Gypsy (Remake)

[Cordy_Biddle]

Broadway's evil queen strikes again. The man seems to be clutching at straws in his reasons for scrapping the project (which he was 100% in his approval of just a few weeks ago). A movie won't diminish the greatess of the original work--Roz Russell and Bette Midler both did it and the show's still fine. Either he's getting dementia or he's truly living up to his reputation. Cantankerous old prune.

The much-talked about "Gypsy" musical film project that envisions Barbra Streisand as Mama Rose is not going to happen, according to playwright-director Arthur Laurents, one of the rights holders to the work.

Laurents, the original book writer for the 1959 Broadway musical, directed three acclaimed Broadway revivals of "Gypsy" starring Angela Lansbury in 1974, Tyne Daly in 1989 and Patti Lupone in 2008. Sam Mendes directed a Broadway revival in 2003 starring Bernadette Peters.


Rosalind Russell starred in the 1962 film, directed by Mervyn LeRoy. In 1993, Bette Midler did a TV musical of the show.


In January he told the New York Post: "Barbra and I have been getting along very well now for some time. We've talked about it a lot, and she knows what she's doing. She has my approval."

In an interview I had with the vigorous 93-year-old Laurents last week in his New York home for an upcoming feature story about the touring production 0f "West Side Story," he said things have change.

First the back story.

"A few years ago, she called me. It was a Sunday and I have an enormous breakfast on Sunday. I wait the whole week for that breakfast. She would call from time to time when she wanted advice. So she called to ask me if she should do the movie of 'Sunset Boulevard.' I said, 'Listen, Barbra, I'm having breakfast. Can I call you back?' She said, 'Do you have my number?' I said, 'I've always had your number.'


"So I called her back and said, 'Barbra, I've change.' And she said, 'Since Tom died?' I said, 'Yes. I don't have patience with people who don't say what they mean. You didn't call about 'Sunset Boulevard.' She said, 'No, I didn't. I called about Gypsy. Do you think I can do it?' I said, 'No.' She said, 'Too old?' I said, 'It has nothing to do with age. You play for sympathy.


"So we started a conversation and she started to talk about her mother. The conversation went on for three hours. At one point she said, 'I have to pee. I'll call you back.' And she called me back and told me more about her mother -- who was worse than Rose. I said, 'If you can do that...' That's when I believed she could do it."

But now Laurents says the film version is not going to happen "for a really fascinating reason, much bigger than 'Gypsy.' "

He recently spoke with the musical's lyricist, Stephen Sondheim, who asked Laurents why he wanted to allow the film project to happen. "He said, 'What is the point of it?' And I said, 'They have this terrible version with Rosalind Russell wearing those black and white shoes.' And then Sondheim told me something that he got from the British -- and it's wonderful. He said, 'You want a record because the theater is ephemeral. But that's wrong. The theater's greatest essence is that it is ephemeral. You don't need a record. The fact that it's ephemeral means you can have different productions, different Roses on into infinity.'

"So I don't want it now. I don't want a definitive record. I want it to stay alive.

"I think [Streisand] is disappointed. She wanted very much to do it. That would have been a good exit for her career. Tom Hopper ["The King's Speech"] wanted to direct it. I think he's wonderful."

How would she have been in the film?

"She could have done it," he says

This story comes from Frank Rizzo's "Behind the Curtain" blog. http://blogs.courant.com/curtain/2011/0 ... oject.html

[UmbrellaFish]

That sounds odd...

[Cordy_Biddle]

He's turning into a fruitcake, I'm sure.

[SpringHeelJack]

Eh. Arthur Laurents is basically the Mr. Burns of Broadway, to be sure, and he's totally off his rocker, but I can't deny that Stephen Sondheim makes a good point.

Anyhow, if there is to be as definitive movie "Gypsy," I'm still of the opinion it would not have been this one.

[Cordy_Biddle]

I can understand Sondheim's point, but I seriously doubt either Bette Midler or Roz Russell has mortally damaged the reputation of "Gypsy". In fact I think it's the opposite. My first exposure to "Gypsy" was the Midler TV version.

If the main thing that irks Mr Laurents about the Roz Russell "Gypsy" is her black-and-white shoes, then I'd say he's definitely all bound for Cuckoo Land.

