There’s Nothing Wrong With ’62 ‘Gypsy’

Curiously, the publicity for the recent Bette Midler/CBS remake of the classic musical “Gypsy” seemed less concerned with drumbeating the virtues of the new edition than with denigrating the original 1962 Rosalind Russell version.

This negativity was evident everywhere in the media during the weeks prior to the “Gypsy” telecast, including, unfortunately, two otherwise balanced articles by David J. Fox (“They’re Coming Up Roses,” Calendar, Dec. 5) and Susan King (“The Divine Mama Rose,” TV Times, Dec. 12).

The original film seems to have been the victim of a whining, obsessive 31-year smear campaign by the stage show’s creators that once may have been valid but is starting to look a little irrational and petty at this point.

The trashing of the old “Gypsy”--in interviews and in the press kit and even the soundtrack liner notes for the new film--became so relentless, disgusting and tiresome that something odd happened: The mean-spirited publicity didn’t so much misrepresent the old film as it detracted from the new one, leaving a bad taste. Only Midler remained civilized and professional during the publicity, graciously citing Rosalind Russell’s Golden Globe-winning performance in the ’62 film.

But more disheartening is the fact that the media believed what they were told about the old film, without challenging it. King mirrored this with her description of the ’62 “Gypsy” as being “a major artistic and commercial disappointment.” Which isn’t true on either count.

The original “Gypsy” was one of the highest-grossing films of its year, making Variety’s list of top grossers. Also, the film received reviews that were comparable to what I’ve read for the new production: The ’62 “Gypsy” got three stars from the N.Y. Daily News; the ’93 “Gypsy” received a score of seven (out of 10) from TV Guide.

*

My point is, the new “Gypsy” is another fine version of a great show but was it necessary to tear down the old film in order to elevate the new one? The cloud over the ’62 version was generated by the show’s creators. Fox’s piece described the film as their “nightmare,” with composer Jule Styne calling it “dreadful.”

This reaction is confounding as the ’62 “Gypsy’s” fidelity to the play is most impressive, especially since it was made at a time when most stage shows were routinely truncated for the screen. No new songs were added, as with some shows, and no characters were eliminated aside from Herbie and Jocko being logically combined into one character.

The ’62 “Gypsy” did something unheard of in its time--it retained the show’s original overture (conducted, by the way, on screen by Styne) and it was one of the few films to painstakingly re-create a stage show’s original choreography (with Robert Tucker restaging Jerome Robbins’ work).

Arthur Laurents’ original dialogue was retained, almost word-for-word, although somewhat embellished (and improved) by the scenarist, playwright Leonard Spigelgass, who added a narration that brings some extra color to the piece.

Styne, who has conveyed a real contempt for--and a lack of understanding of--filmmaking in various interviews, would do well to complain about “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” and “Bells Are Ringing,” two of his shows that really were butchered and rewritten for the movies. And Stephen Sondheim, lyricist for “Gypsy,” could point to the film of “A Little Night Music,” made, ironically, by the very people who presented it on stage.

“Gypsy” director Mervyn LeRoy got a great, world-class actress to play Rose--Rosalind Russell, whose line readings are flawless. Russell fleshed out the character of Rose as no one else ever has and the actress used her natural patrician ways to give the character appropriate pretensions and airs.

True, maybe her singing voice was partially dubbed by Lisa Kirk, but Russell gamely sang “Mr. Goldstone” and “Rose’s Turn,” without prerecording either and without Kirk’s help. (The ’62 “Gypsy” is legendary for the fascinating way Rose’s songs were recorded--with Russell prerecording some and singing others “live,” Kirk dubbing a few and some in which the women’s voices are mingled and interpolated.)

Finally, Natalie Wood is the only actress ever to do anything remotely memorable with the title character, somehow overcoming the script’s near-contempt for Gypsy. The fact is, there’s nothing wrong with the ’62 film. It’s a faithful rendition, the most full-bodied rendition I’ve ever seen (and that includes Ethel Merman’s), and as it’s been the only version consistently available for 31 years, it’s probably responsible for whatever affection people have for the show.