Question about all the GYPSY revivals

[David10086]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 8:01pm

Of all the GYPSY revivals we had on Broadway since the 70s (!974, 1989, 2003, 2008  ) it seems that the only one which didn't close when the original star left was the 1989 revival which starred Tyne Daly. Once her contract ended in the Summer of 1990, the show continued with Linda Lavin for a few more months, then Daly came back to close the show which ended up running for nearly two years. (November 1989 - July, 1991). 

So my question is 'why' ? Does this mean the Daly revival was the most successful, and therefore deserved a replacement star to continue the run ? 

I'm curious why they didn't continue with a replacement when Lansbury, Peters or Lupone's contracts expired. Or were there plans to continue (and with whom?) but it was financially not worth it with those revivals ?

One more question - both Midler and Minnelli went on record to say they weren't even asked to star in the 1989 revival, which I always felt was an odd statement to make. I was always under the impression Laurents always had the revival in mind with Daly (after he saw her on Dolly Parton's 1986 variety show) - so what difference would it make if the other two were never asked ? 

 

These questions always go through my mind whenever a 'Gypsy' revival is talked about. (The other thread on the 2003 revival got me thinking all this again).

Updated On: 6/21/20 at 08:01 PM

[east side story]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 8:14pm

Tyne Daly’s revival was also produced by Barry & Fran Weissler, so that explains a bit.

Arthur Laurents said Liza could never play Rose because she needs the audience to love her, and Rose didn’t care about that. Of course she’s semi-fictional, but alas.

Peters’ revival was losing money for quite a while, so it was cheaper to close. Same with LuPone’s.

[DAME]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 8:16pm

The Lupone and Peters revival weren’t making any money.  Also.. according to a interview Tyne Daly gave to the tv academy Liza was asked and she did not have any interest .  You can find it on https://youtu.be/ntGYwiggLN8

Updated On: 6/21/20 at 08:16 PM

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 8:36pm

This is a great question to bring up - I have a similar question regarding Hello, Dolly! As well Sunset Boulevard.

I would give everything I have in my possession, and possibly my whole future, to see Minnelli’s take on Rose. Lorna did an alright interpretation in a regional production.

[David10086]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 8:39pm

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "This is a great question to bring up - I have a similar question regarding Hello, Dolly! As well Sunset Boulevard.."

 

Those are two others I have always had in the back of my mind, too - so ask away! LOL

 

[David10086]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 8:49pm

east side story said: "Tyne Daly’s revival was also produced by Barry & Fran Weissler, so that explains a bit.

Arthur Laurents said Liza could never play Rose because she needs the audience to love her, and Rose didn’t care about that. Of course she’s semi-fictional, but alas.

Peters’ revival was losing money for quite a while, so it was cheaper to close. Same with LuPone’s."

Thanks for the response! I'm not too familiar with the history of Barry and Fran Weissler - I do know their names and that they are producers, but that's about it. What did they have to do with Daly's revival not closing and putting Lavin in to continue? 

Thanks to DAME, too , for responding.  If the other two weren't making any money, does this mean Daly's was the most successful in the past thirty years ? 

 

Again, thanks for your answers everyone! 

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 8:54pm

GiantsInTheSky2 said: “I would give everything I have in my possession, and possibly my whole future, to see Minnelli’s take on Rose. Lorna did an alright interpretation in a regional production."

Sadly, Liza isn’t physically nor vocally capable of doing any production of GYPSY.  Her recent public performances are now limited to her sitting in a director’s chair and maybe standing up for a few seconds to take a bow after a song.  

This was Liza in 2018:

 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 9:09pm

I think another factor was that, when the Daly revival opened, it had been a full 15 years since the Lansbury revival, which had only been scheduled to run 10 (sold out) weeks, which they increased to 15.  So only 15 weeks of performances had been given in the 30 years since the original production.

That in itself was a positive.  Add to that Tyne Daly's unexpected raves and Tony, and that helped a lot, given the number of people who loved her from Cagney and Lacy and never expected to see her in a musical.  