[pinkrenata]

What a reasonable sounding man.

I can't say I buy much into this story. Not that it didn't happen, but I just don't think Laurents seems stable enough to make permanent decisions. If the film is meant to happen, I think it still will.

[SpringHeelJack]

Anyone who know anything about Laurents knows that this isn't some gradual slip into dementia or anything. He's been nuts since the 1960s at the latest. This is hardly a sign saying "Gee, maybe he's fickle and contrary." Just read about the man. Trust me, he's as sane as he ever was. Whether you agree with him or not is another debate, but you can't really argue with a guy his age who just a few years back directed two major Broadway revivals.

Regardless, he has the rights to the show. Granted, it could wait until he snuffs it, but Arthur Laurents will outlive us all. He's like a cockroach. And not to mention that Babs isn't getting any younger.

Regardless, his sole complaint about the Russell movie isn't her shoes. I know that's what he says, but again if you go into what he and Sondheim have written, you'd see that neither of them particularly care for the '60s film version. I have somewhere a fairly lengthy essay where he discusses the many problems of the movie, and the shoes comment comes mainly from the idea that he felt Roz was too sophisticated for the role. Sondheim for his part says that he hates the adaptation save for Natalie Wood's performance. And despite the fact that I actually like the Russell movie (and prefer it to the garish Bette Midler TV movie), yeah, I'm inclined to agree with them. Rosalind Russell will never be the definitive Rose in anyone's mind and while Lisa Kirk does an excellent job dubbing, the songs aren't done justice. The movie too often falls to filmic conventions that were becoming outdated even then, and none of the changes particularly do anything to enhance the story.

Going back to the main subject, the oft-rumored Catherine Zeta-Jones movie was more interesting to me personally (assuming there's not some awful Rob Marshall-esque "concept" slapped on top of it). I stand by initial remark that whatever wish fulfillment this would provide for all parties, Streisand is simply too old, regardless of vaseline-smeared lenses, threadlifts, or "TRON: Legacy" de-aging technology. Especially if the rumors ended up being true and Tom Hanks were cast opposite her. On that note, she doesn't have the same vocal power she had in her heyday. I mean, this isn't a knock at her, because who does? I'm also of the opinion that she hasn't really done anything acting-or-singing-wise that's impressed me since... the '60s or so, and that I can easily see this being less an adaptation than vanity project, but I know that's just me.

[Cordy_Biddle]

I do think the Roz Russell version needs to be applauded for having the bravery to take the play "outside", something the Bette Midler version doesn't achieve (being a carbon-copy of the play in every sense).

Lisa Kirk did a brilliant job of dubbing for Russell; I really enjoy her take on the songs. My argument is that a film helps younger audiences "discover" the work in the first place; rather than acting as a permament record that destroys all memory of the original stage work. We can have both. People are still performing "Gypsy" on stage despite the two movies. Having a third won't make much difference. Unless Laurents was gearing himself for the Babs version to be the BE ALL/END ALL version of the musical; which I think is nuts.

[Disney Duster]

I don't get how Sondheim has a good point at all...

He says that their should be multiple productions with multiple casts that go on into infinity, not a "definitive" one.

But you can do that with films. You can have multiple films with multiple casts that go on into infinity, and they already are some.

And he has freaking films of Into the Woods, Sunday in the Park with George, Company, and two films of Sweeney Todd!

[SpringHeelJack]

I don't get how Sondheim has a good point at all...

He says that their should be multiple productions with multiple casts that go on into infinity, not a "definitive" one.

But you can do that with films. You can have multiple films with multiple casts that go on into infinity, and they already are some.

And he has freaking films of Into the Woods, Sunday in the Park with George, Company, and two films of Sweeney Todd!

You CAN have multiple films with multiple cats that go on into infinity, but how often does that realistically happen?

And he's not arguing AGAINST movie musicals, though of the ones you mention, only one is a legitimate film version (which is the only film version of his musicals he claims to actually like), but he's arguing against making a movie for the sake of making a "definitive" version. Either way, you shouldn't hold him accountable for Laurents' decision. He just offered his thoughts. He's not the one calling the shots.

Also also, it's entirely possible that what Sondheim said and what Laurents took from it are two different things. Laurents has been known to get his own interpretation of things before.

