Mickey Jo (0:00)

Curtain up, light the lights, have yourself an egg roll and steal all of the silverware because we are finally talking about the brand new Broadway production of Gypsy. Oh my God. Hey. Welcome back. My name is Mickey Jo and I am obsessed with all things theatre. I am a professional theatre critic here on social media. Hello to you if you are watching this review on my theatre themed YouTube channel, make sure to subscribe if you haven't already. Hello to you if you are listening to this on podcast platforms where you can follow me in anticipation of many more reviews coming soon. But today we are talking about the brand new Broadway rev Gypsy, a musical fable at the Majestic Theatre in New York and we have much to discuss about this new production. This is the sixth Broadway production of Gypsy in the musical's history and my first time getting to see the show in New York. I had seen three productions of Gypsy previously, all here in the uk, but getting to see it on Broadway felt like eating Italian food in Italy, if you know what I mean. Broadway has such a history with this show and with great leading ladies taking on this iconic role that it felt very special to be there. And I entered the Majestic Theatre last week to see this show with nothing but glee and enthusiasm. They were singing may we entertain you. And I was thinking, yes, yes you may. It hadn't occurred to me really that that might not happen. I'm going to be sharing all of my thoughts with you and we're going to be talking about why this production of Gypsy didn't really meet my very high expectations. High because this is one of the greatest book musicals ever written and this role is being taken on by, by the most decorated, Tony Award winning performer in Broadway history, six time Tony Award winner, Audra McDonald. This had all of the ingredients to my mind for a really terrific production of the show. So we need to do a little bit of diagnosis here to figure out what has gone wrong. And when I say wrong, I want to clarify. There is still tremendous work happening in this production. There are still brilliant performances and fantastic, powerful acting happening on the stage at the Majestic Theatre. I don't want anyone who has tickets and is looking forward to seeing the show to feel like they are going to see something that is. Is. It's bad. It's not bad. It's just that we expect so much more from Gypsy and for this to be the sixth Broadway production of Gypsy in the year 2025, it's not that you've got to have a gimmick, it's more that you've got to have some kind of a perspective on the show. You have to have something to say. Because if you have nothing to say or if what you want to say is kind of half baked, then what's the point? Why are audiences paying as much as they are? And why are we reviving this show yet again? As always, I would love to know what you thought of this production in the comments down below. If you have already seen Gypsy on Broadway at the Majestic Theatre, let us all what you thought of this production. And if you've seen Gypsy previously, let us know when and where. In the meantime, then, let us begin with a little bit of an overview of this material and the briefest of history lessons about this production. Why are we seeing Gypsy on Broadway yet again? What's the deal with this show? A Musical fable is the 1959 Broadway musical written by Arthur Lawrence, who wrote the book, with a score composed by Julie Stein, with lyrics by a young Stephen Sondheim. It is Based on the 1957 Memoirs of the famous burlesque performer Gypsy Rose Lee, and it follows her young life. It follows the musical, that is, follows her mother, a very domineering stage mother who is determined that her two daughters, Louise, who becomes Gypsy Rose Lee, and her discernibly more talented sister, June. Now, Rose is one of the most demanding and iconic roles for a leading lady in musical theater. Originally portrayed by Ethel Merman, subsequently on Broadway by the likes of Angela Lansbury and Tyne Daly and the late Linda Lavin, and in the 2000s by Bernadette Peters and Patti LuPone and now by Audra McDonald. Auspicious casting, because Audra is the first woman of colour to get to play the role in a major Broadway production. Now, the first time we meet her, she is bursting into this theater. She emerges down the aisles of the auditor. Hold on, where's my dog? This is Chowsy, everybody. They sell them at the merchandise stand. Anyway, she enters with this dog exclaiming, sing out, Louise. Because her daughters are auditioning their adorable child double act for a talent competition, we quickly learn that Rose is this extraordinary character. She is forceful, she is willful, she is charming when she needs to be. In the best versions of this show. In this brilliant material, she undergoes something of a transformation. When we first meet her, she is using her sheer stubbornness and determination and charm in order to find these opportunities for her girls, as well as a little bit of deception. Over the course of the thing, we see her becoming less of a charming creature and more of a monster