Why was Bernadette Peters considered an ill fit for Gypsy?

I’ve been watching a lot of Gypsy versions lately(hence the joking post about a new revival) so I’m curious why Peters was considered an ill fit for this role. She played the Witch in Into the Woods and was plenty scary in that along with the stepmother in Cinderella as well as other roles. Vocally she’s not a huge belter but her voice fits the piece just fine to me. What gives? I think she was tremendous in the clips that I’ve seen of her.

She had some vocal challenges early in the run, but she was stunning at the performance I attended, similar to her Rose's Turn at the Tony Awards. I liked having a non-dowdy Rose who you could actually image being a star.

If you search for the previews ore reviews thread here, I imagine you'll find ample discussion about why her casting led to some questioning.

She was definitely robbed of a Tony for this performance! Her shattered kewpie doll performance was so delicate and fragile and ground breaking, she knocked this out of the park, and had her early vocal issues not plagued her, I believe her reinterpretation of the role was has set a new benchmark for future roses.

Her sexiness was a new take on Rose and really made certain scenes — like those with Herbie — work better than in the many other productions I’ve seen. And of course she used that to spectacular effect in her Rose’s Turn performance on the Tonys.


Michael Reidel really led the charge on this since Peters was out so often early in the run due to vocal issues. And she’s had vocal issues in other shows such as Sunday in the Park with George when, IIRC, they did retakes for the cast album when her voice was in better shape.


But the production otherwise was a bore - which Gypsy can be without the right direction.

I never saw Bernadette, but Audra was definitely a Rose that took many forms during the evolution of their role, especially since Audra took a long time to finally get her mix right

She was leagues above Audra and Patti in this role. When I saw her, she sounded great and acted the hell out of it. It felt like a fresh take on this role.

Saw Peters about eight or nine months into the run. Thought she was stunning, but that production was a slog.

Saw LuPone several times, City Center and Broadway. She along with that production were first class, but she did go a little overboard towards the end of the run. I think she got bored and kept having to entertain herself.

Saw Audra just before opening. She was terrific in the comedic moments, and found her end of the first act thrilling, but she cried way too much. Rose’s Turn was not the revelation people wanted it to be. The production was also subpar, and that casting? A stronger, more engaged director would have gotten her there.

blaxx said: "Will someone ever win a Tony for the part that was not directed by the author? I think that comes to prove that when it comes to Gypsy, we are not ready to detach ourselves from his vision. If any other director wants to be greeted for having a different take, the piece needs to be left alone for a very long time. Otherwise, everyone expects the Laurents touch and it's not to the advantage of anyone with a different take on it from what we're used to."

Although I agree that there's probably something to what you're saying based on the logic, the sample size is far too low to draw any reliable empirical conclusions.

Updated On: 8/11/26 at 06:28 PM

kdogg36 said: "blaxx said: "Will someone ever win a Tony for the part that was not directed by the author? I think that comes to prove that when it comes to Gypsy, we are not ready to detach ourselves from his vision. If any other director wants to be greeted for having a different take, the piece needs to be left alone for a very long time. Otherwise, everyone expects the Laurents touch and it's not to the advantage of anyone with a different take on it from what we're used to."

Although I agree that there's probablysomething to what you're saying based on the logic, the sample size is far too low to draw any reliable empiricalconclusions."

Maybe, but until we see a non-Laurents, non-purist helmed Gypsy have the same success I won't believe audiences can fully embrace a different take on the piece.

joevitus said: "Den3 said: "I saw her four or five months into the run, and I thought she was terrific. Whatever vocal or health issues she had earlier in the run had definitely cleared up; she was in great voice. Maybe the sexiest Rose I’ve seen. And it’s true that whenshe did Rose’s Turn, you thought to yourself “This is a woman who really could have been a star” unlike some other Roses who seem completely delusional in that number."

Except, they're supposed to seem delusional in that number. She struck me as an ill-fit for the role, but I totally admit that's partly because Merman set the standard. Thatwas the second time she was put in a Merman role, and both times it just seemed odd to me. Physically, she's probably the closest to the actual Rose Hovick of any of the actresses who have played the role on Broadway. I don't know what that counts for, but is probably worth mentioning. (Edit: only saw after that this has been mentioned above.)

Did Peters really have trouble with the George score, and have to do retakes for the cast recording? I've never heard this and--considering her place in the pantheon of Sondheim singers--I'd be quite surprised."

In fact, I saw Sunday in previews and she was very hoarse, and you can hear on the OBC where sections of songs were later inserted due to her hoarseness. There were articles about it in the Times at the time which attributed the issue to the intense days of previews where songs were still being written/replaced. I don’t recall ever hearing that she had any on-going significant issues after that, but there are obvious parallels between this and Gypsy.

Peters is the only Rose I’ve seen whom I actually believed could have had a career if she hadn’t been “born too soon and started too late.”

Rentaholic2 said: "AC126748 said: "Peters is the only Rose I’ve seen whom I actually believed could have had a career if she hadn’t been “born too soon and started too late.”"

But isn't that just her delusion? Isn't that the point?"

The only part of Rose's Turn I've ever taken to be complete and utter delusion is the idea that there's going to be a "this time." The rest of it always seems slightly journalistic to me. She might be losing her mind but she's finally telling the truth to some degree. Even the line "someone tell me when is it my turn" on the back of her saying she did it for everyone else is her final admission that that's not true. She did it for her.