CONFIRMED: Audra McDonald-led GYPSY to begin previews Nov 2024- Page 41

[Kad]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 10:48am

Broadway61004 said: "Burstein is perfect for the traditional interpretation for Herbie. But for a production that seems to be trying to reinvent this story and how we typically view it, this seems to go completely against that vision."

We know exceptionally little about the production but what little we do know never seemed to indicate Herbie was going to be a locus point of reinterpretation. 

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 11:49am

I agree, though I do love Burstein, Herbie is definitely too much in his work realm. You can already see his performance as there’s really no room to stretch as written. Unless they make him a bipolar alcoholic with pedophile undertones, the role is too one note until the moment he blows up on Rose and walks out on her late in Act 2. The only thing that gave past Herbies any oomph was in their chemistry opposite the actress playing Rose. I truly don’t see any opportunity for him to truly give a groundbreaking performance. 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:01pm

BrodyFosse123 said: "I agree, though I do love Burstein, Herbie is definitely too much in his work realm. You can already see his performance as there’s really no room to stretch as written. Unless they make him a bipolar alcoholic with pedophile undertones, the role is too one note until the moment he blows up on Rose and walks out on her late in Act 2. The only thing that gave past Herbies any oomph was in their chemistry opposite the actress playing Rose. I truly don’t see any opportunity for him to truly give a groundbreaking performance."



Ma'am this is a Wendy’s 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:08pm

Why does Herbie need to give a groundbreaking performance? He’s the third lead, but he’s very much meant to be part of the collateral damage Rose leaves in her wake. Why would they drastically change his dramatic purpose?

Also, I think folks are really running with this idea that George C. Wolfe’s vision of Gypsy will be some kind of radical reinterpretation of the piece. There has been nothing to imply that it will, with the exception of the subtext ethnicity-conscious casting will bring to it. He’s not known for reinterpretation; he’s known for the humanity and depth of feeling he brings to his directing work.

[corninthesky]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:11pm

Joy Woods not playing Sarah anymore in Ragtime. Makes Gypsy more likely I would think. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:16pm

ColorTheHours048 said: "Why does Herbie need to give a groundbreaking performance? He’s the third lead, but he’s very much meant to be part of the collateral damage Rose leaves in her wake. Why would they drastically change his dramatic purpose?

Also, I think folks are really running with this idea that George C. Wolfe’s vision of Gypsy will be some kind of radical reinterpretation of the piece. There has been nothing to imply that it will, with the exception of the subtext ethnicity-conscious casting will bring to it. He’s not known for reinterpretation; he’s known for the humanity and depth of feeling he brings to his directing work."

All this.

Some people here talk about Herbie as though it's a role that can withstand a Richard III-level interpretation. That's not the part. He is there in support of Rose, and Burstein is ideal casting from a quality standpoint because he surely "knows his place" in this story and isn't going to try to outshine Audra or turn the part into something it isn't. It's not a terribly exciting character!!! But I have no doubt he'll be swell, he'll be great.

[singer234]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:17pm

Definitely seems like a Jordan Tyson/Joy Woods reunion situation-I suppose they could put her understudies on in The Notebook for the last few weeks.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:27pm

corninthesky said: "Joy Woods not playing Sarah anymore in Ragtime. Makes Gypsy more likely I would think."

Apparently someone close to Notebook recently let slip that Woods is also leaving on 10/6, alongside Cardoza and Tyson. Just waiting for an official press release now that Woods and Tyson are Louise and June.

Now how do we fit Plunkett in this revival? Gender-swap Mr. Goldstone?  

 

 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:35pm

EDSOSLO858 said: "Now how do we fit Plunkett in this revival? Gender-swap Mr. Goldstone?"

June was born via IVF and there will now be an extended dream ballet sequence between June and her other mother, played by Maryann Plunkett.