as she becomes increasingly blind to what it is that her girls actually want. She sings multiple songs throughout the show, but there are three major turning points. The first is her raison d'etre. She sings some people. When her own father refuses to lend her any more money to try and achieve this show business dream for her daughters, he suggests that she should just find a nice man to support her, another husband. She's been through a few already, and that the girls should be in school. She rejects this. She is so defiant, she takes her daughters and they travel across the country in search of opportunities on the road to success. On that road, she encounters Herbie, a retired talent agent who she coaxes out of retirement with a little bit of guile. He takes a liking to her personally and would like to marry her. Only she doesn't want to get married until the girls have become successful. The exact parameters of this success are a little vague and increasingly difficult to come by because even though they have opportunities, they are up against the cruel passage of time and Rose's unflinching belief in the this one specific act that has the girls characterized as very young children and they begin to sort of awkwardly age out of it. But also, vaudeville as an entertainment concept is simultaneously dying. So while in the first act they're trying to appeal to this thing that doesn't necessarily want them, in the second, they're trying to appeal to this thing that barely exists now. The first major turning point for Rose happens at the end of the first act, when June, who discovers that she has the opportunity to become a serious actress, has eloped and run away from her mother. Mother's clutches. We had seen already by that point when she sang a song called if Mama Was Married with her sister Louise, that June has begun to resent the way she is characterized within the act by their mother, and that she doesn't, you know, release her to go and live her own dreams. And that's the tricky and interesting thing in these characters, is Rose wants her daughters to be successful, but not without her holding the strings. Perhaps because she was abandoned by her mother, she has become a parent who doesn't know how to let go, something she will struggle with right up to the end of the show. She insists that she is now going to pour all of her energy into Louise's career and she's going to make her a star. And she apologizes for sidelining her this entire time and forcing her to stay in Dune's shadow. It's clear to us, the audience, that this isn't really what Louise wants. It's not clear Whether this is Rose loving her the only way that she knows how, or simply reacting to this betrayal from June. But certainly there's a clarity in the lyric, always a purposeful lyric from Stephen Sondheim, when she sings. Everything's coming up roses for me and for you and for you is really an afterthought. Rose is chasing her own dream, her own vision. Her daughters are a component of that, but it's not for them. Even if she doesn't realize this at the time, it's sort of a subconscious utterance in the lyric. That entire song also has a double meaning. Everything's coming up roses means it's going to be great. But also everything's coming up roses. Roses, dream, roses, reality, Rose's plan. It's the possessive roses with a capital R. Now skip ahead if you don't want to hear some spoilers. But we venture into the second act where, like I mentioned, they are up against more challenges, one of the larger ones being Louise's discernible lack of talent. They find themselves working unknowingly at a burlesque house, where it's Louise who convinces her mother that they should accept the booking rather than simply walking away. It is staggering then to Louise, Herbie and the audience that we would witness Rose on what is meant to be their final day, as they're clearing out of the theater, overhearing a frantic conversation between the. I guess the. The company manager, whoever it may be, working at the burlesque house, dismayed by the fact that he has lost a stripper. I guess she's been arrested for solicitation. And Rose, once more undergoing another step in this monstrous transformation, volunteers her daughter Louise. And as a shell shocked Louise, who has only ever really wanted to be seen seen by the young man that she had an unrequ for scene by her mother, who she always suspected preferred her more talented sister. As she complies with her mother's instructions, we hear Rose once again issuing her the command, sing out, Louise. The very first thing we heard her say at the start of the show. Louise becomes very good at it, becomes successful, and in finding confidence in that success, she then, just like June before her, rejects her mother. The two then have this explosive altercation in her dressing room. Rose, unable to come to terms with the reality of her daughter finding the success she wanted for her, for each of them, without her being a part of it anymore. It's at this point that Rose steps out, usually onto an empty stage, and sings Rose's Turn. This extraordinary musical monologue, some