Question about all the GYPSY revivals — Page 2

No. I think anyone even remotely familiar with Laurents knew damn well that his goal in both of those revivals was to feed his own ego. He Was many things, but stupid isn’t one.. and he knows in a musical, the score has to come off well to in order for the book to fly...

I saw both revivals more than once. I walked away with the same impression - Laurents had a palpable resentment of his original collaborators and the fact thawing success outshined his own great achievement on both shows and you could feel it on the stage in both productions.

That said, both productions were half assed and misguided by the librettist / director’s goal but a handful of people gave REALLY stellar performances in both that stick with me to this day, while others pained me to watch because he threw talented people to the wolves where they did not belong,

David10086 said: "


Glenn Close would have been an interesting choice and could have revived the box office, too.

Glenn Close could never sing the role!

I saw both revivals more than once. I walked away with the same impression - Laurents had a palpable resentment of his original collaborators and the fact thawing success outshined his own great achievement on both shows and you could feel it on the stage in both productions.


Not inaccurate. Both the GYPSY and WEST SIDE STORY revivals were fueled by his resentment that Jerry Robbins was, despite his difficult personality, still being hailed as a genius even after his death, and that Sondheim had become a beloved, grand old man who eclipsed his old collab. and mentor from the old days. Arthur's been dead for nearly a decade. The subtext was all there in the Jesse Green piece in Vulture, and with time to ponder, it's become more apparent.

HOWEVER... LuPone, Benanti and Boyd Gaines were absolutely stunning in GYPSY, deserving of their accolades, and even if some of Laurents' choices were...peculiar, or slaps in the face to Robbins and Sondheim (and Styne, for that matter)... it was a memorable, magic production. I saw it four times.

For whatever reason, the old queen bitchery escaped Lenny. But boy did he have issues with Jerry and Steve.

jv92 said: "
I saw both revivals more than once. I walked away with the same impression - Laurents had a palpable resentment of his original collaborators and the fact thawing success outshined his own great achievement on both shows and you could feel it on the stage in both productions.


Not inaccurate. Both the GYPSY and WEST SIDE STORY revivals were fueled by his resentment that Jerry Robbins was, despite his difficult personality, still being hailed as a genius even after his death, and that Sondheim had become a beloved, grand old man who eclipsed his old collab. and mentor from the old days. Arthur's been dead for nearly a decade. The subtext was all there in the Jesse Green piece in Vulture, and with time to ponder, it's become more apparent.

HOWEVER... LuPone, Benanti and Boyd Gaines were absolutely stunning in GYPSY, deserving of their accolades, and even if some of Laurents' choices were...peculiar, or slaps in the face to Robbins and Sondheim (and Styne, for that matter)... it was a memorable, magic production. I saw it four times.

For whatever reason, the old queen bitchery escaped Lenny. But boy did he have issues with Jerry and Steve.


"

What was Laurents' issue with Sondheim?

A Director said: "I just watched Bernadette and Patti sing Rose's Turn. Bernadette was wonderful playing different levels. She was scary. Patti was angry from beginning to end, all on one level. "Stop acting Patti." With Bernadette, I saw a character. With Patti, I saw Patti doing a lot beginning acting crap. She wrestled the song to the mat and left it in a heap."

You’ve been bashing Patti on this board since the day you joined. It sounds like your describing Imelda’s interpretation

jv92 said: "
I saw both revivals more than once. I walked away with the same impression - Laurents had a palpable resentment of his original collaborators and the fact thawing success outshined his own great achievement on both shows and you could feel it on the stage in both productions.


Not inaccurate. Both the GYPSY and WEST SIDE STORY revivals were fueled by his resentment that Jerry Robbins was, despite his difficult personality, still being hailed as a genius even after his death, and that Sondheim had become a beloved, grand old man who eclipsed his old collab. and mentor from the old days. Arthur's been dead for nearly a decade. The subtext was all there in the Jesse Green piece in Vulture, and with time to ponder, it's become more apparent.

HOWEVER... LuPone, Benanti and Boyd Gaines were absolutely stunning in GYPSY, deserving of their accolades, and even if some of Laurents' choices were...peculiar, or slaps in the face to Robbins and Sondheim (and Styne, for that matter)... it was a memorable, magic production. I saw it four times.

For whatever reason, the old queen bitchery escaped Lenny. But boy did he have issues with Jerry and Steve.


"

100%. 100%.

LuPone, Benanti, and Gaines were fantastic. To my mind, Benanti was the strongest of the three. I also felt that Leigh Anne Larkin was a superb June - the bitter darkness really worked for me.


