Posted: 9/16/24 at 9:30pm
Lesli Margherita slipped in a quick message at the end of her last Instagram post that she is coming back to Broadway. Could she be Mazeppa? That would be fun!
Posted: 9/16/24 at 10:26pm
I would argue that those two assh*les did equal damage. If Reidel weren’t already a miserable, self-important bag of pus, I’d wish that for him.
Posted: 9/16/24 at 10:26pm
Lesli Margherita would be great as any one of the strippers, and the timing lines up with the specificity of "I leave next week to go back to Broadway":
But that's not the only option.
Updated On: 9/16/24 at 10:26 PM
Posted: 9/17/24 at 2:23am
Soaring29 said: "It seems like Riedel and Laurents ruined the 2003 revival of Gypsy, the former was particularly cruel."
Riedel might have impacted the word of mouth but of course it was Laurents who impacted the actual production itself, according to David B who played Tulsa Arthur Laurents stopped several directorial choices - such as the idea of Rose’s face being covered with smeared makeup at the end of Rose’s Turn. No wonder Ben Brantley described the production as tamer than expected.
Still, it’s hard not to ignore that Peters’ performance of Gypsy on closing night was so much more theatrical and exciting than opening night, and previews - based on recordings of all. I think Laurents was right about this. If Bernadette opened with her closing night performance I think there is a chance Bernadette would have a tony right now and Patti’s Gypsy never happened. Things worked out for the best for fans of the show in the end.
Posted: 9/17/24 at 3:57am
Melissa25 said: "Lesli Margherita slipped in a quick message at the end of her last Instagram postthat she is coming back to Broadway. Could she beMazeppa? That would be fun!"
How fun!
Updated On: 9/17/24 at 03:57 AM
Posted: 9/17/24 at 5:09am
binau said: "Soaring29 said: "It seems like Riedel and Laurents ruined the 2003 revival of Gypsy, the former was particularly cruel."
Riedel might have impacted the word of mouth but of course it was Laurents who impacted the actual production itself, according to David B who played Tulsa Arthur Laurents stopped several directorial choices - such as the idea of Rose’s face being covered with smeared makeup at the end of Rose’s Turn. No wonder Ben Brantley described the production as tamer than expected.
Still, it’s hard not to ignore that Peters’ performance of Gypsy on closing night was so much more theatrical and exciting than opening night, and previews - based on recordings of all. I think Laurents was right about this. If Bernadette opened with her closing night performance I think there is a chance Bernadette would have a tony right now and Patti’s Gypsy never happened. Things worked out for the best for fans of the show in the end."
Considering how ill she was at the start of the run and the many performances she missed on the way, of course she sounds better on recordings at the end of the run. She wasn't ill any more. How she sounded had nothing to do with Laurents.
Posted: 9/17/24 at 6:05am
No it’s more than that - her vocals and interpretation of the role changed. It’s remarkably better than what is on the cast recording (which is almost identical to opening night interpretation). Which is also in turn different from previews because of the reasons you suggest.
I’m not saying Laurents did this but as he noted in his book something changed and it was more than simply vocal health.
Updated On: 9/17/24 at 06:05 AM
Posted: 9/17/24 at 10:51am
ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Someone like Lea Michele or Keala Settle or Da'vine Joy Randolph is, to me, a much much more interesting idea for Rose than Sutton Foster. Let Foster play Mame and Dolly and some of the other musical comedy leading ladies."
If this production does well and outlasts Audra's contract, Da'vine would be a fabulous replacement for a limited run between her Hollywood gigs.
Posted: 9/17/24 at 5:16pm
I'm slightly nervous for Audra because she'll be the only the second Rose not to get coaching from Laurents (assuming Peters didn't--and are we sure?). I wish she had the benefit of that guiding hand. And if she doesn't quite pull it off, I'll always wonder if it was about her or if, despite the rich character provided for Rose, the lack of the author's input is crucial to whether or not the role still works.
On another topic: it's irrelevant that the show is called Gypsy. It's only called that because Gypsy Rose Lee said the authors could do change everything else, but it had to be called Gypsy and it had to include the striptease. Rose is the lead, the show was conceived as a vehicle for Merman and only Merman, and not even Louise is terribly significant to what makes the show great. Nice role, nice solo, a real character arc. But not a part anyone with real ambitions as a star is likely to covet.
