How come the 2008 production of GYPSY didn't win the Tony for Best Revival?- Page 2

[The Other One]

Posted: 12/22/13 at 11:28am

Because it wasn't as good as the 2008 revival of SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE, which wasn't as good as the 2008 revival of SOUTH PACIFIC.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 12/22/13 at 1:13pm

Because in GYPSY everyone yelled at each other and insisted it was "subtext." It was just a lousy production and the three leads made it bearable, only just.

[Rinaldo]

Posted: 12/22/13 at 1:25pm

The leads in Gypsy were impressive for sure (not forgetting Tony Yazbeck), but though I had liked what Laurents found in directing the Lansbury and Daly revivals, I disliked many of his choices this time. He seems to want to make it mean and angry throughout (rather than letting such elements simmer behind an entertaining facade), and I especially hated his decision to make the final couple of minutes All About Patti -- ruining a conclusion that I'd found wonderful when he treated it more delicately in the previous productions.

Meanwhile, South Pacific was a just about irreproachable production, beautifully cast all the way down the line, wonderfully directed and designed and sung (and conducted), and telling me something new and moving that I hadn't realized was there in the show (but it was). No contest.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 12/22/13 at 10:00pm

South Pacific trumped it in 1949 -- wins for Mary Martin, Ezio Pinza, Juanita Hall and Myron McCormack.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 12/22/13 at 10:13pm

That final moment of the revival will always remain cruel.

Posted: 12/22/13 at 11:54pm

I didn't see GYPSY in 2008, but from what I've heard most of it was just lackluster, except for the lead actors, who were acknowledged by the Tony voters.

SOUTH PACIFIC, on the other hand, was anything but lackluster. They went all-out with the orchestra and sets, and the actors were also superb.

I think the long absence of SOUTH PACIFIC and frequent revivals of GYPSY also had something to do with it. SOUTH PACIFIC was a well-devised breath of fresh air, whereas GYPSY was a lackluster production of a show that had a similarly luke-warm reception only five years earlier.

Posted: 12/22/13 at 11:54pm

I didn't see GYPSY in 2008, but from what I've heard most of it was just lackluster, except for the lead actors, who were acknowledged by the Tony voters.

SOUTH PACIFIC, on the other hand, was anything but lackluster. They went all-out with the orchestra and sets, and the actors were also superb.

I think the long absence of SOUTH PACIFIC and frequent revivals of GYPSY also had something to do with it. SOUTH PACIFIC was a well-devised breath of fresh air, whereas GYPSY was a lackluster production of a show that had a similarly luke-warm reception only five years earlier.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 12:05am

Well, you know, if that's what you heard and all.

Posted: 12/23/13 at 12:39am

I know, it is very much an assumption, based on others opinions. But I did see SOUTH PACIFIC and it was amazing.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 1:54am

Honestly, Patti steamrolled her way through a delightfully epic performance of Rose, Boyd Gaines was as reliable as ever, Laura Benanti gave what I could argue to be the absolute best work of her career and Leigh Ann Larkin was pretty damned great too, though you did have Tony Yazbek as "a 30 yrs too old to be Tulsa" Tulsa.
Overall, the production was horrendous. The choreography was serviceable, and it was nice to hear the full orchestration, but not much else. What is acceptable for a concert is not always acceptable on Broadway for an open-ended A direct translation worked for Chicago, but Finian's Rainbow knew they had to up the ante when they transfered - though, sadly that run did not pan out, it was perfection.
For Gypsy, the production was laughable.
The orchestra on stage? Fine for some shows. Not for Gypsy. Gypsy relies on the relation and location of stage to orchestra to audience. When June says "Mr Conductor, if you please" and points to a twink or tourists sitting front row center and NOT to the conductor, who is 7 feet upstage of her, it is just awkward. Then you had the strangeness of the little lamb being a puppet and poor Chowsie being an off the rack stuffed dog from Toys'R'Us.. yes.. scary Mama Rose slinging a stuffed dog around.. no, thanks.
Actually, I did not mind the final moments of the show. A stark change, yes. But it worked.
Sad to say, much like the West Side Story revival, this production was a feeble attempt by the walking corpse of Arthur Laurents to masturbate on his libretto and stone the work of his other original collaborators.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 2:18am

The Gypsy revival had a set though, didn't it? It was more than just the orchestra onstage. Wasn't the onstage orchestra only visible during the Overture and Finale? Also, what was the final moment?

[devonian.t]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 2:30am

GYPSY was one of the worst nights I've spent in a theatre- it had all the pace you would expect from a 90 year-old director, and the worst physical production I've seen on a professional stage. And I'm still kicking myself that I chose to see it instead of Passing Strange that night!

