Gypsy - Different endings? — Page 2

I found the LuPone ending heartbreaking when I saw it live.

---

Regi, I'm totally open to the idea that the laugh played differently live v. on YouTube. And I'm happy to take your word for it.

But I do want there to be one person who doesn't leave Rose. Otherwise, I've got a two-and-a-half hour story in which nothing changes.

I get that, Gaveston. Again, in my head they're still going to the party together. Louise has her "Oh, Mother!" moment and walks ahead, and Rose turns back for her last moment onstage under the disintegrating lights.

As I say, perhaps that was just what I saw. But I found it quite honest and moving.

Updated On: 10/13/11 at 11:41 AM

As I was reading Laurents sections on "Gypsy" in "Mainly in Directing" and he kept repeating things like "we discovered that in the play we were now discovering [this song or another, he did this several times] no longer fit." Please, the songs were as integral to the show as his book. But Arthur clearly wanted to direct a different work, something other than the Laurents-Styne-Sondheim "Gypsy."

And I agree, his "West Side Story" revival was equally misguided. "Let's get rid of that choreography --- who needs that?" And let's make sure one of the most pivotal moments in the show -- "A Boy Like That / I Have a Love" -- is played in Spanish, so a lot of the audience just won't know what's going on."

I think the ending works with louise being bitter. in real life she was somewhat bitter towards rose, it would make sense for her to hate or look down at rose after it's all over, especially since rose has done so many horrible things to her. Let's be honest lousie can't just be one hundred percent accepting of rose and we shouldn't discount her for it.

I like the ending when Louise walks in to find Rose crying on the floor, murmurssomething about leaving the dishes in the sink, Louise tells her we'll worry about everything tomorrow, and Rose says "oh dear Lord, it is tomorrow".

---

Really well put, Wilmington. Sounds like Laurents is trying to cram too much into a scene with only 10 or 12 lines.

I say let Rose and Louise have their reconciliation. I doubt any viewer is so naive as to think the future will be all "sunshine and lollipops" with two personalities as strong as those women.

Except, Wilmingtom, she's not seeing her name in lights; she's seeing her name in lights disintegrating, disappearing.

To me, that's very different.

But she's still grabbing at it. Her name might be disintegrating in lights, but she's still grasping for it. What I don't like about that ending is that it is such a literal representation of an idea that is so at odds with the text. There is nothing in the text in the final scene that says Rose is still grasping at the past. The whole point of the scene is that the past has caught up with Rose, she has now, finally, after decades, accepted her fate and is ready to move on. She isn't happier, she isn't more content and she certainly isn't any stronger, but she IS moving on. If she's still reaching for what might have been, what's the point? It's certainly a "new" way to look at the final scene, but it doesn't make it any more effective than any interpretation of the scene before it.

If there was one thing I disliked about that production (and I disliked a few things), it was that it was so ANALYTICAL. Every new "idea" was so calculated and didn't sync up with the text. There was no reason for half of the line readings or staging. It was still a fine production and Benanti was sensational, but so much of Laurents' "ideas" were just so planned and didn't feel like they came from the text.

---

Even after watching thousands of plays since then, I still remember the overwhelming feeling I had as a kid watching Merman do "Rose's Turn" at the Imperial in December 1960. She finished the number, stood stock still and let the applause continue, until Louise (then Julienne Marie) entered. I flew to London just to see Lansbury as Rose, thinking it might not come to New York, and I recall being shocked as she began bowing at the end of the number. At first I was confused, as was most of the audience, who would applaud more each time she bowed again. It was Arthur's decision as librettist/director to do this, and while it is a valid dramatic choice, audiences are still sometimes confused as to how to respond. Have others had a similar reaction?

I would prefer an ending where rose and louise didn't reconcile as it's how it did really end and frankly while the audience may like rose it's still an ending that makes sense.