Gypsy- When you got it, you got it

[Noel&Cole]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 9:03pm

I finally saw Gypsy and had to post my thoughts. I know some people love this production and some people have issues and there is no doubt it is a cheap looking production BUT wow......there is not need to concetrate on sets and costumes when you have some of the finest music theatre acting before your eyes! I am actually not a Patti Lupone fan. I walked out of Sweeney Todd here on Broadway BUT this is truly a role she shines in. I found her satisfying in everyway as Rose. She brough so much to the piece. And although the physical production may be lacking GYPSY is a show that depends entirely on its Rose and that enough is reason for bringing this to Broadway. She is supported with style by Boyd Gaines and Laura Benati. Both give the finest renditions of these roles I have seen on stage. All three are most likely the front runners for the tony awards this year.

I do agree the productions does not seem like a new Gypsy or a re-imagined Gypsy. Just a scaled down Gypsy. Although thank heavens they did not skimp on the orchestra and that is one of the most wonderful things about the show. Aurther Laurents may not have given the defenitive production of Gypsy so I do not think it should win best revival but he deserves great praise for bringing the performances out of these fine actors. Gypsy is one of the greatest pieces of musical theatre and the production on Broadway showcases why and that acting in the musical theatre can be as deep and powerful as Shakespeare. BRAVO! to such a magnificent cast!

[jv92]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 9:35pm

I think Laurents should get more credit than you gave him. It's tighter, sharper and clearer than ever before. It might be the definative production of the greatest musical.

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 9:46pm

I was going to let this pass but...

I would say the DEFINATIVE production of any show should be fully realized, and not scaled down. The definative production should have production values.

This cut-rate Gypsy is small on production--and big on attitude.

And it is this 'chip on the shoulder' that bothers me with the current revival. I have said it before here, this is one mean-spirited production of what should be a show with a myriad of emotion.

Meaning no disrespect to the talents of Mr. Laurents, I wish he could have been more confidant with the original masterpiece he created rather than tinkering with
the script, the emotion and the meaning.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 9:57pm

I hear ya Bert, the director is insulting the design team by not allowing them to contribute to this amazing script and score.
The scene with the invisable car made me cringe.
And Angela Lansbury's production had a real dog, Lamb and monkey.
I love this show, but this production left me confused.

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 10:02pm

Wow..someone who agrees with me? I am used to the usual suspects calling me names for not liking this revival.

Yes, even on a non-equity tour I saw about fifteen years ago, there was a real dog and a real lamb. I can't get over the actress playing Rose would agree to NOT have a real dog. To me, it is a sad way for this actress to make her entrance. I coudn't concentrate on the Uncle Jocko scene because my mind was boggled by the carnival toy that the renowned Broadway actress was holding. One would think an actress of her caliber would have some say-so in this.

Ah well....

[Londonskyguy]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:20pm

I thought this production of GYPSY was brilliant, but then I read all these postings about how horrible the set design was. I must say that those of you who continue to be obsessed with bashing this production might be right. One can only imagine how much the production would be improved if say a real car rolled out on stage. I dont know why I never thought how fab it would be to see the whole train depot rise out of the floor at the end of Act 1. Perhaps the production would be improved if the strippers dressing room came down from the fly space like the mansion in Sunset Blvd. And Mr Laurents should really be taken to task for not having Rose end Roses Turn by flying up in the air in a cherry picker.. Thanks so much for enlightening all of us who loved this production . Hopefully if it opens in London next fall they will at least add a falling chandelier to the Minsky's set!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:28pm

Oh please--the set and the costumes are FINE.

The two of you are like broken records.

You never say anything new. You just come onto every thread and say the same thing over and over and over and over and over again, like two crabby old ladies complaining about their aches and pains, forgetting that they made the same exact complaints yesterday and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that.

Noel&Cole--you'll soon learn to ignore them and laugh at them behind their backs, like the rest of us do.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:34pm

To me, the dog and lamb were such minor parts to the show that I didn't care that they used fake animals. Sure it looks cheaper, but it was probably the most practical choice. Animals can be unpredictable. Plus they grow fast. So it made more sense to use fake stuffed animals.

[coryografer]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:38pm

Thank you Londonskyguy...... well said. I would hate to think that the DEFINITIVE (note the spelling) production of a show depends on its livestock.

[theaterguy11]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:39pm

I agree 100% with bertandrew2 and curtainpulldowner.

I saw the production during previews and was very underwhelmed. I remember hearing Laurents was not a fan of the 03 Revival becuase of how minimal it was and something about "having no walls."