And yes, that resentment just woven through everything and was SO apparent. Prime point: the adapted choreography for West Side Story that failed a wonderful group of dancers and was left to hobble on the bodies of incapable casting in certain roles... It is not Karen Olivo’s fault, and congrats on the award, but she had no business playing Anita.

A Director said: "I just watched Bernadette and Patti sing Rose's Turn. Bernadette was wonderful playing different levels. She was scary. Patti was angry from beginning to end, all on one level. "Stop acting Patti." With Bernadette, I saw a character. With Patti, I saw Patti doing a lot beginning acting crap. She wrestled the song to the mat and left it in a heap."

Yet she won the Tony and Bernadette lost to Marissa Jaret Winokur

east side story said: "Arthur was always jealous of Steve’s success."

And that it was with Hal Prince and other people, not Arthur. The whole thing is very f*cked up. With Robbins it was fueled by HUAC, which is understandable, but the pettiness Arthur felt towards Steve professionally, and bringing it out in public every time a reporter asked him, was cruel. Sondheim finally had to say enough was enough towards the end.

The Vulture piece really has only made more sense with time. One of Laurents' ex-friends (not Mary Rodgers, of course) compares his behavior then to Rose at the end of GYPSY shouting "When is it MY turn!?" and "For me! For me!"

But his pen was AFLAME when he wrote GYPSY. They all were rolling, they got it written in four months, and it's not like they were grand old experienced musical theater hands and only people of their experience could pull that off.. It was Laurents' second musical, Sondheim's second at just twenty-eight, and Jule Styne had never written a really serious, dramatic musical play before. Something just... clicked.

David10086 said: "Hard to believe they were each working on their second musical and came up with a masterpiece like GYPSY."

I do want to clarify that Jule Styne had written the music for HIGH BUTTON SHOES, a good portion of PETER PAN with Mary Martin, and of course, BELLS ARE RINGING among others, and that's nothing to slouch at. Certainly there are moments of tenderness and melancholy in BELLS ARE RINGING, but nothing quite as, god forgive me for using this term, "integrated" and dramatic as GYPSY. I think he was really stimulated by the material, and by his collaborators.

Laurents, too, was a seasoned playwright and screenwriter. But I don't think anything in his body of work (including WSS) matches GYPSY. He just was firing on all cylinders.

Sondheim has said GYPSY was the show where he finally came of age as a lyric writer and felt unhindered by inexperience, age and seniority. Bernstein tended to argue over every line he wrote and as happy a collaboration and friendship that was, Lenny sometimes behaved more pontifically than collaboratively with this brilliant young man.

So there's no denying they all were skilled and talented and enjoyed working together. But something clicked. Aren't we lucky?

BJR said: "Responding to the OP, yes, mainly it was a question of money. GYPSY is a very large and expensive show. Big casts, often a big orchestra. And by the time the 03 and 08 productions were ending, they weren't raking it in. (Patti's closed early in that famously bloody January during the Great Recession, which is also why we sadly lost the chance to have it be Patti's Rose filmed, as opposed to Imelda's.)

Worth pointing out the 08 revival was a bit more shoestring, since it was based on the Encores staging. I could've seen another actress in the 03 production, but even brilliantly acted and directed the 08 production was, it was all about the stars, not the production and design.

I also think finding replacements would be a tall order, especially one that could bring in the box office. As much as I wanted this last HELLO, DOLLY to run years with a string a stars, most couldn't bring in the $1 million you need to make DOLLY profitable."

The kind of interesting thing about the 2008 revival, though, is because like you say, it was a pared-down Encores based staging, which in theory meant it was significantly cheaper to keep running than some of the other revivals (the same reason Chicago has been able to run for so long, even though their box office receipts for the past ten years haven't blown anyone out of the water). Now, as I mentioned in an earlier post, that production was also doomed by the recession, so makes perfect sense it closed. But as far as just pure running costs, if any Gypsy production was going to keep running longer, this seems like the one that would have been able to do it, had it maybe opened in 2011 instead of 2008.

qolbinau said: "Even if it was a lower cost productionwith the amount of children involved, large cast, orchestra etc. I don't think it would have been 'cheap', as such."

Oh no, it was hardly a cheap production by any means, just "cheaper" than some of the others. I agree it would be near impossible to keep a revival running once the original star goes for all those aforementioned reasons, just if any Gypsy revival was going to make it, I could see it being that one (again, had it not been for the economic circumstances surrounding Broadway in general that time).

Buy them, but recognize them as merely opinions or only one side of the story, respectively, and take them with as much proverbial salt as you'd apply to, say, a Michael Riedel column.