Mendes-Peters GYPSY

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 6:52pm

I recently read Arthur Laurents' new book Mainly on Directing and enjoyed it; however I still can't get my head around what was so disastrous about the 2003 revival of GYPSY. I'm sorry to bring it up again, but can people who saw this so-called "awful" revival please explain why Mendes destroyed it, what he did to deserve the abuse, and what Peters was like in the role of Rose. Why was this production so bad?

Thanks a lot!

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 6:55pm

Arthur hated the production because Mendes turned it into a "concept musical."

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 6:55pm

Oh, Lord. People feel as strongly over this as they do over a womans right to choose.

Personally I hated her in the role. She was like a little girl playing dress up and acting like a big girl. That said, I saw it early in the run and hear she really evolved with it as time went on. I'm positive you'll hear more people talk about how amazing she was once that happened.

[sing_dance_love]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 7:11pm

What was Mendes' "concept" for the show?

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 7:12pm

Her performance of Rose's Turn at the Tonys is my favorite recorded version of the song, but I never saw the show. But I imagine Laurents hated it because he's Arthur Laurents.

[James885]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 7:27pm

I saw it about 2 months before it closed and Bernadette blew me away but as Jordan said, by that time she had fully settled into the role. I had never seen Gypsy before that so I had nothing to compare it to. I remember Her Small World reprise as being particularly touching.

Physically it was a very bare-bones production. Many of the scenes, like the train station at the end of Act 1 and the Chinese restaurant, were created with the use of only a few props and set pieces. Almost all the set pieces were moved by stagehands in costume. However, two aspects of the scenic design that I liked was the false proscenium that allowed the audience to see Rose in the 'wings' during June's numbers and the light-up marquees that appeared during Rose's Turn. Tammy Blanchard was serviceable as Louise although I liked Benanti better, and John Dossett's Herbie excellent. I personally had no qualms with Mendes' direction, but I'm a pretty easy person to please and I don't claim to be an expert in that field.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/5/10 at 11:57pm

The genius set designer Boris Aronson once described Arthur Laurents's Secret to Life as (1) always have a Villain to blame things on and (2) always have a Victim to punish.

When the Villain and the Victim can be made to be the same person, Aronson explained, Arthur is at his most happiest.

When it came to the 2003 revival, Bernadette was miscast and quite bad in the role until she had been playing it for several months. But Arthur had signed off on her casting, so he couldn't blame her.

Sam Mendes was the obvious choice for both Villain AND Victim. Poor Sam Mendes had no idea what was about to hit him. Hell hath no fury like Arthur Laurents on a tear.

Given that Mendes had made a few bona fide directorial missteps, and given that Arthur had directed the production himself before, Arthur set about a campaign to undercut Mendes's authority in the production and impugn his talent and integrity in the eyes of the cast, the producers, the New York theater world and the industry press.

The campaign worked, and Arthur's acting notes started filtering in to the cast. As Bernadette became more self-assured in the role (although still miscast), Arthur delighted in telling one and all, "Sam nearly RUINED her performance until I came in and saved it."

But 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. Arthur would give Sam notes after the previews.

(Forgive me if I've told this story on BWW a dozen or so times before.)

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."

Who knows what evil lurks in the hear of Arthur Laurents? Yr pal Joey does.

Updated On: 8/5/10 at 11:57 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 12:00am

Arthur was very kind to Bernadette in his DIRECTING book. He said her performance definitely came together by the end.

They still have a good relationship, right? Did I read here once that he ultimately turned her against Mendes? I may have completely made that up, lol.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 1:00am

There was nothing "wrong" with Peters or the production. She was criticized for the fact that she was unlike any Rose before her, but I found her to be very effective (albeit different) in the role. IMO, she was every bit as wonderful as LuPone. I thought Blanchard was very good as Louise (what's she doing now, BTW?) but Benanti was a revelation. Dossett and Gaines both made excellent Herbies. The rest of LuPone's ensemble was slightly stronger than Peters', but Mendes put together a more visually appealing production than Laurents. If Mendes' production was bare-bones, Laurents' was just bones.
All in all, Mendes' production may not have pleased the traditionalists, but to those for whom it was the first exposure to Gypsy (like me), it was phenomenal and will always have a place in my heart.

[misto625]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 1:27am

My first exposure to Gypsy was the TV movie version starring Bette Midler as Rose, but my first live production of Gypsy was the Bernadette Peters revival, and that production still stands out as better to me than the Patti LuPone revival, although I agree Laura Benanti was better than Tammy Blanchard.

[binau]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:18am

I love that in his book Laurents complains about problematic scenes in the Mendes-GYPSY as a result of no walls. Then he directs LUPONE!GYPSY with no walls. And he 'solves' the 'problem' by cutting the scene. Nice. (was it the hotel room scene?)

