Laura Benanti Gypsy: 3/22 Matinee

[wickedfan]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 6:32pm

There’s something missing in Arthur Laurents’ new production of “Gypsy”. I started to feel it once the overture was over, magnificently played by the 25 piece orchestra, and I continued to think about it all throughout Act 1. What could it be? The pacing was slow, yes. The jokes were almost being milked too hard by the cast, yes. But I could forgive all of that. Something was missing that I couldn’t put my finger on. That is, until LuPone sang “Everything’s Coming Up Roses”. And that’s when it hit me.

This production of “Gypsy” is missing passion and determination. At least, for most of the production it is, mainly Act 1.

The show is in fine shape, mind you, but it is painfully obvious that this revival wasn’t necessary at all. There isn’t much that’s new or much that’s interesting in this revival and that’s primarily due to a lack of direction.

What I mean by this is that the production never seems focused. It never seems driven. This is partly because Patti LuPone hides Rose from us for so long. Throughout Act 1, LuPone is merely selling the musical numbers and the jokes. The result is pleasant, but she is not being Rose. When she’s told that the act is on the Orpheum Circuit, you don’t see that flash in LuPone’s eyes, you don’t see her happiness in “Mr. Goldstone”. Most importantly, you do not see her determination in “Some People”. She doesn’t become Rose until the Act 1 finale, and by then you’re a little annoyed that you had to wait this long to see the character.

The rest of the cast fares very well: Boyd Gaines makes an excellent Herbie and Leigh Ann Larkin makes a memorable impression as June (although her interpretation has grown into being more of a caricature since City Center). Tony Yazbeck is a serviceable Tulsa, and Alison Fraser, Marilyn Caskey, and Lenora Nemetz are all great as the three strippers, although I prefer Nemetz’s Miss Cratchitt to her Mazeppa.

The one person in the entire cast who justifies the purpose of this production is Laura Benanti. I can’t get over how great she was. She has finally shown what a great part Louise is, and makes a breathtaking transformation. She convincingly portrays Louise’s transformation from awkward young girl into luxurious, beautiful woman during “The Strip”. Mark my words: this is her Tony. Unless Leslie Kritzer pulls out every stop imaginable in “A Catered Affair”, this is Benanti’s Tony to lose.

Which brings us to Laurents. Having trashed the previous Sam Mendes revival in the press, Arthur Laurents has done absolutely nothing to prove that this production is superior. He even uses Mendes’ “all the world’s a stage” approach to the piece by having a broken down proscenium on the stage. Laurents needed to put his money where his mouth was and he just wasn’t able to cough it up. The pacing is slow, the sets look cheap, and too often Laurents tries to create laughs out of the audience, causing a very strained effect.

Mind you, this is all in Act 1. Act 2 is a much better show. It feels less slow, strained, and uninspired. Act 2 actually has that driven and determined feeling and the passion that was so lacking up until “Everything’s Coming Up Roses”, which is when LuPone finally begins to inhabit the character. She remains wonderful throughout the end and creates a truly wonderful “Rose’s Turn”, which is probably the craziest one I have seen. Literally, LuPone’s Rose looks like she’s talking to herself half of the time during it: it’s scary and breathtaking.

Overall, I’d give “Patti LuPone Gypsy” a 7 out of 10. It’s an overall solid, if uninspired, production with very good performances and one great performance.

Updated On: 3/23/08 at 06:32 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 6:34pm

When I said this over the summer, I was yelled at.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 6:35pm

Act one (especially the first half of it) has always been the weak part of this production. It sure was at CC. Act 2 was perfection at CC, and I assume it still is on Broadway.

And you make it sound like this is Laurent's first time directing this show. He copied nothing from Mendes. Laurents has been directing this show since the 70's, including 2 Tony award winning revivals.
Updated On: 3/23/08 at 06:35 PM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 6:38pm

No no I'm fully aware of that. I know that he did both the Lansbury and the Daly version. But for a man who has trashed everything that Mendes did, including the "all the world's a stage" approach, I was surprised to seethat broken down proscenium there throughout the show. Even if he had used that same device for previous productions, he is in no way able to condemn Mendes for doing that same approach.

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 8:25pm

wickedfan-

I really enjoyed reading your thoughtful review. This production certainly has it's weaknesses (for me, it's mainly the fact that you can tell they didn't throw as much money into the production budget as they should have), but the performances, to me, were so incredible that I'm thrilled by this revival.