[carolinakid]

Babs should just play Mama Rose on a new studio cast recording of Gypsy with Lea Michele as Louise and Darren Criss as Tulsa, if no film is to happen....Who should sing June and Herbie?

[Disney Duster]

Did Streisand say she was trying to make the definitive version?

Even if she was, the reality is that everyone kind of tries to make a definitive version or the best version there can possibly be, or at least, more often than not that's their thinking. But even if they do make a version that everyone thinks is the best, definitive one, there can still be others that come later that surprisingly seem even better, or people with different opinions think one of them is the best while others think a different one is the best.

And actually, to not try and make your movie or show production the best you can possibly think of making it is not giving it your all, like you should be.

I know Sondheim wasn't the shot-caller, but it would've been nice if he and Laurents and Streisand all talked about this a little better so there were no misunderstandings over this supposed definitiveness or whatever.

[SpringHeelJack]

The situation, as best as I can tell, is that Arthur Laurents wanted to make the movie because there had been no definitive movie version of "Gypsy," that being his sole reason for wanting it done. Stephen Sondheim asked him why he felt the need to make a movie version, and that was essentially his response. Sondheim's point is that if you don't have a really solid and sound reason as to why you should make it, there's really no need for it. I don't think there's really a need to discuss it any further if that's the case. There'd be a lot less dreck just in movie terms if people just stopped and asked "why?" as opposed to going full-force into something.

Anyhow, as I said before, I'm still of the opinion that she's woefully miscast and the entire production would turn into a vanity project with a focus solely on Babs. Had she wanted to give this a go twenty years ago or so, maybe, but from today's perspective, there's far too much amiss with this. If she wanted to do a concert version or record a CD (I see her far less likely to do a studio cast recording than a "Barbra Sings 'Gypsy!'" disc), then sure, whatever. But there's not enough here to convince me that a movie version would be ultimately a good thing.

[Disney Duster]

Well some of that I agree with, and you may be right about a lot of it, but there's one thing I do have to say.

And that is, sometimes if you ask "Why?", it can destroy anything you want to do, because it can not seem to have a point, because honestly, when it comes right down to it, it's "because you want to, because it will make you and other people happy". We can blah blah blah about productions that "solve problmes" or something else, but after all the problems are solved, entertainment, and life, are about just enjoying ourselves. What people fail to realize often is that in itself is a point, is a reason why. So if they wanted to make this just to have an enjoyable version of a fantastic musical, I would not see a problem.

[SpringHeelJack]

Well, yes, that's pretty much the point. Because his point wasn't "I want to, the people want it," it was just "Because." If you don't have a more solid "why" than that, then why bother? "Gypsy" is not something that exists for pure entertainment. The show would not persist in the manner it has all these years (and the character of Rose would not be thought of in the same way) if it was just frothy fun. I don't think anyone who's seen "Gypsy" would immediately describe it as simply "enjoyable." One could also argue that this might not be "an enjoyable version of a fantastic musical."

[Disney Duster]

You think enoying something and it being frothy are alwasy the same?

Sometimes we enjoy sad things, sometimes we enjoy learning things, sometimes we enjoy great performances which use all the emotions we can think of in a lifetime.

I enjoy "Rose's Turn", like I enjoy "Les Miserables". It doesn't necessarily mean it's frothy and fluffy.

So, what reasons are there for musicals to be made into movies that you would approve of? Why was Sweeney Todd made? Sounded to me like it was because it's Tim Burton's favorite musical and he, you know, felt like it, and would enjoy it, yet Sondheim says that's one of the movie musicals he likes.

[Cordy_Biddle]

Although why Sondheim enjoys "Sweeney Todd" so much is a mystery to me. Surely it can't be for Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter, who can't sing worth a d@mn. It's a singer's show.

[SpringHeelJack]

You think enoying something and it being frothy are alwasy the same?

Sometimes we enjoy sad things, sometimes we enjoy learning things, sometimes we enjoy great performances which use all the emotions we can think of in a lifetime.

I enjoy "Rose's Turn", like I enjoy "Les Miserables". It doesn't necessarily mean it's frothy and fluffy.

