Gypsy (1962)

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Blistering performances.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I know that the film "Gypsy" is a beloved film to many and it was nominated for three Oscar. However, I was surprised, as I didn't particularly like the film. It's not because of the quality of the production....but the character Mama Rose. Mama Rose (Rosalind Russell) is the absolute worst sort of stage mother...selfish, manipulative, obnoxious and, worst of all, a woman who ultimately seemed to care very little for her children. Perhaps this aspect of the film impacted on me more than most folks, as I am a trained psychotherapist and saw the woman as malevolent and god- awful...perhaps because I've seen some moms like this. And, the character is supposed to be what Mama Rose actually was like!Apart from having a difficult to like main character (her daughter, Gypsy Rose Lee, really is not the main character in this movie), there are quite a few songs. Some, such as "Everything is Coming Up Roses", are great...most are extremely forgettable and awful.Overall, I was very surprised how little I liked the film. The production is high quality and all...but not particularly enjoyable...at least to me.

'Gypsy' starts off simple enough. A mother barrels down the stage to yell 'sing out, Louise!' as her two 'daughters' fervently act, sing and dance. This is the beginning of a long and harrowing psychological journey through the minds of people who all have a dream. Louise, the blossoming wallflower - always in her sister's shadow wants to be part of a dance team with Tulsa, who wants to create it. Little Dainty June wants to finally be a Broadway star. The beleaguered Herbie wants to simply settle down and have a home of his home with a wife and children. The heart of the show however, is Rose Hovick. Her drives and ambitions are what moves the plot along, causing the drives and ambitions of her 'proxy-star' troupe to grow more rapidly - specifically..to get away from her. No matter who plays Rose, the character is up for great interpretation. The first time you watch Gypsy, you may think that she's just some lovable, wacky mother who's a bit goofy and just likes to travel and help her kids become stars...even when you find out or already knew the reason she did it. Repeated viewings give a deep psychological glimpse into the inner-workings of how a person who lives through others acts. Rose is very quick, but not quick enough. Whether or not she did it all for herself is up for interpretation, but Rose continues to endear the hearts and minds of musical afficianados because she speaks for a generation. A generation of the lonely, the depressed, the left in the background. That's why Gypsy endures.

Merman deserved to be put on screen and was denied her place in cinematic history. Roz is fine, to a point, but her singing voice and general flash over any subtle moves, both emotionally and musically, keeps her character at a very polished distance. Natalie is the real sore point. She's terribly miscast. The real Gypsy Rose Lee had a body and way about her that, even though she's a young girl through most of this story, made it almost her destiny to be onstage. She had a grittiness that Natalie could never pull off because she's from such a different background. It's like the stripper says about the mother after she leaves the dressing room -- she could have been a good stripper in her day. Well, no, not for Roz and certainly not for Natalie. This production is really overbearing. It has the heavy hand of a lot of money being poured into the visuals and as such you never feel the dust or greasepaint. There's also a stagey feel to the set pieces and this detracts from it being more of a cinematic journey. Still, there's that glorious score. Even though most of the songs are sung terribly, the brilliance of the music still shines. It's another one of those what could have been. Not only with better casting then, but, if they had waited about ten years, they could have used Angela Lansbury as Mama Rose in one of the most brilliant performances ever put on stage. You never hear much about it, but her performance rivaled, and perhaps even outshone Merman's. Bad timing all around.

I suppose most musicals are dated. But in a sense, this one seems more so, even though it was released in 1962. But somehow, film musicals like "Bells Are Ringing" (1960) seemed more modern. Ah well, that's not to say this film isn't worth a watch, because it is.First off, it's a great cast. Although some disagree -- perhaps because of a less than stellar singing voice -- Rosiland Russell's performance as the stage mother is exceptional. Here, her voice was combined in some numbers with a professional singer (and done rather well, BTW), so I think she shines...and at least in terms of a film, so much better than I think Ethel Merman would have (although I enjoyed EM in "There's No Business Like Show Business"). And Karl Malder -- what a gifted and underrated actor. He's perfect here...although how anyone could love the mother here is anybody's guess...but (relative) truth is stranger than fiction. And, although I'm not a fan, Natalie Wood turns in a stellar performance here, as well.Then, there's the music. "Small World", "Some People", "All I Need Is the Girl", "Everything's Coming Up Roses", "Let Me Entertain You" are the show-stoppers by Stephen Sondheim (lyrics) and Jule Styne (music).And, of course, it's a relatively true story. I'm old enough to remember Gypsy Rose Lee...on television, not in burlesque, and it's difficult for me to imagine she was that "hot" at one time (take either meaning you wish). But, she did make history.Definitely worth watching, but again, and not because of the era of the story, this film seems very dated...but enjoyable. Rose's Turn ... Rose