LuPone on Sondheim, ALW, Laurents, Prince and more- Page 2

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 3:24pm

Strange article that feels like Patti was assuming the full-on Patti LuPone persona just for the sake of a juicy interview. I can't argue with any of the above posters who find her rantings self-serving and victim-pleading.

It baffles me when I think back to the only time I actually met the woman in person, 3 years ago on a gay cruise in Tahiti. Any showqueen who wanted to sing back-up on 3 numbers of her show were invited to come to a rehearsal 2 days earlier. There was Patti herself, no makeup or wig, in a humble housecoat and slippers, completely unassuming and nurturing as any caring mom who wanted her charges to do the best they could. None of us were pros, but we all waded through our chorus parts on "Trouble", "Blow Gabriel Blow", and "Sit Down You're Rockin' the Boat" as best we could on first viewing. She patiently explained the context and motivation for each song with a lovely light touch, warm humor, and a pure love for the guys and girls amassed on the stage behind her. If someone suggested some improv choreography for the chorus, she was all for it. The night of the show (2 shows actually), we belted out our parts for all we were worth, to Patti's apparent delight and approval. She was way more than a diva throwing around her weight compelled by a crippling insecurity. She was a woman doing what she loved, and spreading that love to fill the room.

 

Updated On: 10/21/19 at 03:24 PM

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 4:16pm

BJR said: "Ravenclaw said: "The way you make a show better is by giving specific notes, not general shaming.

Correct.

Either none of you are directors, or would make very sh***y ones.

This is not how you speak to a company, and certainly not to a leading lady who need the confidence to carry the show every night.

For those bringing up Robbins or Fosse, spare me. The article interview explicitly discusseshow things were then and may be different now. Just because the behavior was commondoesn’t mean it wasn’t abusive."

By your logic, Robbins and Fosse were sh***y directors. Interesting. 

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 5:22pm

Ravenclaw said “ I think a lot of people are quick to judge the star for performing "diva behavior" without looking at all the surrounding circumstances.“

No, I think you’re incorrect I don’t think that people are doing that. This “diva behavior” you mention is coming from someone who, in every single situation, regardless of circumstances paints herself as the victim. Considering that she has always blamed others for her wrongdoings, she looses credibility and whatever the circumstances are in a given situation become invalid.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 11:30pm

Mike Barrett said: "Ive never seen her live but if I haven't heard she's one of the most talented actresses to ever grace Broadway id never go see Company. Just a plain old, mean, and rotten women. I have no respect for people who take their insecurities and push it onto others as deflection. I believe thats the exact definition of a bully, too!"

Try to set your knowledge of her personality aside. She's already played Joanne at the NY Philharmonic, which was filmed and shown all over the country, and she really IS that good in the role. In my experience--and my experience includes a dozen or more productions, including original Broadway run, national tour, etc. and so forth--Miss LuPone seems to be the first lady who realizes "Ladies Who Lunch" is written with a Latin beat.

LuPone may not be a nice woman, but neither is the character she plays in COMPANY. Don't let the personal stuff spoil what could be a wonderful experience.

***

As for the "Prince incident", it's no worse than stories I've heard about a lot of directors. That being said, either Prince or LuPone could have stopped the argument at any time by saying, "Well, regardless of how the blocking was changed, this is what we are doing now."

[BJR]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 11:38pm

joevitus said: "By your logic, Robbins and Fosse were sh***y directors. Interesting."

It’s 2019. And they’re dead.

Their behavior was common at the time but that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable or defensible. (Many took issue at the time, too.) Defending it now betrays a poor understanding and approach to directing now. 

[Lot666]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 8:31am

Ravenclaw said: "Sure, Patti's memoir puts her as the victim in most of her stories (honestly, if you wrote a memoir, I'm sure most of you would do the same)"

No. Why do you think "most of [us]" would describe ourselves as lifelong victims? 

Ravenclaw said: "I wonder if some of her words would be received differently if they were coming from a man?"

No. Regardless of gender, if a person persistently beats the "everyone hates to work with me/thinks I'm a b*tch" drum, perhaps it's time to consider why everyone hates you and perceives you in that way.

[Mike Barrett]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 8:57am

GavestonPS said: "Mike Barrett said: "Ive never seen her live but if I haven't heard she's one of the most talented actresses to ever grace Broadway id never go see Company. Just a plain old, mean, and rotten women. I have no respect for people who take their insecurities and push it onto others as deflection. I believe thats the exact definition of a bully, too!"