Then there were another 12 - 13 years before the BP version, which had all kinds of negative publicity before it even opened, and got reasonably mediocre reviews (raves to 'who cares and she is miscast', although it had a more than decent run.  I think Patti Lupone was simply the victim of timing.  It was just too soon for another revival.; I have to admit that that was the main reason why I did not see it...I was all Gypsy'ed out. For oldsters, it didn't help that -- although the performances were collectively above par -- it was basically the same old production.  Even the BP version just didn't seem very different to me...there were changes, but they seemed pretty minor to me (but I have never had the memory for detail that some posters on this board have).

Also, when you think about it, Gypsy clearly has a lot of ardent fans; but given its critical success, it has never been the audience hit that one would expect, given the acclaim and the number of famous songs in the score.  While Linda Lavin did allow the Tyne Daly version to run considerably longer, she didn't play to large audiences.  I remember seeing it on a Friday night in the vast Marquis Theatre, which was at most half-filled.  I imagine the small cast, and a star who probably wasn't paid much allowed the weekly nut to be as low as possible.

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 9:31pm

The Patti version was also just another victim of January 2009, when the recession hit Broadway and everything was closing (Hairspray, Spamalot, Spring Awakening, Young Frankenstein and many others all within a few weeks). So maybe 3 years later it would have been financially feasible for it to continue with another star, but then? Definitely not.

And the Bernadette version was already struggling (it had already announced a closing during her run in the show before extending another couple months when ticket sales picked up again). But they certainly didn't pick up enough to warrant bringing in anyone else to try to continue the production.

[David10086]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 12:27am

Jarethan said: " While Linda Lavin did allow the Tyne Daly version to run considerably longer, she didn't play to large audiences. I remember seeing it on a Friday night in the vast Marquis Theatre, which was at most half-filled. I imagine the small cast, and a star who probably wasn't paid much allowed the weekly nut to be as low as possible."

So you saw the Lavin production ? I know it's been said before, but so many people say she was horrible in it. (She claimed 'Baby June' saw her in it, and said she was the 'Best' Mama Rose ever). I guess she wasn't pulling in ticket sales ?  What did you think of her in the role ?

 

Again - thanks for all the responses everyone ! I learn so much on this board...

[DAME]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 1:59am

Jarethan said: "I think another factor was that, when the Daly revival opened, it had been a full 15 years since the Lansbury revival, which had only been scheduled to run 10 (sold out) weeks, which they increased to 15. So only 15 weeks of performances had been given in the 30 years since the original production.

That in itself was a positive. Add to that Tyne Daly's unexpected raves and Tony, and that helped a lot, given the number of people who loved her from Cagney and Lacy and never expected to see her in a musical.

Then there were another 12 - 13 years before the BP version, which had all kinds of negative publicity before it even opened, and got reasonably mediocre reviews (raves to 'who cares and she is miscast', although it had a more than decent run. I think Patti Lupone was simply the victim of timing. It was just too soon for another revival.; I have to admit that that was the main reason why I did not see it...I was all Gypsy'ed out. For oldsters, it didn't help that -- although the performances were collectively above par -- it was basically the same old production. Even the BP version just didn't seem very different to me...there were changes, but they seemed pretty minor to me (but I have never had the memory for detail that some posters on this board have).

Also, when you think about it, Gypsy clearly has a lot of ardent fans;but given its critical success, it has never been the audience hit that one would expect, given the acclaim and the number of famous songs in the score. While Linda Lavin did allowthe Tyne Daly version to runconsiderably longer, she didn't play to large audiences. I remember seeing it on a Friday night in the vast Marquis Theatre, which was at most half-filled. I imagine the small cast, and a star who probably wasn't paid much allowed the weekly nut to be as low as possible."

I might be misreading...but Linda Lavin played the St James.  Not the Marquis.    Tyne played the Marquis when plans to take the show to London  went kaput.

[binau]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 8:23am

Who could they have possibly got to replace Bernadette at the time that was a bigger name (to help with sales), would be a replacement, and could handle the role? It really is hard to think of any alternatives. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 9:21am

I saw both Daly and Lavin in this revival.

