Laura Benanti Gypsy: 3/22 Matinee — Page 2

Patti is not being Rose...she's being Patti Lupone.

What a ridiculous meme this "being" is.

Like you really believe that Merman, consummate Method actress that she was, shed her Merman-like skin and "inhabited" the role of Rose Hovick?

Or that Bernadette---with her cutesy-poo interpretation--was "being" Rose and not "being" Bernadette?

Patti is "being" Rose as much--and as little--as Bernadette was "being" Rose--or Annie Oakley, for that matter.

They're STARS. If you like them, you say they're "being" the character; if not, you say they're "being" themselves.

It means nothing.

---

Whereas I think Benanti's voice is lovely, isn't she a bit *old* for this role?? Gosh...how quickly we have forgotten Tammy Blanchard. *sigh*

I just don't see why this show came back at all, I mean we just had it with Bern and Tammy not so long ago, seemingly yesterday.

Tyne Daly did it for me. She was a force to be reckoned with. :)

---

I never said that Patti was being Patti. She DOES become Rose, just very late in the game. I guess all is forgiven because when she playing Rose in the show, it is when it is most crucial. For me, Patti was merely being a performer up until "Everything's Coming Up Roses". And it has nothing to do with her being a star. As I've said before, Patti just wasn't showing any determination or real emotion up until the end of Act 1. Now, having heard Patti in interviews, I can tell you that that is NOT her. She is a very passionate woman, so I would say that she wasn't playing Patti. She just wasn't playing Rose for almost all of Act 1.

---

wickedfan --

as H. Higgins has already said, other people have said it about Patti, but you definitely didn't.

that being said, I'm not sure I agree in terms of where Patti clicked as Rose [at least based on CC]. but I'll definitely keep it in mind when I see the show on Saturday.

---

wicked fan & givesmevoice-

Myabe she was having an off day or it could just be our differences in how we perceived the production/Patti's performance. Theatre is subjective and we're all going to take the art in differently.

Regardless, can I just say how much I enjoy that we're discussing that here? I really appreciate this clear, thoughtful conversation about our thoughts/reactions, rather than some of the heated/hateful spats about which actress playing Rose is worthwhile and which isn't. That's ridiculous. This is nice.

H. Higgins,

oh, of course theatre is subjective! I was interested in the fact that two people had such similar notions of when in her performance Patti really clicked into Rose. I'm always so overwhelmed just seeing Patti that I may have been a little blind to shortcomings in her performance.

[and, of course she may have had an off day. like I said though, I was interested in the fact that two people had similar ideas]

for the record, I like BOTH Patti and Bernadette. is that even allowed?

---

There is no competition in my mind. Mendes' production was tighter, executed much more successfully, and did a phenomenonal job of both paying homage to previous incarnations of the show while putting its own twist on it.

I really thought Mendes' production was great and I loved Peters in it...

I think LuPone will still win the Best Actress Tony though...

I agree with the supporting cast statement. The Mendes revival had a very solid supporting cast. But this production has a better Herbie and a much better Louise. I do prefer Mendes' production more, though. It was just tighter and more focused and had...well, passion. Basically, if I could trade Blanchard for Benanti, Dossett for Gaines, and Reinders for a more toned down Larkin, Mendes' revival would've been set for me.

---

Well, Higgins, that's what makes horse races. Anyone else ever hear that expression? I hear it all the time from my family.

Anywho- It could be that I was just so excited to see a live production of Gypsy, with the exception of the Betty Buckley Papermill production (don't even get me started). I remember it being darker than any other incarnation I had seen (the Papermill production, the Roz movie, and the Midler TV movie) and that it was far more intense. There were times when the pace wasn't as fast as others, mainly in Act 2 (I remember the set change after the Gypsy/Rose confrontation was done very slowly). But I remember Act 1 being completely driven and focused and seeming like a train going at full speed. It also just felt much more real to me. Even though it was done in a presentational sort of way, the characters felt more like people in Mendes' production. They just felt more broad in Laurents' production. But that's something that I find Laurents' can fix, if he fixes it.

---

Puttng aside the casts for a minute (but ps: I MUCH prefer David Burtka to Tony Yazbeck)
The 2003 PRODUCTION seemed like a full blown Broadway musical.

The 2008 Revival seemed like summer stock with big stars in it.

I saw the show tonight and could not dissagree more that LuPone is just playing herself. I was SHOCKED how much her performance has grown. Her ROSE'S TURN is 10x more intense now. I couldn't believe it. Her Rose is perfectly developed and well rounded now.

Benanti was also stunning. Her performance also grew a lot. And Gaines and Larkin are still delivering great performances.


And why are people making such a big deal over this new ending? It was nothing major at all.

Also as others have mentioned...the smock with paint on it looks terrible for ROSE'S TURN. But it makes sense since she holds it during the "I had a dream" section of the number. Otherwise I love Patti's new costumes.

Yeah..the sets are ugly. But I'm over it. The performances are too strong to get upset over some cheap sets. The fantastic 25 piece orchestra (more then the 03 revival) also made up for the lack of sets.

Updated On: 3/25/08 at 01:47 AM