LuPone's lead-in to Rose's Turn - is this really how she was???- Page 3

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 3:54pm

JG2, that actually weirdly makes sense.

I make no secret of my admiration for her work, but when I DON'T like it--man, I REALLY don't like it!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 3:58pm

It seems so freaky in a business populated with what I generically think of as Carnegie Mellon Automatons that an artist can stir up mixed emotions in an audience, including her fans.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 4:39pm

"But what you're doing here, Besty, is the equivalent of claiming that Callas, even at her best, was never any good at all."

Completely not true and a big assumption on your part, PJ. "Probably just to win an argument."

I have seen Patti live several times, just not in her recent turn in "Gypsy." None of my posts were generalizations about LuPone. They all had to do with this thread, this role, this subject, and this video clip.

I have seen her be brilliant live, and I have seen her walk through a performance and be dull and pretty awful. But when she was "on" she was magnificent. Particularly a few decades ago.

Updated On: 6/21/11 at 04:39 PM

[binau]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 5:01pm

givesmevoice, I think you've gotten the wrong impression about me and LuPone. I love everything about her - including things like this - I love listening to her recordings and even though her concert was very boring I don't regret paying >$100, and still had a good time. I would pay it again! LuPone is a true star and such an interesting person, I would see her in anything she did on Broadway and buy any cast recording with her in it.

I hope one day she does a benefit concert of GYPSY, so I can see her in the role.

Updated On: 6/21/11 at 05:01 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 8:36pm

What was the question?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 8:43pm

To be, or not to be.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 9:13pm

YAWN! Are you people going to keep on talking about this....for real, it's been about 15 years since this production closed, move on. (/sarcasm)

Posted: 6/21/11 at 9:33pm

I am sure she was brilliant live, and it sounds liek this captured one of her most over the top performances, but I have to say that clip is MARVELOUS--and from the angle it's shot it looks like she's about to tumble over when she waves her hands in the air. Can't stop watching.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 9:38pm

And of course to add to the "dueling Roses" debate is the difference between Patti's performance at Ravinia and on Broadway. I for one enjoyed her far more in the concert production at Ravinia. Maybe it was the shorter rehearsal/run (thus not giving her the chance to mine every depth of the character), but she felt far more at ease there in the role as opposed to on Broadway where, using Best12's term, I definitely felt she was going for the "most" acting award.

It was a thrilling performance to see live, but, to be honest, I was not inspired to rush back and catch it multiple times, despite the show being one of my favorites.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 10:17pm

"(thus not giving her the chance to mine every depth of the character)"

So mining the depth of the character is a negative thing?

I'm thinking there are a lot of "Merman in the same exact spot, facing front, giving the exact same performance every time" fans here.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 10:29pm

To clarify, finding all the depths is not a bad thing, but throwing everything you find onstage all at once can be. As I said, I preferred the performance at Ravinia over the one she gave on Broadway. I felt the choices she made in that concert production were much more meaningful and powerful. I cared about the Rose I saw there. The Rose I saw on Broadway had few redeeming qualities and left me feeling far more sorry for the people around her than I felt for her. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it can be easily argued that Rose is a monster/bulldozer, but I prefer a more human Rose.

For as much as I enjoyed the Broadway production part of me was disappointed because I had seen Patti turn in what I felt was a stronger performance several years earlier.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 10:33pm

givesmevoice, I think you've gotten the wrong impression about me and LuPone. I love everything about her - including things like this - I love listening to her recordings and even though her concert was very boring I don't regret paying >$100, and still had a good time. I would pay it again! LuPone is a true star and such an interesting person, I would see her in anything she did on Broadway and buy any cast recording with her in it.

Well I never would've guessed that based on what you've said about her on this board in the past.

[BenjaminNicholas2]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 11:25pm

Many who rant against LuPone never even saw her during the run. I've seen Tyne, Buckley, Peters, LuPone and Bette Midler (who did a few numbers at a private industry function) and in my own opinion, I think LuPone and Tyne were best.

The amazing thing about LuPone's Rose is that it changed nightly. It was never set in stone. Sometimes it was angry. Sometimes it was passive. All over the place. That I liked because I never knew what to expect.