To me at its best this revival was just ok.  It was a surprise that Daly could handle the show, which indeed she did.  I did not, however, think she was great in it.  And in fact remember thinking "Why didn't they get Linda Lavin instead."

I went back to see Lavin it it convinced the show would be much better.

Worst mistake of my life. 

Updated On: 6/22/20 at 09:21 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 4:49pm

Jarethan said: "  although the performances were collectively above par -- it was basically the same old production. "

LuPone's revival really wasn't the same old production, though. Laurents made several notable changes, enough that he was eligible to be nominated again for a Tony, and he was. He changed Chowsie and the lamb to stuffed animals, he cut the "pretend rape/attack" scene with the hotel manager, he changed Mazeppa's costume, and controversially completely restaged the finale moment between Rose and Louise. All of these changes received mixed reactions, but I loved the new ending. The sets were definitely cheap, and appeared purposely shoddy, which worked well in the burlesque scenes.The Tony nominated costumes were first rate though. 

This revival really was all about the acting. The three leads created magic, especially in act two. I will never forget the periods of silence during the dressing room fight, you could hear a pin drop in the audience. All three leads did a lot of screaming in act two, I remember some were mixed on this, but it was evident that Laurents wanted to focus on the acting and dramatics more than anything else. 

Updated On: 6/22/20 at 04:49 PM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 5:26pm

David10086 said: "Jarethan said: "While Linda Lavin did allow the Tyne Daly version to run considerably longer, she didn't play to large audiences. I remember seeing it on a Friday night in the vast Marquis Theatre, which was at most half-filled. I imagine the small cast, and a star who probably wasn't paid much allowed the weekly nut to be as low as possible."

So you saw the Lavin production ? I know it's been said before, but so many people say she was horrible in it. (She claimed 'Baby June' saw her in it, and said she was the 'Best' Mama Rose ever). I guess she wasn't pulling in ticket sales ? What did you think of her in the role ?



Again - thanks for all the responses everyone ! I learn so much on this board..."

After you have seen Angela Lansbury and Tyne Daly, most people are going to suffer by comparison (although I personally did have some issues with Daly; I occasionally felt that she stepped into the over-acting territory, the way that Rosalind Russell (who I otherwise loved), Imelda Staunton and Bette Midler did.  

I saw BP, who I thought was great in the role.  Missed Lupone, who is clearly a Broadway musical legend. Linda Lavin was not up to Lansbury, Daly (even with my reservations), BP and (I have no doubt, just from seeing snippets on YouTube) Patti Lupone.

IMO she would have been fine heading a touring company where expectations are not so high.  On Broadway, she was decent, but that was not enough.  She just didn't generate excitement...the thought never passed your mind once that you were seeing a performance that you were going to remember two days later.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 5:29pm

DAME said: "Jarethan said: "I think another factor was that, when the Daly revival opened, it had been a full 15 years since the Lansbury revival, which had only been scheduled to run 10 (sold out) weeks, which they increased to 15. So only 15 weeks of performances had been given in the 30 years since the original production.

That in itself was a positive. Add to that Tyne Daly's unexpected raves and Tony, and that helped a lot, given the number of people who loved her from Cagney and Lacy and never expected to see her in a musical.

Then there were another 12 - 13 years before the BP version, which had all kinds of negative publicity before it even opened, and got reasonably mediocre reviews (raves to 'who cares and she is miscast', although it had a more than decent run. I think Patti Lupone was simply the victim of timing. It was just too soon for another revival.; I have to admit that that was the main reason why I did not see it...I was all Gypsy'ed out. For oldsters, it didn't help that -- although the performances were collectively above par -- it was basically the same old production. Even the BP version just didn't seem very different to me...there were changes, but they seemed pretty minor to me (but I have never had the memory for detail that some posters on this board have).

Also, when you think about it, Gypsy clearly has a lot of ardent fans;but given its critical success, it has never been the audience hit that one would expect, given the acclaim and the number of famous songs in the score. While Linda Lavin did allowthe Tyne Daly version to runconsiderably longer, she didn't play to large audiences. I remember seeing it on a Friday night in the vast Marquis Theatre, which was at most half-filled. I imagine the small cast, and a star who probably wasn't paid much allowed the weekly nut to be as low as possible."