Posted: 9/17/24 at 5:27pm
joevitus said: "I'm slightly nervous for Audra because she'll be the only the second Rose not to get coaching from Laurents (assuming Peters didn't--and are we sure?). I wish she had the benefit of that guiding hand. And if she doesn't quite pull it off, I'll always wonder if it was about her or if, despite the rich character provided for Rose, the lack of the author's input is crucial to whether or not the role still works.
Actors have managed to play Hamlet and Lear somewhat decently since the death of Wm. Shakespeare -- so I'm sure that Mama Rose can survive without Arthur.
Posted: 9/17/24 at 6:00pm
joevitus said: "I'm slightly nervous for Audra because she'll be the only the second Rose not to get coaching from Laurents (assuming Peters didn't--and are we sure?). I wish she had the benefit of that guiding hand. And if she doesn't quite pull it off, I'll always wonder if it was about her or if, despite the rich character provided for Rose, the lack of the author's input is crucial to whether or not the role still works."
Oh please.
It's a great and liberating thing for plays to break free from their creators. It's what makes theatre a living, breathing, ever-evolving thing. As with Shakespeare, and Tennessee Williams, and August Wilson, and all other important works, a great actor can interpret a great role without the hovering presence of a living author.
Arthur is not GYPSY. He might have led some people to believe that he was the show, and that he was the only one worthy of (re)interpreting his own words, but I think that had more to do with his fragile ego. The other fact of the matter is there's no way in hell he would have greenlit a race-conscious revival of his beloved GYPSY (especially not at the tender age of 107)!!
George C. Wolfe is an expert director with the brain of a writer (because he is one). Arthur's books, his annotated script, and the NYPL TOFT Archive are all resources. And as a last resort, she or George can call up a whole lot of friends who worked with him on his three revivals of GYPSY.
Is it going to be different than anything Arthur would have approved? You betcha. Is it going to be better? That will be up to each person to decide, but we can't bring back the past. At a minimum, I'm sure Audra will give an interesting performance –– and if, for some reason, she disappoints, I'd chalk it up to her being not quite right for the part in the first place.
Updated On: 9/17/24 at 06:00 PM
Posted: 9/17/24 at 6:45pm
SUTTON FOSTER GYPSY
Rose, the role she was BORN to play
Posted: 9/17/24 at 11:57pm
JSquared2 said: "joevitus said: "I'm slightly nervous for Audra because she'll be the only the second Rose not to get coaching from Laurents (assuming Peters didn't--and are we sure?). I wish she had the benefit of that guiding hand. And if she doesn't quite pull it off, I'll always wonder if it was about her or if, despite the rich character provided for Rose, the lack of the author's input is crucial to whether or not the role still works.
Actors have managed to play Hamlet and Lear somewhat decently since the death of Wm. Shakespeare -- so I'm sure that Mama Rose can survive without Arthur.
"
So you think the writing of Gypsy is on par with Hamlet. Did the ghost of Laurents somehow post this response?
Updated On: 9/18/24 at 11:57 PM
Posted: 9/18/24 at 6:33am
Awww I like that in musicals we tend to idolise the character of Rose and give Laurents a little credit for SOMETHING in his career god help him his ego probably needed it.
Very much looking forward to what Audra and George do with it. I’m not worried. If anything I find it hard to believe Laurents could have worked with Audra’s classical voice.
Posted: 9/18/24 at 7:22am
Broadway Flash said: "SUTTON FOSTER GYPSY
Rose, the role she was BORN to play"
I can honestly say I’ve never wanted something less.
Posted: 9/18/24 at 9:41am
I think I might have seen Sutton Foster perform Rose’s Turn in concert once and the fact I haven’t thought about it since and barely remember it probably tells me everything I need to know. I would expect her to do the show one day in a prestigious regional theatre but I can’t see it happening on Broadway now. It was either/or with Audra and the theatre gods have chosen Audra. The racial concept of the production also means it’s practically impossible for Sutton to replace unless they basically re-direct the show.