of the best writing for musical theatre. She recounts so many of the memories of the years that had brought them to this point, literally reprising lyrics and melodies, unleashing something that she has held within herself, revealing the star that she could have been if she had had someone to push her, been born at the right time. Eventually, the frustration of it all leads to this musical breakdown with Rose alone on stage, declaring, this time everything is going to be for her. And it really is some of the best material of any book musical. The character development for so many of them, but particularly for Rose and for Louise, is really fantastic. There is too much meat to contend with, and particularly with Rose. Women so rarely get the opportunity to play roles like this in musical theatre, where they don't need necessarily to be likable, where they can be brash and where they are the focus and the dominant force, and they can be a firecracker. And it doesn't have to necessarily be with charm and with a delicate femininity. She is just this force of unflinching resolve. She's like Funny Girl if she didn't settle for a mediocre man. She's like Dolly Levi if she got her way the first time without having to be subtle about it. The book scenes are so layered and so full and so rewarding. The compositions are so evocative of the era and so perfectly characterized to each person. The style in which Louise sings Little Lamb is so timid and so shy. The music for the Vaudeville Likes is this perfect witty pastiche. There is plenty of wit throughout. Stephen Sondheim's lyrics. The flip of May we entertain you as this cutesy vaudeville number performed by children to let me entertain you just scored and arranged differently as this seductive burlesque number. Later on, the entire you've got to get a gimmick sequence performed by these three aging strippers, providing Louise a lesson that would become formative for her career, but just diverting us as an audience with something charming and comedic. Every single triple rhyme in the song together, and then all of it culminating in the musical masterpiece that is Rose's turn. Gypsy is extraordinary. Here is why this production doesn't really meet its high standards. So let's talk first of all about Audra McDonald as Rose, because this is the hot topic of conversation. There have been naysayers about this casting since it was revealed, and I had been keeping the faith this entire time. I really felt strongly that even if it was going to be sung in a slightly different vocal register to one that we had heard before, that Audre is principally this compelling, brilliant actress, and that it would be this masterful portrayal of this iconic character. And to so many extents, it still is. I think it might be just a little overcooked. I think the way that we meet her, Rose, might be just a little too brash, too soon, a little too much force. And for this to be a character originated by Ethel Merman and played historically by the likes of Patti LuPone, that seems impossible to say. But I do think that we need a sense of this arc, that she should begin with this charm, and that she should be a person who we can understand at the beginning, and then we should lose her along the way. Like it basically is Abby Lee Miller and Dance Moms, but make it vaudeville the entire time. But she shouldn't feel like a monster to us quite as quickly as she does, because it also leaves her with nowhere to go. And I love the way that her rose is characterized. I love what she is bringing to this character who we have seen performed many times before. And I love that she is bringing new qualities to it. And it feels necessarily maternal and it feels bullish, and it feels stubborn. And we are seeing in this performance elements of things that Audra has brought to the stage before in the likes of Lady Day, vocally, perhaps, in the likes of 110 in the shade. There is a naive quality to her rose that we've seen before in Porgy and Bess in her Sarah from Ragtime. But it also feels entirely unlike anything she has taken on before. And she has crafted, unsurprisingly, an extraordinary acting performance. Yet it does feel as though she is miscast, contextually. I'll explain what I mean, because she can contend with this material easily, and she does. The context here is Gypsy on Broadway with a finite number of revivals. And whether in 2025, Audra is the most obvious person to take on this role, or whether there is someone with it closer to their fingertips. Which isn't to say there aren't roles I would love to see her playing. I would love to see her Desiree in Little Night Music. I would love to see her Sally in Follies. That's felt like an inevitability for a while now. And I'm sort of concerned that this leapfrogs over what might be two better performances. Because inherent to Audra McDonald is this very refined elegance that she kind of has to fight again in order to get down and dirty as Rose and try and be this woman of culture, this woman who holds herself in A certain regard who won't have herself or her daughter spoken to in a certain way when they enter into a