I whole-heartedly agree with your thoughts on Ms. Benanti's work. She's a revelation in this production.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 8:26pm

Well, yankeefan, we got some for brains, and some for talent, but we all have YOU to yell at.

[logan0215]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 8:27pm

I saw the CC production 3 times and have not had the chance to see the transfer yet.

At CC Benanti fell completely flat during the strips. There was absolutely no charisma in them and she didn't sell them at all. If nothing else, her acting as younger Louise made her memorable, but the entire strip sequence had no oomph.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 8:32pm

You mean her acting as if Louise was emotionally challenged and rode the short bus to school? I thought she was absolutely horrible. I certainly hope Laurents has reigned that in for this go-round.

Updated On: 3/23/08 at 08:32 PM

[logan0215]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 8:36pm

I though she acted like a neglected child who therefore is socially inept, which is exactly what Louise is.

If anything, she needed to turn it up a notch in the strip scenes.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 8:43pm

It went beyond socially inept. It was embarrassing.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 9:11pm

I was at this show as well.

I didn't love it; I didn't hate it. I was entertained, mildly. I was moved occasionally.

There were some moments that were wonderful. I thought the tempo and energy was lacking.

I disliked June...I thought her big scene right before her duet with Louise was practically demented. I felt the same way about when Louise finally stands up to Rose.

I HATED the ending with Rose jumping to reach her name in lights. It was so forced, so phoney, so...well...staged.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 9:35pm

DUDE. Put a spoiler alert up. I see the show tomorrow and have tried not reading about the new ending yet. And I almost read what you wrote. Everyone has been really good about putting spoiler alerts up so far.

Thank you.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 10:10pm

Haven't seen it at the St James yet but I saw it over the summer and agree with almost everything you said.

[sanda]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 10:24pm

The biggest problem I have with City Center production is Laurent's directing. It seems he did not resolve the problem here either.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 10:30pm

The meanest things Arthur said about Sam Mendes were not the things he said behind Sam's back. They were the things he said to Sam's face.

After one last notes session during which Arthur went scene by scene and told Sam EVERYTHING that was wrong with the production, from the sets to the costumes to Bernadette's wrong-headed and vocally undistinguished performance, the usually self-assured Mendes was feeling particularly queasy.

"Well, Arthur," Mendes offered weakly, "didn't the stripper number get a big hand?"

"Sam," Arthur started, going in for the kill, "you could cast Saddam Hussein and his two sons as those strippers and you'd STILL get a big hand."

[theaterguy11]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 10:48pm

I thought the Sam Mendes production was fantastic.

If Arthur had a problem with the production being too minimalistc, why did he create an EVEN MORE minimal production at city center.

My biggest problem with the Lupone production was the lack of sets/costumes. They looked like they were made for a community theatre. I never felt I was watching a Broadway production. In 2003, I felt like I was watching a Broadway show, with a big budget

[wickedfan]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 11:18pm

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy Benanti, Rathnait. But she was just wonderful in this. At least I thought. Well, as they say, opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one.

What I mean by the set looking cheap was that the set pieces looked cheap. They were all made out of wood. I go to Stagedoor Manor every summer and every one of our set pieces is made out of wood and we get a budget of a couple of hundred dollars per show. Say something? The fact that the set was sparse wasn't the problem. With the right staging and lighting, the settings could have worked. But Laurents made almost no effort to fill up the stage. Or tighten focus on some scenes.

I thought that the production was better at City Center. Maybe it was because I was expecting less because I knew they didn't throw an extra $7 million in it, or the fact that the tempos were faster (seriously, they need to up the tempo in this). But in gaining better costumes, wigsand lighting, the production has lost speed and direction. It feels like karma for Arthur Laurents. I don't expect a rave from Brantley.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 3/23/08 at 11:51pm

wickedfan, i've been biting my tongue all week trying to find the right words to describe how i felt about seeing the show last monday, at the risk of showing my anger at the wasted opportunities i witnessed in this production of one of my favorite broadway musicals. but for the most part, i completely agree with you. except i noticed it right after some people, where i just felt i didn't understand on an emotional why momma rose was singing that song. then i realized through the rest of act one (and a lot of act two) that there was no motivation, no momentum, to make us feel anything for these characters. i understand why everything was happening on an intellectual level, but i felt virtually nothing for a lot of the show.

now onto benanti. i'm not one of her bigger fans, but i was totally on board with her Louise, because her performance for the most part made me forget that a) she looked way too old for the part, and b) that she was actually capable of genuine warmth and vunerability.

