robert Brown, Stephen Sondheim, Arthur Laurents, Susan Stroman, etc.
The Arthur Laurents interview was done in 1992 with further additions in 2004, in this interview he says about the original film: "it was one of the worst movies ever made. Rosalind Russell in black-and-white shoes is all I remember. They wanted to do it again as a movie, and I fought hard to stop it from being made, because on the stage, everything is illusion (...)
What we are doing with Bette Midler is filming the show as a show, and it will be done on television (...) I think she's brilliant."
Then in the part added in 2004 he remarks:
"I was completely wrong. The TV show was a dud. The director and the producers didn't shoot it as we discussed, so illusion went out the waiting-room window. The sets were absurd and the performances--(the editors of the book say: "dear reader, we discreetly draw a curtain")."
Laurents continues: "But in 2003, there was a new Rose alive on Broadway: Bernadette Peters! Brilliant, original, totally unlike any of the others (...) Unfortunately, the physical production in 2003 was misconceived and hurt the show more than people realized."
The interviewer then asks: "Did you ever consider Liza Minnelli for the role of Rose"
Laurents answers: "No. I think Liza Minnelli is a wonderful performer, but I don't think she's right for Rose. Liza Minnelli begs you to like her--and Rose doesn't give a sh*t."
Laurents also says: "John Dossett, who was Herbie for Bernadette, was utterly unlike Jonathan (Hadary) but excellent in his own right. Tammy Blanchard, who played Louise/Gypsy with Bernadette, was ravishing and electrifying but again, unlike Crista Moore, who played the part with Tyne and who I thought could never be equaled."
-------------
I guess not only LuPone but Liza is also banned from playing Rose. I do have to agree with Laurents though, especially about the 2003 production, Bernadette Peters was brilliant indeed but the actual production wasn't appealing.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 1:50am

Interesting, I wish I had seen the revival, that angers me

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 8:06am

Frankly, until Arthur Laurents is long gone from this world, his shows will always be ill-conceived. A lot of theatre creators don't have the greatest grip on what could make their shows compelling.

[bschneid76]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 8:59am

While I completely disagree with him that the film version of Gypsy with Roz is one of the worst movies ever. It is entertaining and follows the musical really well. Sure it may not be a "great classic" like Meet Me In St. Louis or Seven Brides, but it still is a good movie. I only wish they had had Merman instead, boo to Hollywood on that mistake. But the Midler version is superb! Midler does a terrific job!

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:35am

"Unfortunately, the physical production in 2003 was misconceived and hurt the show more than people realized."

I guess I "still" haven't realized it becuase i thought it was fabulous to say the least! The limited sets actually allowed you to focus in the characters. This show is so powerful that you don't even need a big production. To each her own. I still have a grudge with Mr. Laurents over the PBS deal that fell through on his account!

[Brennan88]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 9:48am

GYPSY, what PBS Deal?

Also, I always thought that Cynthia Gibb's Louise in the Bette Midler version was superior to any version I'd ever seen, ESPECIALLY Christa Moore's. And Christine Ebersole as Tessie! I wish the editors hadn't been so sparing, I'd love to know if he hated all the performances or just Rose.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 10:36am

yeah, laurents is a jerk. he brought us NICK AND NORA after all. his book Original Story By is dishy and juicy but you also get a sense of what an a-hole he is.
i disliked the '02 GYPSY entirely -- but not as much as the midler version. YIKES!

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 10:38am

I've had the Midler version CD for almost two years and after C is for Company asked me to play it, I got my first listen.

We decided that she didn't have a grip on the role; she was missing something. NOTE: This is based only on the recording, I haven't seen the movie.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 11:02am

To be fair, Laurents did an outstanding job directing the 70s GYPSY revival with Lansbury and the 1990 revival with Daly. He has very definite and specific ideas about how he thinks the show should be staged (and of course a huge ego) so there's no way he was ever going to like another director's work on the show, which explains his attacks on Mendes.

And he and Sondheim and many others who were around for the original production detest the Russell film version, mainly because they feel the role really belonged to Merman and they hate all the vocal compromises that Russell had to make to just get through the score. For those of us who never got to see Merman, we can evaluate the film objectively and IMO, it's actually pretty good. For Laurents and the rest -- and this is completely understandable -- given the stage version was a masterpiece and a landmark, they'll never get over the fact that the film is just "good" and not the brilliant representation of the show that it should have been.

Updated On: 4/19/06 at 11:02 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 11:34am

Judging from her performances in her other movie roles, the film would have been worse if Merman had played Rose. She just wasn't a film actress. I agree with all the others who've said Judy Garland probably would have been the ideal choice.

I actually kind of agree with Laurents on all the other points - I personally think the Bette Midler t.v version doesn't hold up well on subsequent viewings at all, and the original film at least does well by Natalie Wood and a good supporting cast.

I take it she was extremely erratic throughout the run, but Bernadette Peter's fabled "Ben Brantley" press performance in GYPSY is one of the greatest I have ever seen.

And I totally agree about Liza - Laurents hits that one on the head - her entire career has been built on that "need" for audience approval - I don't think she'd be able to abandon that to play Rose. And her recording of "Rose's Turn" on her "Liza's Back" album is pretty disappointing for that reason. She's just not a good fit for that role.



Updated On: 4/19/06 at 11:34 AM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 11:44am

I suppose there was also the fact that The Merm was 54 and looked every inch of that in 1962. Onstage she could play Momma Rose, but in front of the cameras, it would ave been a stretch. Ros Russell was actually a year older but looked a decade younger, so I guess that helped.

Merman was a consumate performer. In the hands of a good dirctor, she would probably have given an interesting performance. I love the fact that her notes in her scripts were all in shorthand (she always said she was a secretary who sang). At least the director would have gotten consistancy as I understand she froze her performances three days befopre opening night and REFUSED to make any changes (I understand she'd turn down any notes saying "Call me Mrs. Birdseye, but this role is FROZEN"). That is a star.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 11:53am

And that probably explains why her appearance in CALL ME MADAM comes across as so over the top and unintentionally hilarious. She was so "frozen" in the role, she couldn't change it for film. If she had done that same kind of performance in a movie of GYPSY, it would have been a complete and utter disaster.

[Brennan88]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 12:07pm

MB,

I can't help but feel that Merman's "complete & utter disaster" still would have been preferable to Russell's, what? Triumph? At least from a historical point of view, I sure wish we had Merman's Rose on film.

As for Garland, who needed the audience's love more than she? I don't think that means she would have been bad in the role, only that maybe that's not the right criteria to disqualify someone from playing Rose.

You know whom I'd really love to see play Rose now...Judy Davis. She's scary and real and over the top all at once. And I don't think she asks the audience to love her. Apparently she use to sing in a rock band in Sydney, so who knows?
Updated On: 4/19/06 at 12:07 PM

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 4/19/06 at 12:14pm

Judy Davis....I have never heard her sing but her acting is WOW! Just brillant. Along that line, I trully believe that Judy Garland could have pulled it off. She was a very capable actress and deserves more credit than she gets for acting. Most people think of her as a singer(in my opinion, the greatest) but she really was also an actress. She really could have been great.