burlesque house, but also steals money that the children, who the unpaid children in the act have written to their parents to get. Who is, you know, sleeping wherever she can, who is stealing silverware and dishes from restaurants. She's a little bit of a contradiction in that way. And a lot of the details of Audra's performance, including some of the design elements, don't necessarily help her to convey that aspect of the character. It feels in some ways as though she's having to really fight against herself with a strong characterization to get past a lot of her own inherent qualities. And we also hear that vocally. So let's talk about this vocal performance, because I don't think I had nearly as much of an issue with it as a lot of other people seem to from what I'm hearing on social media. And, yes, this is material that was written to be sung in a certain type of way. Belting. And not just belting. Ethel Merman belting. This is belting that. If Ethel Merman was doing at the Majestic, you could hear it next door in the Barrymore. Patti LuPone would complain about this belting if she was doing a play in the adjacent theatre. That is how loud this woman sang. And yet there's a little bit of collective amnesia going on here, because not every rose on Broadway or in other productions around the world, of course, have always consistently sung it this way. Angela Lansbury would sing it a certain type of way, but Tyne Daly, as many people have pointed out in comments on my previous videos about this topic, did not bring that same kind of vocal force to it. Bernadette Peters also had a very different characterization of the character, and that came with a different type of a vocal performance. Patti LuPone, being the most recent rose in Broadway history, is perhaps the best remembered. And that takes it back to this Ethel Merman style of singing. It's like with the cabaret revival, Broadway seems to have a short memory and seems to think that that is the only way to do things. And I think Audra, who is an accomplished and brilliant soprano, manages to find a pretty great place to sing this score. And, you know, she's still having to figure it out. She's still traversing this material. It's a little less hold your hats and hallelujah, Mama's gonna show it to you. And it's a little more Mama's gonna find her way to carefully navigate the exact key of this song. And there are going to be modulations in strange places that we try and hide but aren't very well hidden. Honestly, I think it might even make sense, push the whole thing slightly higher and let her end on some money. Soprano notes lean into Rose, holding herself in this certain way, pretending to be a woman of class and theatrical taste and elegance, even if she's a little bit of a grifter. Moments after she sings Rose's Turn, she is taking her daughter's mink and saying how it suits her and how she wants to go to these fancy parties. She has always aspired to this successful showbiz world and the environment that comes with it. And I think a Rose singing in that higher, refined soprano register could. It could speak to some of those qualities as well. And it would say something different to previous productions, rather than trying to look as close as possible, but different, and sound as close as possible, but different. That doesn't really work throughout this production, if I'm being honest. And there were a couple of vocal moments where Audra would kind of end up in this difficult mid range passaggio area, but for the most part, I was pleasantly surprised with how much vocal force she managed to find, given that she's still not strictly belting. It is like a powerful chest mix going on. What we lose, disappointingly and strangely, considering that the modulations do seem to put her in a precise and deliberate place key wise, is some of the final notes we end up in these songs. I think this happened in Rose's Turn and Everything's Coming Up Roses, where it's really only in the final few moments that we just back off a little bit in terms of power, which obviously should not be the case. But it's also so much more than just a vocal performance. I mean, this is like criticizing Michelangelo for his brushstrokes. Like, there is so much more to the performance that she is giving on stage. Principally, it's an extraordinary acting performance that happens to be sung a certain way. And if we're having this conversation about Audra as Rose and the chest voice versus the head voice, then we have to talk about the fact that within the musical theatre canon, there are not enough roles written for sopranos who aren't young. Ingenious news. So many of the roles in musical theatre which are meant to be sung that way are young women in their 20s who don't have much character development beyond instantly falling in love. Your Julie Jordans, your Christine Daae's, your Joannas in Sweeney Todd. There are so many more of These cassette in Les Miserables, Maria in West side Story. We need for there to be more roles for sopranos to play in between playing Mrs. Anna in the King and I and before they get to play the mother in the Light in