then the transformation started, and once that first strip was over, she lost me. she carried nothing over from young Louise, and instead turned into an ice-blooded shrew, with a volume so loud she quite literally caused the speaker system to start buzzing. and that haughty laugh at the end? where and why did that come out? she became inhuman, and if that was an intentional directorial decision, it was just another strange decision out of many.

i will say i did quite enjoy leigh ann larkin, and while i didn't get the strange belting that took away from if momma was married, i did enjoy the characterization. i also really enjoyed young louise. while she spoke only one or two lines, her physical language spoke volumes. and the actresses doing you gotta get a gimmick brought the house down, it was a one real show-stopper of the night. otherwise, i agree most of the performances were serviceable.

i can actually forgive the production values if arthur laurents actually made some sort of directorial decisions to let us feel anything, instead of seemingly give the directing note to grab a hold of any piece of scenery, and not only chew, but gnaw on it until it becomes unrecognizable.

to paraphrase zeus in xanadu - and no, i'm NOT comparing the two - you can't take a patti lupone, put it on a stage, and call it a show.

Updated On: 3/23/08 at 11:51 PM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 3/24/08 at 12:06am

everythingtaboo- I always felt that the coldness as Gypsy Rose Lee was necessary. I, too, thought the shouting was a bit much. But that was only because Benanti's Gypsy was just such a larger force in that scene than LuPone's Rose. Had it been Daly, Merman or even Peters (say what you will about Peters' performance-but the woman showed friggin' determination), I could understand the shouting. The scene could've built up to it. Also, the laughing at the end, I could tell, was entirely Laurents. It was a way to get Gypsy off of the stage so that Rose could have her moment on stage. I didn't like the new ending.

At the risk of sounding too much like my generation, but there is a South Park episode on this, what I like to call, syndrome. Directors like Steven Spielberg and Craig Lucas taking some of their masterpieces and re-editing them, usually to a poorer effect. Same goes for this Gypsy. The elimination of the faux rape scene, the Tessie Tura line about Rose, and the new ending are all for the poorer. Laurents should have left it be.

Updated On: 3/24/08 at 12:06 AM

[Lili Von Shtupp]

Posted: 3/24/08 at 1:53am

Wickedfan-

I'm glad you enjoyed Benanti's performance (I think her voice is heavenly), but I have to disagree with your statement that "the coldness as Gypsy Rose Lee was necessary."

Having read the book I can say that the real Gypsy Rose Lee was never really cold to her mother, as difficult as she was. True, they may have gone through rough times but throughout Rose Hovick's life, Louise really only wanted to make her happy and that was even through her Gypsy Rose Lee years. If there is no hint of young Louise left, I feel as though it makes the performance not as genuine.

I will also say this...I know that most of her memoirs are said to be untrue, but I believe that has to do with certain events that took place and the severity of Rose Hovick's behavior, not the relationship between them.

[goodmanK]

Posted: 3/24/08 at 3:12pm

After seeing the Bernadette production, I could not even imagine anything as wonderful. It was fresh, full of color, and Bernadette made Rose so much more sexy and contemporary. The set was wonderful, the costumes wonderful and the choreography fantastic. This Patti Lupone production just seemed sad to me. The costumes are so ugly it's almost laughable, and Patti is not being Rose...she's being Patti Lupone.

After sitting in myself on the Mendes notes sessions, let's just say that afterward, it seemed very clear it everyone that Laurent's was getting to the end of his days and has fallen out of touch with Broadway today.

Hope West Side is better...

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 3/24/08 at 3:20pm

Oh crap. I totally forgot he was doing West Side Story.

[FranzRelax]

Posted: 3/24/08 at 3:41pm

How nice! A shill from the Bernadette production has joined.

Get over it.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 3/24/08 at 3:53pm

Wow, hostility much? What's your damage, Heather?

People liked the Bernadette Peters revival and didn't like this one-myself being one of them. Others didn't like Bernie and liked the Patti revival. Sh*t happens, YOU get over it.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/24/08 at 4:02pm

I don't get the whole GYPSY battle of the giants approach that people are taking. Like Bernadette Peters or Patti LuPone lose any sleep over which production is better. Since Peters was a teenager, she dreamed of playing Rose and she got her dream come true, a lot of us think her Rose was an act of brilliance (including Ben Brantley). LuPone is getting her wish to play Rose now, and there's a lot of people out there who think this is the performance of her career. There is no need to put them against each other, it makes no sense.
Either way, I must say I think Laurents outdid himself with casting for this production, and he got Benanti to give the best performance she has given on stage so far.