{the ground beneath Long Island crumbles as Arthur's corpse emerges from his grave}

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:45pm

Maybe there should be a 24hr online stream from the gravesite? Like they do for birds nests in spring.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:59pm

I just hope Danny is given Rebecca Luker’s old dressing room when she did Phantom.

Updated On: 9/19/24 at 12:59 PM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 12:59pm

I put a boulder on his coffin. He's not getting out if I can help it.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 1:04pm

Danny is awesome and will be AMAZING in this role. He’s perfect. However I was under the impression they were looking for a star, Gypsy doesn’t sell well outside the initial burst. Audra will initially sell tickets but that won’t last long. Danny doesn’t sell tickets. They really need one star outside of Broadway to keep the sales strong. 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 1:09pm

Chappell Roan as Louise?

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 1:39pm

Bettyboy72 said: "I was under the impression they were looking for a star, Gypsy doesn’t sell well outside the initial burst. Audra will initially sell tickets but that won’t last long. Danny doesn’t sell tickets. They really need one star outside of Broadway to keep the sales strong."

I have no doubt they were hoping and trying for a star, but you can't always get what you want.

If the producers didn't feel Audra could meaningfully sustain the box office to recoupment on her own, they shouldn't have cast her in the first place, or they shouldn't have scheduled the production without a Herbie & Louise contracted. But as I and others have said, I don't know what led them to think that Herbie could attract a star. It's a nice part but not the type of role that most legitimately-famous actors should want to do for 9 months, in a revival that is being billed as AUDRA GYPSY. Creatively, a star Herbie could also throw off the calibration of the show.

Do I think he'll be great? Yes.
Am I hoping this will exceed my low sales expectations? Yes.
Would I want to go anywhere near this thing as an investor? Absolutely not.

[Highland Guy]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 1:57pm

Just a heads-up.  The film version of "Gypsy" will be shown on TCM on September 26th.

[SouthAmericanCichlids]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 2:02pm

I'm just curious as to why there necessarily has to be a big name outside of Broadway to keep the show afloat. I mean, Merrily sold incredibly well and I think just as many people know Groff as know Audra. Company sold with the biggest name being Lupone. Nowadays, on Broadway do you have to have a massive star to be successful, is good interpretation and good material not enough anymore for a show. (I'm not saying you all don't value these things, but rather this is a gripe with the current economy of Broadway)

[MadsonMelo]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 2:17pm

SouthAmericanCichlids said: "I'm just curious as to why there necessarily has to be a big name outside of Broadway to keep the show afloat. I mean, Merrily sold incredibly well and I think just as many people know Groff as know Audra. Company sold with the biggest name being Lupone. Nowadays, on Broadway do you have to have a massive star to be successful, is good interpretation and good material not enough anymore for a show. (I'm not saying you all don't value these things, but rather this is a gripe with the current economy of Broadway)"

Merrily... Daniel Radcliffe.

Company was not a hit. Sondheim died, which kinda gave them a bump, and the producers carried the show through the Tonys, and even after they won the most, still closed like 5 weeks after.

A revival to be a HIT needs a STAR. Like Jackman, Radcliffe, Groban. It's simple.

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 2:27pm

Bettyboy72 said: "Danny is awesome and will be AMAZING in this role. He’s perfect. However I was under the impression they were looking for a star, Gypsy doesn’t sell well outside the initial burst. Audra will initially sell tickets but that won’t last long. Danny doesn’t sell tickets. They really need one star outside of Broadway to keep the sales strong."