the Piazza. Especially because elsewhere on Broadway, we're seeing these legit soprano roles modulated and adjusted so that Belters can play them. We saw this in the Music Man. I'm already bored of hearing this. Casting isn't right because Rose should be belting. If you are so determined to hear this score sung the way that you've heard it sung previously, I have great news for you. You can stay home and listen to the cast recording and that's cheaper. I happen to think that if you're going to see a Broadway revival for anything other than a new production, even if that new production chooses to uphold every value of the classic original, then you are the one who is misguided, potentially. But in fairness, I do also think that this production is misguided. Let me tell you why. Now, I'm sorry to say it, because I think he's an extraordinary creative, but I do feel I have to lay a lot of the blame here at the feet of director George C. Wolfe, because we get off on the wrong foot on this show and then we. We stay on the wrong foot for a considerable amount of time. These problems begin with the overture, for which, if I'm being honest, the house lights really ought to fully dim because it's one of the greatest overtures ever written for musical theatre, as many of us know. But that's not my issue here. My issue here is that there is a moment where we usually hear a slide whistle and in this orchestration, we are not hearing a slide whistle. And I know I just said if you want to hear everything sounding exactly the same, you should stay home and listen to the cast recording. And. And I know it's deeply ironic that I'm pointing this out, but I do think that that is evocative of a misunderstanding of this show and of this material. And throughout the rest of the show, we experience pacing problems, in particular during Louise's transformative strip sequence where we keep bringing in these curtains and having these moments of long, drawn out announcements with like half house lights up and nothing compelling happening on stage and people just awkwardly shuffling, waiting for her to come out alone onto a bare stage in a slightly nicer dress. A huge proportion of the show's charm and comedy is gone, largely because Audra as Rose is playing something a little more stern and a Little more biting. She enters with such a bullish energy in the first scene that we kind of just bulldoze through a lot of its wit. But also, perhaps because she's such a fantastic actress, she's playing something a little more grounded. It's not as broad as we've seen in previous Gypsies. So when the strippers come in, when Leslie Margherita comes in first as Tessitura, it feels a little bit like we're having a stroke. Because it's as if she received the direction play this scene to the back of the balcony and she thought to herself, what if this was Radio City Music Hall? And in many a production of Gypsy, that would work. The energy of all of these strippers would work, but it doesn't really work alongside this Rose. They also feel like remnants of a more classic version of the show. And this is the big problem here. This show doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be the classic Gypsy or something bold and new telling a slightly different story. Because we have to acknowledge that the casting here is different to any casting we have seen before. And this is not colourblind casting. This is color conscious casting, which I celebrate and would like to see more of. I would like to see Cheryl Lee Ralph getting to do Gypsy on Broadway and Heather Headley and Lea Salonga. So many people I would love to see playing this role on Broadway, and not just the white actresses. I don't care what colour skin the real Rose, the real Gypsy Rose Lee had. No one is going to see Gypsy because they think it's an accurate historical documentary with songs. I promise you, it doesn't matter. No one cared about the fact that Tyne Daly and Bernadette Peters looked very different as Rose. Bernadette Peters, I believe, is the closest, like, in terms of physicality and demeanor, it's been said, to the actual Rose. But she was considered the biggest departure at that point. Once again, we're encountering this thing we had with the recent Broadway revival of Funny Girl, where it's not about being like Fanny Brice, it's about being like Barbara. And with Gypsy, it's about being like Ethel merman or Patti LuPone, because that's the version of Rose people now have in their minds. So the way that the casting works for this production is quite specific. You have Rose conceived for the first time as a black woman, and that being part of this character's identity. Identity and also the identity of her two daughters. But there's also an aspect of colourism here because June Who, I'll remind you, is the more talented, who is also the favourite, is a light skinned woman of color. And Louise has darker skin, tying into the preferential treatment that June receives, which I think is a clever idea because the material does not afford us much room to make illustrations about racism. Within the show, there are moments that sort of hit and