Try to set your knowledge of her personality aside. She's already played Joanne at the NY Philharmonic, which was filmed and shown all over the country, and she really IS that good in the role. In my experience--and my experience includes a dozen or more productions, including original Broadway run, national tour, etc. and so forth--Miss LuPone seems to be the first lady who realizes "Ladies Who Lunch" is written with a Latin beat.

LuPone may not be a nice woman, but neither is the character she plays in COMPANY. Don't let the personal stuff spoil what could be a wonderful experience.

***

As for the "Prince incident", it's no worse than stories I've heard about a lot of directors. That being said, either Princeor LuPone could have stopped the argument at any time by saying, "Well, regardless of how the blocking was changed, this is what we are doing now.""

Oh ill be able too, I'm not worried. I think its more that I have no real interest in supporting her since her behavior seems to be just utterly ridiculous. Just my opinion on the matter, certainly doesn't mean she can't be a terrific actress. 

[AADA81]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 11:40am

The article/interview wasn't as bad as I was expecting, after having read this thread.  I thought her remarks about her own diction issues were humorous and I didn't have an issue with what she said about Hal Prince.  She had a negative experience with him.  It's theater; it happens.  She does tend to harp on ALW, whom many people have had negative experiences with, but that seems to come with the territory now.  Lupone is a character, an eccentric.  Always has been; always will be.  Nothing wrong with that, at least not to me.  She brings her all to the stage and that's what's important.

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 12:29pm

BJR said: "joevitus said: "By your logic, Robbins and Fosse were sh***y directors. Interesting."

It’s 2019. And they’re dead.

Theirbehavior was common at the time but that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable or defensible. (Manytook issue at the time, too.) Defending it now betrays a poorunderstanding andapproach to directing now."

So you think West Side Story and Chicago were poorly directed because the directors were sometimes mean? That sounds like more of a poor understand and approach to directing than anything I said. 

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 9:40pm

They can create amazing art on a stage and still be considered “bad directors” in the approach they take to get there. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

[massofmen]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 9:42pm

patti lupone has never done a scene with another actor on stage. She just does monologues and other actors happen to have lines that interrupt hers. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 9:50pm

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "They can create amazing art on a stage and still be considered “bad directors” in the approach they take to get there. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive."

No, if they create amazing art on stage, they are good directors. That's what a good director does. 

[Miserent]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 10:04pm

Patti and the interviewer both discuss how they don’t understand why Evita was telling her people not to cry/weep for her because it doesn’t make sense in the context of the show...am I only one who believes that “don’t cry for me” means “don’t call my name out/cry my name” and not “don’t shed tears for me”? I mean “don’t call out for me because I never truly left you” makes a hell of a lot more sense, no?

[morosco]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 10:14pm

....am I only one who believes that “don’t cry for me” means “don’t call my name out/cry my name” and not “don’t shed tears for me”?

I've always assumed that was the meaning. After all, the crowd is indeed crying out, "Evita! Evita! Evita! Evita!" just before she appears and sings the song.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 10:29pm

Miserent said: "Patti and the interviewer both discuss how they don’t understand why Evita was telling her people not to cry/weep for her because it doesn’t make sense in the context of the show...am I only one who believes that “don’t cry for me” means “don’t call my name out/cry my name” and not “don’t shed tears for me”? I mean “don’t call out for me because I never truly left you” makes a hell of a lot more sense, no?"

I love her with all my heart, but Patti not understanding this lyric was a little embarrassing to read.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 10:37pm

Mike Barrett said: "Oh ill be able too, I'm not worried. I think its more that I have no real interest in supporting her since her behavior seems to be just utterly ridiculous. Just my opinion on the matter, certainly doesn't mean she can't be a terrific actress."

Glad to hear it. My husband worked in Prince's office during the EVITA years AFTER LuPone had left. He's never really been able to experience her work since without attaching all the baggage of the negative stories he heard about her in the office (not from Prince himself, but from others). Which is a shame, because she really is THAT good--much better than she was in the early preview of EVITA that I saw.

My strongest memory of an earlier show--WORKING--is not any of the big, razzle-dazzle numbers, but of a quiet monologue (no singing) by LuPone as a prostitute.