I think this production was FAR more minimal. I thought the performances were unfocused and just lackluster. I left totally shocked that I didn't like it, as I wanted to SO badly.

another thing...why is it that people seem to get SO mean spirited and mean whenever somebody says they don't like this current revival? What's wrong with having a negative opinion on a show?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:42pm

You've got Patti LuPone onstage giving the kind of performance we get to see a handful of times in our lives, if we're lucky, and these two guys complain about the lambchops.

CurtainSuchADowner reminds me of the old wardrobe mistress who was invited to the opening night of Oklahoma, by her longtime boss, a Broadway producer who was too ill to attend the opening.

The next morning, when all the reviews were out saying that Rodgers and Hammerstein had triumphantly reshaped the American musical, the producer asked the wardrobe mistress what she thought of the show.

"Seams!" she snorted at him over her coffee. "They call those SEAMS?!?"

Forest for the trees, guys. Look.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:44pm

PalJoey, everyone knows that you cannot have a good show unless you use a real lamb! Otherwise, the production fails miserably.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:45pm

theaterguy, it's not that fans of this revival attack others who don't enjoy it. It's when people go from thread to thread harping on every single thing they found wrong. It's annoying and stupid, and that's why it seems like fans are mean-spirited.

For the record, I had no problem with the stuffed dog (from where I was sitting at City Center, I couldn't tell it was stuffed) or the sets. The lamb was problematic, and I think they definitely could have found a better way to do it.

[LadyRosecoe]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:45pm

It's not necessarily that something wasn't liked, it's what wasn't liked that's the issue. There really is a lot to deal with in maintaining live animals onstage and off. If a wildly successful broadway show like Hairspray decides years down the road to change a child's role into one that can be played by an adult and save finances on hiring a child wrangler, then can you forgive a show that stayed around for barely a year in it's last revival that now has to sell out a massive theater with three tiers of seating? It's just so much more cost efficient for a show like this. Understandably some won't like it, but to bring up that argument as the reason for being dissatisfied with the show, then it gets silly hearing it after a while.

I do see where others are coming from on how much this production has skimped on, but the actors are there and working like mad aren't they? To me, if they're still providing good theater, then it's worth the money to see them, who cares about animals onstage?
Updated On: 4/20/08 at 11:45 PM

[theaterguy11]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 11:53pm

I DO think the animals should be real, but that has nothing to do with my dislike of this production.

my issue, is that the sets looked like they were built by high school kids who were only building them becuase they were being punished for something. Rose would slam a door and the walls would shake. I just felt like I was watching summer stock with broadway stars in the leads.

A+ for a MUNY production...

C- for a Broadway revival

[Londonskyguy]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:00am

Yeah, the sets were kinda cheap and flimsy looking,,, kinda like vaudeville or something.... imagine that.

[theaterguy11]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:01am

you can do vaudeville -esq sets without looking CHEAP...

OH LOOK they already did...in the 2003 Revival. Nothing looked cheap there...Vaudeville, but full out.

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:04am

But vaudeville WAS and DID look cheap.

[theaterguy11]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:07am

missing my point.

The cheap/vaudeville thing was DONE in 2003.

Laurents said he hated it. Didn't like how minimal it was...

THIS revival, UNDER HIS DIRECTION is even MORE minimal...

You people are hysterical...its not a concept. It's the producers being CHEAP. They're calling it a concept...but its based on $$

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:08am

My God. You JUST said the 2003 revival DIDN'T look cheap. Now you are saying they did have a cheap/vaudeville theme.


OH LOOK they already did...in the 2003 Revival. Nothing looked cheap there...Vaudeville, but full out.

Make up your mind. Or just get over it. This isn't the 2003 revival.

[theaterguy11]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:11am

When I watched the 03 revival, I got the Vaudeville concept EVEN THOUGH it looked like the producers put a good amount of money into it. The production looked great. Laurents hated it for being too minimal.

So why is Laurents getting away with an EVEN MORE minimal production? HE needs to make up his mind.

[theaterguy11]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:11am

When I watched the 03 revival, I got the Vaudeville concept EVEN THOUGH it looked like the producers put a good amount of money into it. The production looked great. Laurents hated it for being too minimal.

So why is Laurents getting away with an EVEN MORE minimal production? HE needs to make up his mind.

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:13am

Laurents hated more than the look of that revival. While he has never said anything bad about Bernadette. He HATED Sam Mendes direction. And the reason why the sets weren't as minimal in that production were because of Arthur's complaints during previews. Then the sets were spruced up. I imagine the original sets in previews were very minimal.
Updated On: 4/21/08 at 12:13 AM

[theaterguy11]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:14am

So why doesnt he take his own note? and spruce up HIS mess of a production?

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 12:16am

MESS of a production? OK. Someone obviously didn't read the reviews. I'm done. You're a block-head.