resonate a little differently because of the casting. I'll get onto those. But we can, with this start to tell a little bit of a story about colourism within this family and within the entertainment world. It is June, after all, who is picked out of the act by Mr. Grandsiger as the one who could be successful. Now, the other moment that we encounter this is when Rose recruits a bunch of young boys to dance in the act. And these are young black boys who, when the act becomes a little bit more successful, she literally pushes off stage and replaces with older white boys. As we see this transformation as the two young performers playing her daughters are replaced by the adult performers playing the older June and Louise. This particular sequence was originally choreographed by the show's original director, Jerome Robbins. And this version of the show might be the first time this has been staged on Broadway without his original choreography. That has always been a stipulation of the right only they attempt to do something slightly similar but fatally clumsy. And this could be a really powerful and chilling moment. Like I said, it's those moments where you start to see the nefarious quality in Rose that she's quite cutthroat when it comes to her daughters, nothing in her world matters nearly as much. So when she is literally pushing these young black boys off stage, that has the capacity to be chilling and to feel uncomfortably deliberate. But you have to work hard to notice it because the staging of that moment is so awkward. And while I appreciate a lot of the work that Camille A. Brown has done as the choreographer on this show, there are rarely moments of dance that feel as though they eclipse the original staging. One that is very exciting is Tulsa's dance sequence during the song All I Need Is the Girl and we see some gorgeous tap. Now, since we're talking about creative elements, we have to talk about the set. The set is one of the most puzzling creative aspects of this production. I like the costume design. The set design I find baffling. There are perhaps two good sets, literally two. One of them being Louise's dressing room, when she has become a star and she is performing at Minsky's right at the end of the show. It looks a little bit like Santa's grotto with all of this red and this white. But it's a nice enough set piece, as is Mr. Grandsiger's office, the one in which they arrive for a meeting with him. But they leave when they find out he has gone back down to the stage because the man can't stand stand still when he's taking auditions, apparently. And June and Louise sing the song if Mama Was Married that has some beautiful stained glass in the doorway. So almost every other set in this production looks inexcusably cheap, is bafflingly flat, as if they're getting ready to tore it non equity. Tomorrow we have a series of brick wall flats and costume rails and hanging clothes to cover gaps in this set that doesn't look nearly big enough to fill the beautifully renovated Majestic Theatre. What the hell is this production doing in this theater? Specifically? There is a passerelle that passes out over in front of the orchestra pit that is hardly utilized. Louise walks around it when she's doing her strip monologues, but that doesn't make her feel any less alone on the stage. Audra also takes to it for Rose's turn, but it feels like a relic of a very classic version of the show that this otherwise isn't. And I do appreciate the inherent challenge here with trying to bring new aspects to this story. And like I said, there are existing lines within the material and plot points that do hit a different way now, like the number of times that Rose is ignored and is sidelined and is pushed away. She is trying to appeal to all of these different producers and agents. Every time that Herbie has to do this on her behalf, every time the act is looked down on previously, this has just been, you know, because she is a woman in this male dominated entertainment industry, in this production, it's because she is a woman of color. Now there is at least one other thing that this production does to try and pay homage to historic performers of colour within that world. And that is the final part of Louise's stripper transformation when she performs a production number clearly designed to pay homage to the historic Josephine Baker. And I actually like the idea of this choice. I don't mind fully transposing the history of it all and making it about this different historic black performer. This is also where Camille A. Brown's choreography, I think, really excels. All of which makes sense because they're getting to do something that aligns with the vision that they have for this show. But on so many other occasions they are just fighting against the existing material and you know, struggling to find ways to marry their interpretation of it, this new approach to it, to the existing version. And I don't think it's impossible. I just think it takes a little more care than for whatever reason there has been in this instance. The problem with the Josephine Baker ending to the strip scene is that