I'm not saying you can't "enjoy" "Gypsy" on some level, but what I'm saying is that you shouldn't want a filmed adaptation to be viewed as just "enjoyable." I'd still argue the point that "enjoyable" shouldn't be the primary thing used to describe the show or any potential movie version, but I imagine we'd be going in circles there.

So, what reasons are there for musicals to be made into movies that you would approve of? Why was Sweeney Todd made? Sounded to me like it was because it's Tim Burton's favorite musical and he, you know, felt like it, and would enjoy it, yet Sondheim says that's one of the movie musicals he likes.

It's hardly up to me what I feel is legitimate. What I feel is a good reason or isn't a good reason was not my point, I was simply elaborating on what Sondheim seemed to say. Who can say why "Sweeney" was made precisely? If the movie was for whatever reason made solely off the reasons you state, that would still be a better reason than "because." I also know that Tim had been kicking around a movie version of "Sweeney" since he saw it ages ago and that Sondheim just liked his vision for it. Perhaps if Babs had some sort of greater presentation than "Barbra Streisand as Rose" we might not be having this conversation.

Going back to my first point, even if we assume that "Barbra Streisand as Rose" was not a good enough reason for Laurents or Sodheim... that's still their call.

Although why Sondheim enjoys "Sweeney Todd" so much is a mystery to me. Surely it can't be for Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter, who can't sing worth a d@mn. It's a singer's show.

It's a show that SOUNDS nicer with legit voices, sure, but Sondheim has always prized acting ability over singing ability, something he's said many times over. Hell, Judi Dench, Glynis Johns and Elaine Stritch don't have what you would call "pretty" singing voices, but that's never stopped them from performing his work. Additionally, he makes mention in "Finishing the Hat" that he likes the way it was adapted, including the cutting of the ensemble numbers. He says something about how anything inherently theatrical needs to be adapted as such in making a movie, which is one of the many reasons he loathes the "A Little Night Music" film so (on this note, I think he also mentions that the theatrical nature of "Gypsy" and namely "Rose's Turn" would require some severe tampering to work as a movie, if it indeed ever could).

I'd also argue that while Johnny and Helena aren't going to be doing Broadway any time soon, neither one is an awful singer. Helena has a slight voice, sure, but both can hit notes and sing from a technical perspective. Also, let's not forget that he liked both actors and agreed to them being cast from their audition tapes. If you want to REALLY hear someone who can't sing "worth a damn" I'd point to several other actors, like Pierce Brosnan in "Mamma Mia!" who sounded something like a wounded water buffalo getting a rectal exam, Sophia Loren in "Man of La Mancha" who renders the lyrics near incomprehensible and has about one third the needed range, and Oliver Reed in "Tommy" who remains to this day the single worst vocal performance ever put on celluloid in my opinion.

[Cordy_Biddle]

I understand where you are coming from, Jack, but I do feel that in Sondheim, you really need to be a strong technical singer. As a performer myself, I know I really have to watch my "P's" and "Q's", because Sondheim's material is far and away some of the most difficult and demanding you can ever interpret.

It sounds simplistic sure, but once you begin to dig and discover all the underlying groundwork and subtext, it's more than a meal. One of the many reasons why I regard Sondheim as the king of musical theatre.

[Disney Duster]

By enjoyable I also mean even mere interest and love of something, and can't at least one of those be applied to the reason for making or seeing all great pieces of art?

I did think of a possible reason more for making something though, and that's if you have "a vision" for something. But I don't think we're sure if Barabara and Laurents didn't have a vision. In fact, we can't seem to find anywhere where it says either one wanted to do it just "because".

Cordy Biddle, I'm going to have to agree with SpringHeel here. I mean...Sondheim...approved of these actors' singing and valued acting over singing, anyway. Also, I personally thought Depp and Carter sounded lovely at times. Not powerful or strong, but kind of pleasing in an unusual way.

I even heard a comparison of Depp's voice with two previous Broadway actors in the role (I think the one from the video, the second guy who was Sweeney in the original cast, and then the one from the last revival) and Depp actually sounded better than them in the short comparison (the bit he sang from the trailer compared with them singing the same part of that song).

And, SpringHeel just knows his Sondheim, I bet he already more or less knows what you just wrote in your last paragraph.