As per
http://barbra-archives.com/films/gypsy.html:
2009 (according to Arthur's posthumous memoir
The Rest of the Story) -- Barbra calls Arthur and plays footsie about doing Rose in
Gypsy. She asks if he thinks she could play Rose. He says no. She asks if he thinks she's too old, and he says, "No, but you'd play for sympathy." He goes on to say: "She said she knew Rose because her mother was Rose. She went into details. Her mother made Rose look like Mother Teresa. That Barbra survived was a testament to her determination [...] The three-hour conversation left me with affection for Barbra and convinced she could play Rose if she cut her fingernails and didn't direct."
January 2011 -- News leaks that Warner Brothers and producer Joel Silver are developing
Gypsy for Barbra. She will play Rose and produce. Laurents tells the press that "now things are serious and a movie is truly in the works," and publicly suggests Tom Hanks as a casting suggestion for Herbie. Known not to be a fan of the '62 film starring Rosalind Russell, he says, "I would be very pleased if we had a different film version for the historical record." When questioned whether Streisand is too old for the role, he tells the New York Times, "First of all, they can do magic in Hollywood. Second, does it really matter?" It emerges that Tom Hooper is interested in directing (but eventually chooses
Les Mis as his movie musical debut).
Two months later -- The project is off. Laurents says that after speaking with Sondheim about the project, he's changed his mind. He tells the press, "[Sondheim] told me something that he got from the British -- and it's wonderful. He said, 'You want a record because the theater is ephemeral. But that's wrong. The theater's greatest essence is that it is ephemeral. You don't need a record. The fact that it's ephemeral means you can have different productions, different Roses on into infinity.' So I don't want it now. I don't want a definitive record. I want it to stay alive."
A week or so later -- Reports leak that Universal is interested in the film.
May 2011 -- In an article following Arthur's death, producer Joel Silver tells the New York Times that Arthur ultimately signed off on the
Gypsy film in a deal that gave him substantial creative control and called for the film to be "substantially similar" to the stage version. Quoting Silver, "I last spoke to Arthur in April, brought him up to speed on everything, and then I think I surprised him a little by asking him to make the movie with me. I felt that he understood
Gypsy better than anyone, and that he understood Barbra, since he cast her in her first big musical,
I Can Get It for You Wholesale. And he said yes. We were talking about him coming out to L.A. in May." (Link to article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/theater/before-death-laurentss-was-working-on-new-gypsy-film.html.)
Reading between the lines, my assumption (and it's a reasonably calculated one) is that WB didn't want to give Arthur that extent of creative control, either because they judged him to be old to wield that much control or because they never give the source writer that much power on a film, so he did his usual song-and-dance until they came up with a deal that appealed to him.
Think about everything you've ever heard about Arthur here, from PJ and others. Does this really strike you as them waiting for the old man to die before they could move? Hell no! It is
absolutely in character for Arthur to do this! And given, according to the NY Times article linked above, that his agent confirmed this chain of events and the signed deal before Arthur's death, I can only conclude that you're wrong.
(I suppose a five-year-old would add "na na na na na" here.)
Formerly gvendo2005
Broadway Legend
joined: 5/1/05
Blocked: After Eight, suestorm, david_fick, emlodik, lovebwy, Dave28282, joevitus, BorisTomashevsky, Seb28
Updated On: 8/9/14 at 04:52 PM