you have Louise dancing this full production number. And perhaps memory serves me wrongly here, and Louise has done this before, but it does sort of fly in the face of everything we've learned in the show thus far about her having admittedly quite little talent, or at least when she finds out what she is good at, it's. It's not dancing, otherwise she'd have been doing that with her sister the whole time. And there are other details about this production which gave me pause. Louise being given a very fake looking sheep while they have real dogs, puzzling to me. I'm not saying get a real sheep on the stage, but it didn't look great. Oh, my gosh, the rose sign in lights that Audra performs Rose's turn in front of. The way. All of these different marquee lights just flashed up behind her instantly. And then she did it in front of the cheapest looking rose sign I've ever seen in my entire life. And I've seen a lot of rose signs redistributing the lyrics in have an egg roll, Mr. Goldstone, to give more of those lyrics to the dancers in the act, taking them away from Rose, robbing her of one of the few brilliant comedy opportunities that she has in the show when she gets so flustered that she starts to sing nonsense to this man whose arrival she is so delighted by because he is going to bring them success and the opportunity to perform on whatever it is, the Vaudeville Orpheum circuit, whatever it is at that point. And maybe it's just me, but I personally have never watched a production of Gypsy where I've thought, gosh, I wish these male ensemble boys sang more. Ultimately, it looks cheap, it lacks charm, and I think at the core the issue here is it is just a half baked reinterpretation of the show. I wish this felt like it was delivering a fully realized vision. Part of the problem might be that the most recent Broadway revival in 2008, for which three of the leading performers all won Tony Awards, was such a perfect classic version of the show that this needed to be something truly individual and with a real perspective. And I just don't think it had that. Which is a shame, because I don't really think it's A production worthy of its cast. Speaking of its cast, we have discussed the leading lady, but let's talk about the rest of the performances now. Audra is joined by Danny Burstein as Herbie, who gives a reliable, classic performance of the character. He defers to her every whim throughout the show and then eventually combusts in this peak of rage when she volunteers Louise to be a stripper without consulting her. His is a Herbie who is overpowered by Rose at every single turn in the Then finally advocates for himself and for her daughters and stands up to her stubbornness and her refusal to listen to anyone else's perspective. He has, as always on stage, the most tremendous warmth and charm. The two of them have this beautiful, very easy chemistry. It's a lovely marriage of Audra as a very different Rose to this very classic, very traditional take on Herbie, and it sets her up to deliver what I think is probably her best moment of the show, which is the reprise of the song that she sings when she first meets him. It's an incidental, charming little flirtation of a song that she reprises sorrowfully as she still commits to getting Louise ready for the performance. She doesn't look back, but she, for a moment experiences humanity and regret. Dani's hugely sympathetic turn helps her to get there and delivers probably one of the standout moments of this production. The other is the final altercation between Rose and Louise. This really well played. And this is where we feel a lot more of the infusion of the characteristics of this production, casting it with black actresses in both of these roles. As this, Rose is berating her daughter for the way that she now lives among the success that she worked so hard to give her. When she's saying things like, I know they're laughing at me, but I laugh at me first, and she's saying that she doesn't really belong in these surroundings. It all feels newly loaded, like many of the other lines that have come before it. However, when it comes to Louise, it also feels like too little too late, because not only does Rose not really have a satisfying arc, Louise has no ark. No ark whatsoever, as in someone called Noah, because all of these animals are about to drown. And normally, Louise has one of the most satisfying transformations in musical theatre. She goes from this very meek and shy young girl into this confident star. And that transformation has to feel earned and gradual. We get the moment where she sees herself for the first time and remarks that she suddenly feels pretty. And she suddenly sees herself as pretty. To her enormous surprise, an early indication that she is going to eventually find a way to be comfortable with the life that her mother has just thrust her into by saying, yeah, she'll be a stripper, go for it. But so many of the poignant moments that we are meant to find with her beforehand when she is singing Little Lamb, they are just delivered and they are not explored. Louise in this production disappointingly feels like