If you make judgements strictly on that crappy online video, then you're seriously discounting everything else in her performance that led up to that point. Next time, try seeing the actual show and making an informed statement.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 11:29pm

Besty has noted the two big schools of theatre present in our American mainstream: Do we watch ourselves onstage and do something exactly the same? Or do we just "wing" it, and be as alive as possible?

That seems to be the debate. I'm just going to share what I prefer, because I really want to participate in this discussion:

I find that present, alive, and truly spontaneous actors are far more interesting. They are not watching themselves every step of the way... But the best of those are the ones that find a balance, where they can feel 8, but show 10. So they watch themselves a bit... they find a balance of presence in the role, and the artist still being able to craft.

I believe, personally, that theatre should be spontaneous (truly). It's alive, real, palpable. Film is the same every time, theatre is not (to me there isn't much point in seeing a live show if it's exactly the same night after night...I should want to return).

I suppose my philosophy stems from the naturalists, most notably Strindberg. In his preface to "Miss Julie," he noted that he wanted the actors to paraphrase the words of their monologues because only they could truly know the exact needs and processes of order that were called for on a particular night. The writer, to Strindberg, provides a map for the actor who is actually there. He cannot ever know what will be needed for individual audiences. A lot of power for an actor, for sure.

My stemming is just that...stemming, loosely based. In today's age, I see the need to follow the text (unless I were to do "Miss Julie", because I'd certainly respect the wishes of the playwright). I believe that through working specifically through rehearsal, the show becomes so ingrained in the body that it can be played with and tweaked (within reason of the direction) at each performance. The show can then be more than a long-running war-horse, and instead a living, breathing thing that continues to shift and move. To me, I should want to go back to a show over and over to see what tomorrow will bring. What does the show mean TODAY, to THIS particular audience? And how can the actors make the audience rise to the occasion, rather than passively watching the show through an imaginary window, needing to be pampered?

Updated On: 6/21/11 at 11:29 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 11:36pm

"To me, I should want to go back to a show over and over to see what tomorrow will bring"

That has come up before, and I don't necessarily see why that is any factor at all. I have friends who like a movie a lot but their criticism is "I'm not going to see it again." I don't get it. Again, I guess it's the way Americans vote now, by making a purchase. Or not.

Lord knows, many things reward repeat viewings, but I find I prefer to make my assessment based on the show I saw. Is this a particularly American contemporary thing? Is it the cultural off-spring of The Rocky Horror Picture Show?


Read more: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?page=3&thread=1033629&boardname=&boardid=1#ixzz1PyLIOPJJ

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 11:49pm

Let me clarify how I feel about return visits:

I can be satisfied with seeing a show ONCE and personally finding it amazing. I don't need to have to go back to think it was exciting theatre. I'm getting to the point where I can feel spontaneous vs heady energy from the get-go.

I suppose what I really mean to write is that I could want to go back because it would be enlightening to see it again... it would not be stagnant theatre.

And a film can be seen many times and be enjoyable, but it is the same, no question. YOU may change, the viewer, and that can be exciting over time.

Thanks for pointing out your thoughts on it... it helped clarify my word choice better.

Updated On: 6/21/11 at 11:49 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/21/11 at 11:52pm

I see what you're saying, gracias.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/22/11 at 6:44am

I think you're mixing up repetition with the appearance of a lack of spontaneity. If an actor is doing it right, it WILL seem spontaneous, whether it actually is or isn't. And you, as an audience member, won't be able to tell the difference from a single viewing.

There will be nothing "stagnant" about the performance, if the actor is good.

If you see shows multiple times and want to be surprised by watching something you didn't see the last time, that's another thing.

Updated On: 6/22/11 at 06:44 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/11 at 8:33am

most notably Strindberg. In his preface to "Miss Julie," he noted that he wanted the actors to paraphrase the words of their monologues

As far as I'm concerned, Strindberg can only be bettered by paraphrase.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 6/22/11 at 8:57am

If you see shows multiple times and want to be surprised by watching something you didn't see the last time, that's another thing.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't know if I'd say I was surprised by anything Patti did differently. I've been trying to figure out how best to phrase it, but I guess I would say that she's making the same trip (often the same route) with different stops. Because I've never felt like the arc was different, maybe just moments within that arc. Or what she chose to emphasize.