[green waver]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 11:08pm

 I so wish she had taken the high road and passed on telling the Prince story. Rehashing a 40 year old incident(that , if truth be told, sounds extremely trivial with a bit of distance) just makes her sound petty and vindictive.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 11:49pm

She is delusional and disgusting

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 2:11am

TotallyEffed said: "Miserent said: "Patti and the interviewer both discuss how they don’t understand why Evita was telling her people not to cry/weep for her because it doesn’t make sense in the context of the show...am I only one who believes that “don’t cry for me” means “don’t call my name out/cry my name” and not “don’t shed tears for me”? I mean “don’t call out for me because I never truly left you” makes a hell of a lot more sense, no?"

I love her with all my heart, but Patti not understanding this lyric was a little embarrassing to read."

Actually, even Michael Walsh, a friend of ALW and author of Andrew Lloyd Webber: His Life and Works says the line makes no sense.

The backstory is that when making the original concept album, the line originally recorded for the Act 2 balcony scene was "It's only your lover returning," but it just didn't work, even though that's the metaphor running through the whole song ("The truth is I never left you...I kept my promise/Don't keep your distance". So, Rice and Lloyd Webber had Julie Covington re-record the line as "All through my crazy and wild days," but they decided that was even worse. Then they remembered the lyric sung during the show's opening and at the radio broadcast near the end: "Don't cry for me, Argentina." Covington was brought in again, dubbed that into the balcony scene, and the song reached its final form. It doesn't make sense. Eva's neither dead nor dying nor even mildly unhappy in that scene. But it doesn't matter. It works.

It's up to anyone to give the line whatever meaning they choose. LuPone isn't daffy for never really getting what it was supposed to mean because, in a literal sense, it doesn't mean anything. Though my guess is that she did figure out a meaning to the lyric that worked for her--she just likes to badmouth ALW (though in this instance, she's actually badmouthing Tim Rice).

[JBC3]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 5:38am

She's been called sassy, brassy, bold, and a diva for so long, I sometimes wonder if she plays to the hype. Is she playing a bit of a character or revealing her true character?

[bryan2]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 7:22am

The ALW hatred is so tired....you were let go because financially it made more sense to bring in a guaranteed great reviewed star ..Patti did not get great reviews from the American press and Glenn got raves ..does Patti forget this is a business...as far as Barbara releasing the songs first LUPONE-STREISAND hello what is she nuts ...does she really think her screaming the songs can compare to the beautiful renditions Streisand sang not to mention SHE IS STREISAND...Patti hated Paul Servino during The Bakers Wife because he was happy ..and tried to rally the troups...that sums her up..... She is such a bitter person...1/2 empty Patti...

 

[BJR]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 7:45am

Rice has also said the song is meant to make no sense. It's a collection of cliches strung together.

But that's challenging for a actor to play - it's one-note, at best - and probably why the song is rarely dramatically effective outside of context, IMO. LuPone's interpretation was one of the more impassioned versions, believing each cliche with so full emotion, that it felt like that love affair Webber and Rice would after originally. 

[BJR]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 7:52am

joevitus said: "GiantsInTheSky2 said: "No, if they create amazing art on stage, they are good directors. That's what a good director does."

This is where I disagree. A director is both an artist and a manager, of sorts. There's product and process. Nowadays especially (and this was my original point), a director is expected to create that product through a process that at least doesn't break harassment laws (which didn't even exist in Robbins' and Fosse's day) and hopefully is so non-abusive that it creates an environment in which artists feels supported to create and challenge themselves and an audience.

Is every director who is successful at the product successful at the process? No. And trust me, when they aren't, folks talk about it. But especially today, it's both jobs.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 8:15am

Exactly what BJR said.

One director can create wonderful art, and do so by supporting his company and keeping up moral in a creative environment. Another director can create art that is just as wonderful, but through harsh and stifling practices that don’t make actors feel wanted or appreciated, and sometimes harassed.

The latter is not a good director.

[green waver]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 9:14am

JBC3 said: "She's been called sassy, brassy, bold, and a diva for so long, I sometimes wonder if she plays to the hype. Is she playing a bit of a character or revealing her true character?"

 I definitely think your'e on to something, coming on as a no bull**** tell-it- like - it -is broad  IS playing to a type, and helps make her a more marketable commodity.