Recent GYPSY revival - Controversial?

In the Playbill article about Sam Mendes direction THE VERTICAL HOUR, it says:

"The work, The Vertical Hour, will be directed by Sam Mendes, in his first Broadway foray since piloting the controversial Bernadette Peters revival of Gypsy."

What was so controversial about it?
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/98620.html

It wasn't controversial in an outrageous moral issue sort of way, I'm sure they're just referring to Peter's casting and how different her Rose was from all those before her.

---

I don't know anyone who changed their mind about Bernadette after the reviews came out.

People who didn't like her, didn't like her - no matter what anyone (particularly Ben Brantley) said.

---

Rose has traditionally been cast with actresses who played her as a big, loud, asexual battle-ax who steamrolls her way through life. Peters -- a small woman -- played her more coquettish and demure who gets her way through charm and sex appeal, as much as through bossiness and being domineering.

Also, many disagreed whether Peters was an ideal fit for the role. Some thought she was a revelation. Others found her not to be an ideal match for the role. She struggled to sing the legendarily difficult score at times and seemed overmatched by the role's demands. The controversy, in part, led to Peters losing the Tony for Best Actress to Marissa Jaret Winkur of Hairspray, who's role certainly wasn't as difficult, but it fit her like a glove.

---

I hated her, and I mean HATED, but I think it was that she wast just off that night, because everybody I was with hated her as well. I hope she had better days.

I agree, but let's NOT get into this again...

---

Peters missed 4 performances in previews due to throat problems and then after opening night later in the run missed one or two to be with her (now sadly late) husband after he had surgery. Really an exemplary attendance record for such a difficult role and one that Riedel should be ashamed for trying to mislead the public about.

And no, I won't rehash the controversy. I just know when I saw her, both times (many months apart), her acting was very good but she was in great vocal distress when she sang, literally gasping for air and having trouble sustaining notes and cutting phrases in half just to make it through the songs. She even cracked badly on a few notes. She marked time vocally through several of the lighter ballads, singing as minimally as possible, obviously saving all of her resources for the finale of each act. It was a very uncomfortable experience to watch her strain and struggle her way through the evening and at several points I wished she would simply retire and let her standby continue for her.

The role seemed a few sizes too big for her voice as if you had taken a light operetta soprano known for singing Die Fledermaus and stuck on the stage of the Met to sing Brunhilde or Isolde. She seemed overwhelmed. At least a half dozen friends of mine related similar stories about performances they attended over the course of the year, describing the experience of watching her as "painful" and "excruciating." Obviously she had her good nights as well -- as when Brantley was in the house and she apparently knocked it out of the ballpark -- but I didn't see that performance either time I went. I think the Tony voters must have gone on the nights that my friends and I did and that explains what happened with the voting.

---

I saw the show during its final months on Broadway. May 9th actually. She was out but Maureen Moore was in and did a great job. But based on the cd, she has a great Rose.

---

Margo, I saw it a ways into the run and she "knocked it out of the park" that night as well. I was not expecting much, as I was sure she was miscast, and was thrilled to have her prove me wrong.

---

I don't doubt a lot of people saw her hit it out of the park and I'm happy for them, but lament that I never saw that performance (and neither did thousands of others). I've been a big fan of Peters and seen every performance of hers on Broadway since the 80s and was hoping for her to succeed. She didn't when I saw her and thus is the ephemeral nature of theatre. Whether you loved her Rose or not or think she deserved the Tony or not, all depends on what condition she was in the night you saw her. Some nights she was apparently briliant. Other nights, she struggled just to get through it (and she's not the first Rose that this was case for). And thus, because of her inconsistency in the role -- though I know she always gave it her all -- this is a controversy that will never completely die.

---

Originally it was bare bones, but didn't they beef it up a little priot to its opening?

Fosca, Good points. I believe Arthur Laurents, who was VERY critical of this last production, put all the blame on the production concept/Mendes. In fact he has specifically said he had no problem with Bernadette as Rose.

I rather liked the stripped down version because it drew all the focus onto the story and the characters. Mendes directed as a play with music instead of a musical which I thought was interesting. Maybe not the way I want to see it every time, but I enjoyed it for what it was.

Updated On: 3/22/06 at 10:15 PM

Sorry to threadjack, but this brings up, for me, the question of who will win Best Actor in a Musical this year.

I would love to see John Lloyd Young walk away with it, but does anyone think he actually stands a chance against a) Michael Cerveris b) as Sweeney Todd?

---

Updated On: 3/23/06 at 01:19 AM