an utterly lost character. And it's at this point I should share. I did not see Joy woods performing in this role. I saw a terrific understudy in the role, Chanel Bailey, who I thought did a fantastic job. Brilliant singing, brilliant dancing, but particularly brilliant acting, especially that final scene with Audra. I thought that was magnificently played. But I do feel that this production lets down Louise considerably and it doesn't empower her to be a force to stand up against her mother in that final scene. Like, the actress can rise up in defiance and they can go toe to toe with each other, but she's not armed with the ammunition of the pain that we have experienced with Louise throughout the show, we haven't been allowed to feel that with her. So she just feels like a stubborn, ungrateful child. On the other hand, you have Jordan Tyson, another alumnus of the Notebook, with Joy woods playing Dune and giving the best Dune performance I have ever seen. I have never left a production of Gypsy before. And gone. Wow, June stole the first act. But that is exactly what Jordan Tyson did here. It was so deliciously bratty and petulant and Shirley Temple esque. The facial expressions, the ridiculous high pitched vocal delivery, the feigned youth, the resentment when she's singing if Mama was Married, it was, was so, so good. She was so funny. She made such bold, ridiculous choices. I loved her in this. I thought she was terrific. I thought, in fact she gave the standout supporting performance in the show. Not to discredit the work of our three strippers in the second act, led by Leslie Margarita, who as I already mentioned, is playing to the back row of Radio City Music Hall. If you're casting Leslie Margarita as one of the strippers in Gypsy, you know that's what you are getting. And she is delivering the assignment as she understands it, which I again, in a different production might make more sense. And she gets some laughs. I think she would get more if we had laughed more leading up to this moment. But it does come a little out of left field. Lily Thomas arrives as another very brash stripper, the one who bumps it with a trumpet. Mazeppa. Ms. Mazeppa. That's the one and she puts across the characterization, but it never, at this performance at least got all the way to funny. My Linda Hull, I thought was very funny. And kudos to all involved for finding a way to make that light up Elektra stripper outfit funny in a new way. Because it's been, it's been done to death. And in fact there are many more brilliantly talented performers on that stage. There are some brilliant child performers playing a whole handful of roles. There is an exceptionally large cast, probably much larger than the show needs to have, if I'm being honest. Shout out to Andrew Kober, who plays a handful of moments as different characters in this show with unparalleled dedication, and Kevin Solak, who has this dance solo as the character Tulsa. He's deeply charming, but he dances up a storm. It's another standout choreographic moment, just like in the Funny Girl revival, where all of a sudden we're seeing something that just works on its own terms and is just real, genuine star power and quality. It's a shame that for the remainder of the production, so many elements can't seem to align to deliver what I'm sure this cast could put together. And that's the frustrating thing about this. This should have been a great Gypsy. There is a great gypsy to be had with these performers with Audra McDonald as Rose. I don't think it's the wrong ingredients here. I just think it lacks vision and that's really disappointing. That being said, this is obviously only my subjective opinion. It is still very possible, if you're planning to go and see this show, that you will enjoy it. There is still extraordinary quality on stage. Audra is still giving you an acting masterclass. She's still singing it beautifully. There are still winning comedic, charming supporting performances. It is still extraordinary. First rate material, like a substandard version of this show is still better than many other shows. That is the thing to remember here. I'm holding this to an exceptionally high standard. This ought to have been better than it was. It doesn't mean you're not going to have a great time at the theatre and if you did, I would love to hear about it in the comments section down below. However you felt, I would love to hear about it in the comments. If you have already seen Gypsy Hemajestic, let us know what you thought about it. Do you agree or disagree with this review? And if you want to know what I thought about other recent Broadway and West End shows, make sure you are staying tuned for more reviews coming very soon right here on my theatre themed YouTube channel and on all podcast platforms. Make sure you're subscribed with the notifications turned on or following me. Me wherever you are hearing my voice. Thank you for listening to this review. I hope that everyone is staying safe and that you have a stagey day. For ten more seconds, I'm Mickey Jo Theater. Oh my God. Hey, thanks for watching. Have a stagey day. Subscribe.