Musicals.Net
http://musicals.net/forums/

Bette Midler Gypsy
http://musicals.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=78648
Page 1 of 1

Author:  xoalxscrzox [ Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Bette Midler Gypsy

Why didn't people like her performance in the film ? I was watching the movie last night and thought she was amazing. Her singing was a little off but I still enjoyed it.

Author:  Salome [ Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:15 am ]
Post subject: 

I thought she was terrible. her Rose peaked way too early. she built up to "Everythings Com,ing Up Roses' and had nowhere to go in act 2. all of the 2nd half is Bette overacting and all on one note in her performance.

She didnt really find the depth in Rose that Roz Russell,Angela Lansbury,Tyne Daley and even Patti LuPone did.

Author:  DontDoSadnessxx [ Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:24 am ]
Post subject: 

Because Bette Midler isn't good.

Author:  Brother Marvin Hinten, S. [ Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:41 am ]
Post subject: 

Salome wrote:
I thought she was terrible. her Rose peaked way too early. she built up to "Everythings Com,ing Up Roses' and had nowhere to go in act 2. all of the 2nd half is Bette overacting and all on one note in her performance.


Couldn't the same be said for Merman?

Author:  Brock07 [ Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:06 am ]
Post subject: 

Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote:
Salome wrote:
I thought she was terrible. her Rose peaked way too early. she built up to "Everythings Com,ing Up Roses' and had nowhere to go in act 2. all of the 2nd half is Bette overacting and all on one note in her performance.


Couldn't the same be said for Merman?


Yes. IMO anyways. Really not a fan of that performance. But I love everyone else's....especially those my Lansbury, Lupone, and Daly.

Author:  Salome [ Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote:
Salome wrote:
I thought she was terrible. her Rose peaked way too early. she built up to "Everythings Com,ing Up Roses' and had nowhere to go in act 2. all of the 2nd half is Bette overacting and all on one note in her performance.


Couldn't the same be said for Merman?


having not been alive to see Merm's on stage in tyhe role i cannot judge first hand..but I do know that she had trouble with the role as well. not to the extent that Bette (such as peaking at the end of act I) did but she not give the performance that the role deserves either.

Author:  teapot [ Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Salome wrote:
Brother Marvin Hinten, S. wrote:
Salome wrote:
I thought she was terrible. her Rose peaked way too early. she built up to "Everythings Com,ing Up Roses' and had nowhere to go in act 2. all of the 2nd half is Bette overacting and all on one note in her performance.


Couldn't the same be said for Merman?


having not been alive to see Merm's on stage in tyhe role i cannot judge first hand..but I do know that she had trouble with the role as well. not to the extent that Bette (such as peaking at the end of act I) did but she not give the performance that the role deserves either.


You know I disagree, Salome, but I must say your point was very nicely put. I think part of the disagreement has to do with the vast difference between 1950's approaches to character, and more modern views, but it is true that Merman's portrayal of Rose was not multi-faceted. But then, it was not supposed to be.

Author:  RainbowJude [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Russell's Rose

Salome wrote:
She didn't really find the depth in Rose that Roz Russell, Angela Lansbury, Tyne Daley and even Patti LuPone did.

There was little depth in Russell's Rose. She should never have been cast in the role: she can't act it and she can't sing it. She delivers a performance of an amazingly limited range and her take on the character has even less dynamic than you criticise Midler for having. At least Midler peaks somewhere; Russell's character barely has an arc at all and she's she same in the first scene as she is in the last and her - at best - mediocre Rose is a huge contributing factor to the overall weakness of the film itself.

Author:  Adie [ Sat May 01, 2010 2:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Russell's Rose

RainbowJude wrote:
Salome wrote:
She didn't really find the depth in Rose that Roz Russell, Angela Lansbury, Tyne Daley and even Patti LuPone did.

There was little depth in Russell's Rose. She should never have been cast in the role: she can't act it and she can't sing it. She delivers a performance of an amazingly limited range and her take on the character has even less dynamic than you criticise Midler for having. At least Midler peaks somewhere; Russell's character barely has an arc at all and she's she same in the first scene as she is in the last and her - at best - mediocre Rose is a huge contributing factor to the overall weakness of the film itself.


I quite like Ros Russell's Rose*, I think that Rose is such a difficult character to put on screen. Russell's Rose is frantic, has an quirky charm and through her acting sets the pace for the film. The 'franticness' that I mentioned I felt was created from her Rose's internal drive that made her selfish and often cold.
it's fun to say at least

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/