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:22am

I almost was going to check out Mainly on Directing out of morbid curiosity, but then I finally saw his West Side Story revival last week. There are so many unbelievably bad decisions in that production, I don't care how old the man is, it's inexcusable.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 2:24am

He didn't cut the entire hotel scene. He cut the faux rape. Another notable cut was the "Small World" reprise. That cut made complete sense. Patti's Rose would never have sat there harping on Herbie's walkout, she was too determined to get Louise on that stage.

This person makes note of all alterations done to the script by Laurents.

http://www.theatreaficionado.com/2009/01/cut-from-the-2008-gypsy.html

Updated On: 8/6/10 at 02:24 AM

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 7:17am

The alterations made by Laurents are lamentable. His original script makes Rose ultimately a more sensitive person after all. The reprise of "Small World" shows this sensitivity as she cries to herself when Herbie walks out; for me it is essential to a more well rounded character. Then, too, at the end of Act Two, she recovers from her soliloquy of madness in "Rose's Turn", then Louise and Rose make up and walk off together into the wings, as the orchestra plays the last notes of "Everything's Coming Up Roses" for you and for me. I'll take Laurents's first version over his revised vision of the ever mad, ever troubled Rose. For, ultimately Rose is a survivor, in her complete through-line.

Updated On: 8/6/10 at 07:17 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 8:02am

The alterations Laurents made to Gypsy may have been lamentable, but the alterations Laurents made to West Side Story were despicable: all meant to diminish the contributions of his collaborators while boosting his own.

Updated On: 8/6/10 at 08:02 AM

[D2]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 8:58am

It's a pity, too, because in the case of WEST SIDE STORY his collaborators' contributions were far stronger than his.

As for the Mendes GYPSY, I'm in the camp that preferred that production (and Peter's Rose) over the most recent revival.

Updated On: 8/6/10 at 08:58 AM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 10:08am

What were the changes that he made to WSS? Unfortunately, this was my first experience with the actual show (not the movie). I thought the cartoony design was completely inappropriate for the "grittier" tone they seemed to be going for and full of cheap, ugly choices. The Spanish didn't make anything feel more real, it constantly called attention to itself, especially when they had to keep stopping to say important lines in English. It only pointed out the artifice of the show. The whole thing moved so haltingy, and all of the book scenes were almost unintelligible. And what the hell was with that 10-year-old in a hoodie coming onstage to sing "Somwhere" and be touched by Josefina Scaglione?

That's what I thought as a stranger to the show, thinking I'd enjoy it (because honestly, I loved the Gypsy revival). I'm curious as to what he cut.
Updated On: 8/6/10 at 10:08 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 10:19am

The most notable cut is the "Nightmare" section of the ballet. He's discussed his reasoning for it, but I'm too lazy to search for it right now. And he again made some line alterations throughout. He cut the "rape underscoring" - but that is a choice I kind of grew to like. He changed the staging of the final scene, leaving them all on stage.

I think that's most of it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 10:45am

And don't forget that it was also his decision to diminish the power of the dancing in both the Dance at the Gym and "America."

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 10:51am

Arthur Laurents is just an unhappy man with an ax to grind. He lives to make others feel lousy. He must somehow get his kicks out of it. I had never seen Gypsy before and I loved the Mendes version. I also loved the Laurents revival. I think both Patti and Bernadette did amazing and very different work. Who wants cookie cutter revivals? I dont. Interestingly enough, I think Sam thought his version was dark, but to me, Patti delivered a darker performance.

I remember interviews with Laurents when the Peters revival opened and he said that Rose was tiny and attractive in real life and Peters was the first woman to play the part that was tiny and attractive (nice dig to previous Roses). He's just so mean on so many levels. I really feel for people he has laid into-he's pretty cruel.

[backwoodsbarbie]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:02am

I always find it funny when actors (namely Olivo, Benanti, and LuPone) speak so highly of Laurents, even though we all knew he has probably ripped them all a new ***hole on many occasions for no apparent reason.

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:20am

Has anyone read Arthur Laurents' liner notes on the 1989 Broadway Revival Cast Recording of Gypsy? That pretty much explains his attitude to himself, his collaboraters and "his" show. I want to know why Jerome Robbins doesn't get credited more. Not just with this show, but with some of his other iconic shows too. Shows that perhaps would have become so iconic had it not been for his input.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:22am

Also, Laurents kissed Matt Cavanaughs hiney in the beginning of WSS, buying him gifts and dinners and now he is persona non grata. No idea what happened there.

To quote Ouiser from Steel Magnolias in regards to Laurents, "people are only nice to me because I have more money than god." In Laurents case, it is power he has and actors are playing nice.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:22am

Because Arthur is still alive and is rewriting history to make himself more prominent in it. Much like Stritch has done to make herself a living legend.

[Brick]

Posted: 8/6/10 at 11:25am

"Much like Stritch has done to make herself a living legend."

Talk about an unnecessary dig.