Posted: 9/18/24 at 9:53am
The sweaty one claims they were close to a deal with Danny Burstein earlier this week.
(which, by his track record, could also mean DB wasn’t even offered the part)
Posted: 9/18/24 at 10:02am
Every white man over the age of 50 was offered Herbie. So, Danny Burstein is not too far off.
Posted: 9/18/24 at 10:04am
Sutton can do the next revival in ten years and she’ll be the same age as Patti was. Audra also apparently did Roses turn in concert and people said it was bad. Why wouldn’t you want to see her do Gypsy? She’s a great actress, but I feel like people don’t give her that.
Posted: 9/18/24 at 10:05am
Burstein is wonderful, he doesn’t seem like a performer who would be driving a hard bargain to get cast.
Posted: 9/18/24 at 10:29am
Broadway Flash said: "Sutton can do the next revival in ten years and she’ll be the same age as Patti was. Audra also apparently did Roses turn in concert and people said it was bad. Why wouldn’t you want to see her do Gypsy? She’s a great actress, but I feel like people don’t give her that. "
You’re right - it’s probably unfair of me to judge a concert performance (I also have seen Tracie Bennett do Rose’s turn and I wish she did the role. Closest thing to Judy Garland herself playing).
10 years time well we’ll have to see how big of a star Sutton Foster is then and she will face stiff competition from others who are younger (eg Lea Michelle - which I know sounds ridiculous at face value).
But the key thing that Patti brought to the role was her voice. Who knows what Sutton Foster will sound like in 10 years time and even now there might be questions about it. At the age you are proposing it’s very rare not to observe audible vocal decline (Bernadette, Chita, Buckley etc. all suffered). Patti is a rare beast who if anything was peaking with her vocal capabilities and timbre in 2008. It has declined very slightly since then but she could still play the role tomorrow if her life depended on it and impress.
Posted: 9/18/24 at 10:43am
joevitus said: "JSquared2 said: "joevitus said: "I'm slightly nervous for Audra because she'll be the only the second Rose not to get coaching from Laurents (assuming Peters didn't--and are we sure?). I wish she had the benefit of that guiding hand. And if she doesn't quite pull it off, I'll always wonder if it was about her or if, despite the rich character provided for Rose, the lack of the author's input is crucial to whether or not the role still works.
Actors have managed to play Hamlet and Lear somewhat decently since the death of Wm. Shakespeare -- so I'm sure that Mama Rose can survive without Arthur.
So you think the writing of Gypsy is on par with Hamlet. Did the ghost of Laurence somehow post this response?"
Oh please, don't be obtuse. Mamma Rose is widely regarded as one of the American musical theatre roles that is the toughest and most challenging to pull off (well). And if you really believe that Olivier is the only "modern era" actor to ever play the role of Hamlet masterfully, then I don't know what to tell you.
Regardless, your assertion that no one will ever be able to do a great interpretation of Rose without Arthur's "guiding hand" (aka meddling) is preposterous.
Updated On: 9/18/24 at 10:43 AM
Posted: 9/18/24 at 10:57am
Kad said: "Burstein is wonderful, he doesn’t seem like a performer who would be driving a hard bargain to get cast."
He'd be terrific, and there'd be no risk of him outshining the leading lady, unlike some of the actually-famous guys who declined.
Sometimes closing a deal is just a matter of scheduling logistics, or opening night tickets, or fine-print stuff. If he was signed on to do an independent film for $50 + a bagel, his agents are probably trying to get him out of that; if he's scheduled to film a couple episodes of Blue Bloods, then they're probably trying to get him out of Gypsy for those dates because the TV gig will pay a lot more.
Whoever is in negotiations right now has the upper hand since they start rehearsal in a week in a half and the GYPSY producers are no doubt desperate to close a deal. And he's not a "name" but he adds legitimacy and is an ideal costar for this.
Posted: 9/18/24 at 1:16pm
Interesting. If several A-listers have indeed declined the role of Herbie, it will probably end up being Corey Stoll or someone like that.
Posted: 9/18/24 at 1:24pm
Is it normal for a production to still be looking for leading roles mere days before their first rehearsal?
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
