SAM MENDES GYPSY- Page 3

[bythesword842]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 3:34am

I saw both the Peters version and the LuPone version and have always been a big fan of "Gypsy" in general, but I couldn't have sat through LuPone a second time if you paid me. I loved the Mendes production. I thought it was beautiful and engaging and I am one of those people who loved that entire cast. Comparing it to the LuPone version, I think I've said it before but I truly felt like I wasn't watching Patti as Mama, I was watching Patti as Patti and that 100% murdered any enjoyment I may have had of it. (For the record, I'm not a Patti hater, loved her in Sweeney Todd, just couldn't stand her in this.) I also thought, from a visual standpoint, this whole production looked like something I could have staged in my back yard, and not because some of the places were supposed to be run down, but because to me it just looked like someone tossed it on the stage in a hurry saying "well, this'll do."

I was very, very disappointed in it.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 3:37am

And I have NO idea what the heck just happened to my account that it has me with a different username and having joined in 2008 in that above post. What the heck...

[legally_popular]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 4:20am

Gypsy doesn’t need fancy sets and props. It’s all character-driven. That’s what I love about it (the 2008 Patti production – I’ve never seen the Mendes production so I’m not going to compare the two). It’s what Arthur wanted. It’s focused more on the book than anything else. The amazing performances just make it better. I love Gypsy in general – the story, the music, everything – but with this 2008 revival it’s these performances by Patti, Boyd, Laura and the rest of the cast that have made it so memorable for me. The nuances added to their performances each time I saw it were brilliant.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 4:47am

What nuances? You mean the incredible emphasis on every single line of dialogue? The incredibly long pauses to highlight the tension? You mean the shouting matches Patti had with almost everyone on stage? You mean how Dainty June was played as a complete caricature? How Tulsa acted as though he was on the verge of tears each time he spoke? I saw this production twice. Once, because I was generally looking forward to it and walked away only loving Laura and hesitantly liking everything else. The second time a friend gave me a free ticket and I actually liked Patti because she wasn't phoning it in (like she decided to do at my first performance). Everyone else, though, had gotten worse. DREADFULLY long pauses between every line of dialogue. The show went on for 3 hours.

[binau]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 4:58am

" It’s what Arthur wanted. It’s focused more on the book than anything else. "

LOL. Oh I bet he wanted it this way.

[legally_popular]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 6:16am

^LOL, I didn't mean that's the way he wanted it BECAUSE it was focused more on the book since he wrote it. I just like how they treated it as a play and dissected each line and concentrated on the acting more than anything.

And yes, I believe the actors added nuances to their performances. Having seen it 5 times total, I noticed new things each time. I paid a lot of attention to facial expressions, gestures, emotions, line deliveries, etc. IMO it was those little things that added depth to each performance/character. I think Laura's performance was best in terms of that.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 10:39am

Elphaba3-

WOW

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 10:49am

The current production is like community theatre compared to that one, in my opinion. I guess people don't like subtlety and prefer stuff that's blatantly in your face. That goes for the performances and the production itself.

DIDN'T SEE IT.

At least I say why I think Laurents' production sucks.

WHY? BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE IT?

Posted: 1/18/09 at 12:35pm

I have been reading these posts and am amazed at the widely varying opinions of the Peters vs. Lupone versions of Gypsy. I don't see how the Peters version was a "concept" musical. I saw it and as far as I'm concerned they just did the show/told the story. I thought it was a fantastic production and was by no means spare or revisionist or radical. At the time, and it wasn't that long ago, everyone was waiting to see what Mendes would do and how radical he'd make it. To everyone's surprise it was actually very traditional.

To quote Ben Brantley's review, " As a whole, the production By Mr. Mendes...may seem disappointingly status quo to those hoping for a full-fledged reinvention of this musical....But the brassy glories of that adrenaline-pumping score, superbly rendered, and much of Jerome robbins's original choreography are here to be savored. And no, they don't taste of preservatives."

The issue I had with the Peters revival was the casting choices. Louise didn't make the transition from gawky tomboy to glamorous star (the strip tease section has never worked, in my opinion.) and I don't even remember Dainty June or Tulsa which tells you what kind of impression they left. I thought Peters's take on the character was very interesting and worked quite well. for once it wasn't played like a bull in a china shop or a steamroller flattening everything in it's path. We assume that is how Merman played it but seeing as most of us were born looong after the original production played on Broadway we'll never really know.

I also saw the Lupone revival and I thought for the most part the cast was exceptionally good. (Thank god for the orchestra! THE ORCHESTRA! A BIG orchestra in a Broadway show! What a concept!, but that's a subject for another thread.) The issue I had was that it looked like the show was produced on the cheap. The sets were horrible! door units and some tired curtains and LOTS of bare stage?! when I pay $120 bucks for my ticket in the second row of the mezzanine I expect a hell of a lot more for my money and time. In that respect I felt cheated. I remember turning to my partner and saying that I'd love to see this cast in the Sam Mendes production because it looked so fantastic. To this day I don't understand why people hated the Mendes production.There was really nothing wrong with it and as I recall the Peters revival ran over 100 performances longer than Lupones. Just saying.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 1:32pm

I wasn't born after Merman's GYPSY; I saw her in it 5 times and she didn't play it like a steamroller flattening everything in its path. She was capable of some subtlety as well as some over the top acting. Listen to "Small World" and "You'll Never Get Away From Me" on the OBCR. Be aware that she was crestfallen when Herbie walked out on her. Merman wanted to do GYPSY because she wanted the chance to really act and saw director Jerome Robbins as "Teacher" as she referred to him. Stephen Sondheim in the interview with former Times critic Frank Rich said that Merman was very cooperative during the rehearsal process. Bernadette Peters is a good actress who was stuck in the middle of a lackluster production that went nowhere. Her interpretation just didn't work IMO.

[gypsy4]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 1:47pm

what was different about it. It looked like any other production of Gypsy.
but I think an actress deserves there own production of gypsy. Now I'm waiting for a production staring audra macdonald.
Updated On: 1/18/09 at 01:47 PM

[JimCo]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 2:12pm

I always thought that Chita Rivera would have made a great Mama Rose, although she is too mature now, but 20 years ago? I think she would have been brilliant in the role...I saw Bernadette Peters and Patti Lupone and I preferred Bernadette, although she was not ideal, over Patti. I have worked with Patti, and to me, Patti is always Patti no matter what she is in. My favorites in the role were Angela Lansbury #1, and Tyne Daly #2. Each were so different, and yet perfectly viable.

[binau]

Posted: 7/30/09 at 5:36am

Ok. I think I FINALLY got what Sam Mendes' 'concept' was - it was a show within a show?

Not sure the implications of that, however.

Updated On: 7/30/09 at 05:36 AM