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 2:47am

phreak,
EVERY show has a set. Even "Our Town" has a set.
The orchestra was onstage and visible for the entire show, much as an Encores! concert. There WAS a scrim in front of the orchestra, but they were there and visible.
The basic set was a crumbling false proscenium arch and a variety of smaller scenic pieces and props were carted on and off - tables, chairs, free standing doorways and the like. It was an Encores! staging through and through.
The final moment of the show was the standard "peace making" scene between Rose and Gypsy, but with Gypsy being a bit more cold, sarcastic and condescending and as they turn to leave - what would be the standard Gypsy ending, Rose turns back and looks at the stage longingly as she reaches out a hand to the giant "Rose" sign as the last bulks break and burn out.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 2:57am

You know, it's interesting how 5 years ago the production seemed pretty beloved and suddenly people are saying it was the worst thing ever to hit a Broadway stage. Also, the Encores version was hardly a concert...it was the full show with the actors completely off-book and fully staged. Whether you cared for the staging is another matter, but it wasn't a 4-6 performance concert with the actors holding black binders.

Anyway, I loved the production. The entire cast was killer, and hearing the full orchestra playing that glorious score was amazing. South Pacific was also great, just much more lavish.

[D2]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 9:12am

I disliked the production 5 years ago, and time hasn't altered my opinion.

[StageStruckLad]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 11:19am

I blame the lamb puppet and the stuffed dog. Were they trying to save money by not hiring an animal handler?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 12:51pm

No amount of revisionist history will get me to change my opinion on what was a truly great theatrical experience, Laurents's misogynist tweaks notwithstanding. Even if everything else about it sucked, (which it didn't), I will forever love it for Yazbek's number.

[east side story]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 1:32pm

Any production of Gypsy that has the leading lady winning a Tony is much more impactful than a Best Revival victory.

South Pacific was absolute magic. I cannot remember an evening at the theatre where I have been nearly as enchanted from beginning to end.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 2:01pm

Marvelous,
It was a City Center Encores! Summer Stars production. It was a staged concert, not a full production. More elaborate than the usual Encores! fare, but nevertheless... and yes, the actors were off book, but at Encores!, scripts are generally optional for the actors... some are solidly off book, some are not. Usually the actors retain scripts use them less before the end of the week. The Wiz was a Summer Stars event as well, and all were off-book, but nevertheless, it was a staged concert.

It was beloved five years ago for the leads and the opportunity to see them together, as well as to hear the score played by one of the best orchestras on Broadway. No one's opinion has changed on that. That was what made it a worthwhile evening. Everything else? Not so much.

Lad,
That is exactly it. They didn't want to spend the money for the trainer and handler.

[StageStruckLad]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 3:02pm

I could sort of ignore Patti's stuffed Chowsie, but that bit of Japanese puppet theater where a black-clad man dangled a lamb puppet in front of Louise completely destroyed the song "Little Lamb" for me, despite Laura Benanti's exquisite performance.

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 4:06pm

I saw pregnant Kelli O'hara in South Pacific and I thought it was totally revolutionary using figure-blind casting, and it made the somersaults more suspenseful.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 4:18pm

To hell with the shortcomings of the physical production, this was and still is one of the best nights I've ever spent at the theater!

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 9:31pm

broadwayguy2, I know exactly what it was at City Center, I saw it 3 times. I saw it multiple times on Broadway as well, and I loved it. To me it was closer to a full production than a staged concert, even though it lacked a full set. That production was also pretty clearly done wth the ultimate goal of a Broadway run, it was very polished as far as the performances and the staging as I remember it was pretty close to what eventually ended up on Broadway.

And Namo, I completely agree about "All I Need is the Girl," everything about that number was stunning.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 9:39pm

The worst thing of that season (or any) was that Grease revival. Now, THAT was horrid...

[Derrickg]

Posted: 12/23/13 at 11:01pm

I agree with much of what's been stated... Gypsy had been seen so often and South Pacific hadn't been on Broadway in many years, plus the LC production of SP was so gorgeous and respectfully done...

But I would also say it's sort of the same reason Sound of Music won over Gypsy in 1959. R&H tell you something you want to hear... Like if you love God and your family you can beat the Nazis (it helps to be white and Christian), or if you're a hick from the sticks you can learn to overcome racism and love the hunky European (white) guy with the brown children... vs. Gypsy which basically says the pursuit of The American Dream will destroy you and everyone around you. As popular as Gypsy is, it will never be as popular as the R&H shows. It's too thorny and difficult, despite how fun it is. A lot of people just don't like being told your mother will destroy you.