Whatever happened to the Imelda Staunton GYPSY revival?

Hopefully not coming, plus it’s readily available to purchase on DVD.

I pray this particular production never makes it to Broadway.

---

Don’t judge this by the less than perfect video. Live in the west End it was amazing!!!!!!!

I'd rather she brought Follies over to the Vivian Beaumont in 2019.

tomwsjr said: "Don’t judge this by the less than perfect video. Live in the west End it was amazing!!!!!!!"

It was nowhere near as good as the Patti LuPone revival. New York does not need this production. If anything she should come in Follies. That was so much better than the Bernadette revival.

---

Broadway_Boy said: "tomwsjr said: "Don’t judge this by the less than perfect video. Live in the west End it was amazing!!!!!!!"

It was nowhere near as good as the Patti LuPone revival. New York does not need this production. If anything she should come in Follies. That was so much better than the Bernadette revival."

A bunch of set pieces and good directorial choices can never make up for that poorly sung, mediocre cast. Good luck to any production from now trying to find a better cast than the 2011 revival. The O’Hara/Benanti idea might have potential, though.

---

Dolly80 said: "Hilarious how everyone’s judging it on a crappy tv version.

ANYONE who actually sat in the theatre watching it live would tell you that Imelda was jawdroppingly brilliant. I’ve never seen a UK audience react like that- as well documented , standing ovations are earnt In the UK not obligatory like in NYC. And what an ovation she got at every performance.

She was everything the camp Mamma Rose of LuPone wasn’t- terrifying, moving, thrilling .. she completely redefined the role."

LuPone wasn’t camp, and was about as terrifying as could be without descending into camp like Staunton. After hearing how gloriously sung the LuPone/Benanti/Gaines production was, I have no interest in watching Staunton croak her way through the role.

Updated On: 2/17/18 at 04:47 PM

I don’t get why people get so bothered by the idea of reviving a show (especially ones that are so beautifully and delicately constructed as to lend themselves to various interpretations) every few years. Someone wrote in another thread that on the West End, this is a general practice — they honor their heritage rather than fixate on how many years it has been since the last production of [insert brilliant play/musical].

Having said that, there was zero reason to bring this production to New York where there are 20 actresses off the top of my head who could play Rose in ways that genius Imelda Staunton couldn’t. I adore her but no. I hope that we get to see a GYPSY revival soon. It’s nor about topping LuPone, Benanti, and Gaines — who were definitive (whoever thinks of LuPone’s masterful Rose as camp doesn’t know the meaning of camp)— but rather about bringing their own take and discovering new approaches to the roles. No, thank you, to the Staunton production. I’d see her reprise her Mrs. Lovett on Broadway any day though.

---

Dolly80 said: "Hilarious how everyone’s judging it on a crappy tv version.

ANYONE who actually sat in the theatre watching it live would tell you that Imelda was jawdroppingly brilliant. I’ve never seen a UK audience react like that- as well documented , standing ovations are earnt In the UK not obligatory like in NYC. And what an ovation she got at every performance.

She was everything the camp Mamma Rose of LuPone wasn’t- terrifying, moving, thrilling .. she completely redefined the role."

Standing ovations are not obligatory in NYC. They often don't happen. Overall, I think the quality of theatre in NYC is far superior to that in London and that is why we stand more often. Also, if you think Staunton was the best performance you've seen UK audiences react to, in the Savoy theatre alone, I've seen Sheridan Smith and Amber Riley give much better performances that were much more enthusiastically received.

Edit: To add, I've found London audiences stand much more often than people make it out to be. The last show I saw on the West end was Everybody's Talking about Jamie, which wasn't great and got a full standing ovation, and a certain understudy went on who was so bad that I can say with positivity she would never, ever, ever get a non-union tour in the states, yet here she is screeching in a musical on the West End. There's just a bigger pool of talent to choose from here.

---

Updated On: 2/17/18 at 07:24 PM

Broadway_Boy said: "Dolly80 said: "Hilarious how everyone’s judging it on a crappy tv version.

ANYONE who actually sat in the theatre watching it live would tell you that Imelda was jawdroppingly brilliant. I’ve never seen a UK audience react like that- as well documented , standing ovations are earnt In the UK not obligatory like in NYC. And what an ovation she got at every performance.

She was everything the camp Mamma Rose of LuPone wasn’t- terrifying, moving, thrilling .. she completely redefined the role."

Standing ovations are not obligatory in NYC. They often don't happen. Overall, I think the quality of theatre in NYC is far superior to that in London and that is why we stand more often. Also, if you think Staunton was the best performance you've seen UK audiences react to, in the Savoy theatre alone, I've seen Sheridan Smith and Amber Riley give much better performances that were much more enthusiastically received.

Edit: To add, I've found London audiences stand much more often than people make it out to be. The last show I saw on the West end was Everybody's Talking about Jamie, which wasn't great and got a full standing ovation, and a certain understudy went on who was so bad that I can say with positivity she would never, ever, ever get a non-union tour in the states, yet here she is screeching in a musical on the West End. There's just a bigger pool of talent to choose from here."

Well to be fair I’d claim that standing ovations in NYC almost always happen/are obligatory. But yes in terms of musicals specifically there is this weird perception that West End audiences and musicals are somehow more ‘sophisticated’ - probably boiling down to perceptions of British vs USA culture and the British accent (as petty as this sounds). But in reality, except for exceptions, it’s the exact opposite. NYC is far superior and much more exciting than the West End when it comes to musicals. Of course everyone is going to go wild for Staunton in Gypsy. They never had Patti or even Bernadette. And they just have less good musicals on there in general. The stakes are much higher in NYC.

---

Updated On: 2/17/18 at 08:12 PM

Recently, Imelda Staunton in Gypsy, Sheridan Smith in Funny Girl, and Amber Riley in Dreamgirls were widely considered over there to be sensational performances, when frankly I found them perfectly ordinary. London musical theatre is far weaker than American musical theatre and the standards for great performances are much lower. Over here these performances, Sheridan's especially, would probably be met with less enthusiastic responses. I've found that in other countries the performers can either act or sing, you don't get both. You get something like this recent production of Follies, with good acting, but less than great vocals or you get pretty much every musical playing on the West End where the vocals are good, but the acting is dreadful.

It's no wonder you get fewer standing O's.

ljay889 said: "Elena Roger is an example of a performance widely praised in London, but panned by many here, and didn’t receive a Tony nomination."

I was just about to post this exact example. Many admired her acting (I wasn’t one of them) here, but that voice was simply dreadful.