I might be misreading...but Linda Lavin played the St James. Not the Marquis. Tyne played the Marquis when plans to take the show to London went kaput."

And I thought that I have a good memory (I can to this day remember the ticket prices I paid to see shows 50 years ago and where I sat (although that it not too difficult: until TKTS can along, I was mostly in the last couple of rows of the rear mezzanine or 2nd balcony).  I guess it was another illustration of its forgettability.

[David10086]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 6:03pm

 

qolbinau said: "Who could they have possibly got to replace Bernadette at the time that was a bigger name (to help with sales), would be a replacement, and could handle the role? It really is hard to think of any alternatives."

Liza or Glenn Close? 

At that time Liza had married David Gest, and was floating the idea around to the press that ALW wanted her to Star in the movie “ Sunset Boulevard “  - she should have considered going back on stage instead! 

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

 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 6:18pm

ljay889 said: "Jarethan said: "although the performances were collectively above par -- it was basically the same old production. "

LuPone's revival really wasn't the same old production, though. Laurents made several notable changes, enough that he was eligible to be nominated again for a Tony, and he was. He changed Chowsie and the lamb to stuffed animals, he cut the "pretend rape/attack" scene with the hotel manager, he changed Mazeppa's costume, and controversially completely restaged the finalemoment between Rose and Louise. All of these changes received mixed reactions, but I loved the new ending. The sets were definitely cheap, and appeared purposely shoddy, which worked well in the burlesque scenes.The Tony nominatedcostumes were first rate though.

This revival really was all about the acting. The three leads created magic, especially in act two. I will never forget the periods of silence during the dressing room fight, you could hear a pin drop in the audience. All three leads did a lot of screaming in act two, I remember some were mixed on this, but it was evident that Laurentswanted to focus on the acting and dramatics more than anything else."

Clearly, based on three Tony Awards, it must have been brilliantly performed by the leads.  I am on record as saying that I do not have the same attention to detail / memory as some on this board have when it comes to discussing pretty minor differences between productions.  The changes you describe, however, seem totally trivial to me; the Mazeppa costume change and the stuffed animal especially (although the latter seems a minor improvement to me).  

I for one think it is time for someone to take a more radical rethink of Gypsy staging, not replacing a live lamb with a stuffed lamb or changing a costume used in one number.   I wonder how the Mendes version would have turned out if he had the opportunity to do what he wanted.

[joevitus]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 7:20pm

I don't think Minnelli would work as Rose (and it's too late now), but I strongly believe Warners made a huge error in not casting Judy Garland in the original film version. Merman would never have worked; Merman's magic just didn't translate to film, ever (even in Call Me Madam). But Garland was a superlative actress, was raised by her own Rose ("the original Wicked With of the West," as she told Barbara Walters) so she understood the part intimately, and of course had the voice. I realize all the problems a Garland-led movie would have encountered during production. But oh, man, would it have been worth it.

[binau]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 7:25pm

I haven’t seen the LuPone version but from what I can see in clips one of the other differences is the stage was so small from having the orchestra behind that it kind of looked like an intimate play. But I take your point that all these details are details that only theatre fans would think about deeply. At the end of the day Arthur Laurents was not going to let anyone perform Gypsy in a radically different way. Maybe it is different now that he has died. I’d like to see Sam Mendes take another stab at it in the future. Or maybe he can direct a film version.

That said, unless there is a good reason to (and there is only one good reason to: a radically new Rose) the show seems done to me. Could we get a Nathan Lane gender fluid Rose? (Not joking). Or maybe a Patina Miller rose in another 5-10 years.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 8:30pm

Jarethan said: "ljay889 said: "Jarethan said: "although the performances were collectively above par -- it was basically the same old production. "

LuPone's revival really wasn't the same old production, though. Laurents made several notable changes, enough that he was eligible to be nominated again for a Tony, and he was. He changed Chowsie and the lamb to stuffed animals, he cut the "pretend rape/attack" scene with the hotel manager, he changed Mazeppa's costume, and controversially completely restaged the finalemoment between Rose and Louise. All of these changes received mixed reactions, but I loved the new ending. The sets were definitely cheap, and appeared purposely shoddy, which worked well in the burlesque scenes.The Tony nominatedcostumes were first rate though.