Well...they WERE looking for a major star. And it was offered to many A Listers, none of whom worked out. I was the person who posted a ways back about the team looking for 1-2 additional major stars for the production (as well as reporting on the design team). And this info all came from the offer papers sent to potential investors. The issue, as has been hashed out plenty in this thread, is how many major stars want to play second or third fiddle to a different star (Audra), when she is getting top billing and the marketing/press centered around her, in a role that isn't very showy, for 9 months when they have other more lucrative offers on the table? Many of the names touted throughout this threat (like Paul Giamatti and Bryan Cranston) were indeed on producer's wish list. And that wish list grew incredibly long with basically every white male movie/TV star in their 50s. But it didn't pan out with any of them. The reason WHY they were looking for additional names is due to the expense of this production. Operating costs are going to hover close to $1 million, so they have to turn this into a major event in order to turn a profit. (Flashing the names Audra McDonald, Bryan Cranston, and Keke Palmer in a commercial, for instance, would be a sure fire way to turn this into an expensive ticket). It's still absolutely possible for this show to achieve "event" status, they just aren't going to be able to rely on Danny Burstein and Joy Woods' name recognition to get it there.

[SouthAmericanCichlids]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 2:30pm

MadsonMelo said: "SouthAmericanCichlids said: "I'm just curious as to why there necessarily has to be a big name outside of Broadway to keep the show afloat. I mean, Merrily sold incredibly well and I think just as many people know Groff as know Audra. Company sold with the biggest name being Lupone. Nowadays, on Broadway do you have to have a massive star to be successful, is good interpretation and good material not enough anymore for a show. (I'm not saying you all don't value these things, but rather this is a gripe with the current economy of Broadway)"

Merrily... Daniel Radcliffe.

Company was not a hit. Sondheim died, which kinda gave them a bump, and the producers carried the show through the Tonys, and even after they won the most, still closed like 5 weeks after.

A revival to be a HIT needs a STAR. Like Jackman, Radcliffe, Groban. It's simple."

I completely forgot about Dan for a second. Yeah, I kinda find that sad, but I guess we'll see how they do. Do you think it's guaranteed to not do well, or do you think there's a possibility for it to be a hit?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 2:53pm

They need a “star”, or a “celebrity”? Not the same thing. Daniel is not a star, at least by my judgement.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 3:29pm

The last two revivals weren't hits. And Audra is a big deal, but not sure if this can turn a profit. But I think everyone involved knows this.

[Kad]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 3:49pm

Gypsy has never been a smash hit show. Of the 5 productions thus far, none of them have cracked 2 years. LuPone and Lansbury didn’t even last a year, Peters made it just over a year, Daly was a year and a half, and the original production was a couple months shy of 2. 

Updated On: 9/19/24 at 03:49 PM

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 4:06pm

SouthAmericanCichlids said: "I'm just curious as to why there necessarily has to be a big name outside of Broadway to keep the show afloat. I mean, Merrily sold incredibly well and I think just as many people know Groff as know Audra. Company sold with the biggest name being Lupone. Nowadays, on Broadway do you have to have a massive star to be successful, is good interpretation and good material not enough anymore for a show. (I'm not saying you all don't value these things, but rather this is a gripe with the current economy of Broadway)"

Broadway fans are a tiny and unsustainable group of people who are relatively meaningless in the longterm success of a show beyond week 6.

The most recent Broadway revivals that recouped during their Broadway run were:

• Merrily
• Gutenberg
• Funny Girl
• Into the Woods
• Sweeney Todd
• The Music Man
• Hello, Dolly!
• Hedwig and the Angry Inch

See the pattern? There isn't a single production without a star on that list.

Audra's track record must also be taken into consideration. Lady Day is her only show that attracted a sustainable audience in recent years, and that was dirt cheap ($2.6 mil) and a 1.5-person show. Gypsy is a $20 million revival. Porgy & Bess, Ohio State Murders, Frankie & Johnny, and Shuffle Along all closed prematurely (granted, Shuffle was a unique situation).

The last two revivals of Gypsy with Patti LuPone and Bernadette Peters also lost money. To the general public, the show has never had the reputation that theatre lovers see in it. It is not on a sales level of Sound of Music or West Side Story or Music Man or Les Mis or Fiddler.

This is a big uphill climb for the producers and I wish them the best!

Updated On: 9/19/24 at 04:06 PM

[Fordham2015]

Posted: 9/19/24 at 4:15pm

Is the 1/2 person in Lady Day the bandleader or the dog?