This revival really was all about the acting. The three leads created magic, especially in act two. I will never forget the periods of silence during the dressing room fight, you could hear a pin drop in the audience. All three leads did a lot of screaming in act two, I remember some were mixed on this, but it was evident that Laurentswanted to focus on the acting and dramatics more than anything else."

Clearly, based on three Tony Awards, it must have been brilliantly performed by the leads. I am on record as saying that I do not have the same attention to detail / memory as some on this board have when it comes to discussing pretty minor differences between productions. The changes you describe, however,seem totally trivial to me; the Mazeppa costume change and the stuffed animal especially (although the latter seems a minor improvement to me).

I for one think it is time for someone to take a more radical rethink of Gypsy staging, not replacing a livelamb with a stuffed lamb or changing a costume used in one number.I wonder how the Mendes version would have turned out if he had the opportunity to do what he wanted."

Oh, I agree with you, they're mostly small changes, but every one of them I listed probably besides Mazeppa's costume were hotly contested on this site at the time. From cutting the pretend attack, to using stuffed animals, there was tons of discussion over it. The ending was also not a minor change, this was the most controversial change. I loved how it portrayed Rose completely unable to give up her desire to see her name in lights, even after reconciling with Louise. Of course, there was always a hint of this in the various endings, but Arthur really went for it here. The way Louise laughs at her was also very controversial, as many found it to be too mean, but I took it as Louise realizing that Rose is never going to change. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm9tJpmyFFo

Updated On: 6/22/20 at 08:30 PM

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 11:55pm

I'll just throw in that Gypsy has a spectacular score, and is of the era when I should be most favorably disposed towards it, but I have just never liked the Rose character or cared what happened to her.

I do love hearing Merman belt out "Everything's Coming Up Roses."

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 11:56pm

BrodyFosse123 said: "GiantsInTheSky2 said: “I would give everything I have in my possession, and possibly my whole future, to see Minnelli’s take on Rose. Lorna did an alright interpretation in a regional production."

Sadly, Liza isn’t physically nor vocally capable of doing any production of GYPSY. Her recent public performances are now limited to her sitting in a director’s chair and maybe standing up for a few seconds to take a bow after a song.

This was Liza in 2018...."

As much as I enjoyed the 1979 HBO special that recently became available on Netflix, Minnelli has always sung "Some People" as if she has a train to catch. I never thought she was right for Madame Rose, not even in her prime.

She played waifs, not dominatrices.

Updated On: 6/22/20 at 11:56 PM

[A Director]

Posted: 6/23/20 at 2:10am

ljay889 said:
This revival really was all about the acting. The three leads created magic, especially in act two. I will never forget the periods of silence during the dressing room fight, you could hear a pin drop in the audience. All three leads did a lot of screaming in act two, I remember some were mixed on this, but it was evident that Laurents wanted to focus on the acting and dramatics more than anything else."

Arthur's goal in this production and his West Side Story was to erase the work of his collaborators. It was luck he wrote the book for each musical.  On his own, he was a third-rate playwright. His plays are not revived today.

 

[binau]

Posted: 6/23/20 at 8:38am

I suppose the focus of LuPone’s Gypsy seemed to be on the text, from all accounts. But it seems a bit melodramatic to claim he was trying to erase the contributions of others? According to his own book Arthur said he became acquainted with Patti’s early concert performances (Lonny Price) because he was sent a recording of her Some People, Coming up Roses and Rose’s Turn. And he speaks about spending a lot of time working with Patti on some of these songs. And if we look at the outcome, the Patti production did not really make any compromises in vocal ability. Patti is perhaps the vocally strongest Rose ever on record, or at least the top tier - with mainly Merman herself coming close. And all the supporting cast were strong vocalists. Cf. Sam Mendes who is notorious for always looking for ‘actors’ first and caring less about the vocals. Arthur knew this was a musical, not a straight play. 

Updated On: 6/23/20 at 08:38 AM