| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 06:01 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - SuzanneR 01:46 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| Well, I'm pretty sure he'd be delighted to star in a huge-budget, live television musical for a major TV network, so it don't think his career is beyond this sort of project in that respect. But as I noted, and I guess you agree, I don't think any male who reads as more of an adult than a child can really get away with playing Peter Pan. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 08:15 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - Michael_Portantiere 06:01 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| I think I could see Radcliffe doing a stage or film version of Peter Pan that was devised as an unusual or offbeat take on the play. Doing the part straight doesn't seem like the kind of thing he'd be into. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 06:49 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - Michael_Portantiere 06:01 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| I am very surprised you think he'd be delighted to do something like this. Everything he has said suggests just the opposite. A big junky mainstream TV special? I don't think so. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 09:25 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 06:49 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| And I am very surprised that you are so sure he wouldn't want to do something like this. PETER PAN is a very well regarded and beloved American musical theater staple. If Radcliffe wanted to do HOW TO SUCCEED, and had a great success with it (despite giving an extremely disappointing performance in it because he had no direction), I could certainly see him wanting to do PETER PAN in a major production for a major TV network -- IF he fit the part. But as I said, I don't think he does. Yes, I realizes HOW TO SUCCEED won a Pulitzer and PETER PAN did not (for several obvious reasons), but I certainly don't think this is a case of H2S being in a different universe than PETER PAN in terms of prestige or classic status. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | sf 02:11 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - Michael_Portantiere 09:25 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| I can also see, given everything he's said about the *craft* of acting, and about how he wants to stretch himself, that the live, one-shot aspect of the broadcast might be something that would appeal to him. I doubt he'll end up doing it - I think they'll go for a pop star - but I wouldn't call this the sort of thing he'd automatically turn down. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 03:35 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - sf 02:11 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| I don't think performing in a "live, one shot aspect" is much of a stretch for someone who is used to performing on stage, live, in one shot, every fucking day. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 11:56 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 03:35 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| Oh, I think there are a number of unique and very difficult challenges in doing a live TV version. For one thing, the performer has to be constantly conscious of which camera he's playing to, and, depending on the direction of the show, he may even modulate his performance for the bits when he's in closeup and play out bigger for the long shots. It's also surely a challenge to play light comedy without an audience: the actor has constantly to be reminding himself that the laughs are out there somewhere, just not anywhere in earshot. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 12:14 am EST 01/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - LegitOnce 11:56 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| Legit, do those honestly seem like "challenges" that this young man would be keen to undertake? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 02:25 pm EST 01/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 12:14 am EST 01/21/14 |
|
| |
| Well, no, not offhand, at least not while playing Peter Pan. I could imagine Radcliffe doing a live TV version of a different musical or of a straight play he found challenging. My point, though, was that live TV is quite a different experience for the performer from live theater, not that the different challenges would be particularly attractive to any given performer. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | JohnDunlop 05:42 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 03:35 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| ryhog, In Mary Martin's autobiograph, she writes about the rehearsals for the 1960 "Peter Pan," the only one that was not broadcast live. While flying, she slammed into a wall and broke her arm. I assume she had an understudy on Broadway and perhaps in the live versions of "Peter Pan." But, live television adds a whole new level of concern and tension when the star is flying through the air in front of millions of people. The amount of tension could make flying accidents even more likely. She also writes about other problems of performing in other live TV specials, like "Annie Get Your Gun," specifically getting from one soundstage to another far away in the minute or two the commercial is running. To be blunt, the performance in a theater (where you can stop the show and explain to the audience, if necessary) and live TV are two very different things. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 10:23 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - JohnDunlop 05:42 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| What's the take away from that blunt message? That until you've been hurt, you don't know how to act? In football, there are a lot of concussions. But does it make you a better player to have had one? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Mary Martin's broken arm | |
| Posted by: | showtunetrivia 06:25 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - JohnDunlop 05:42 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| Martin had a new wire puller that day, who apparently got so carried away by her performance that he let her smack the wall. She didn't let on to the kids in the show how serious the injury was, since she didn't want to frighten the, but had it privately set. They posted a sign on that wall: MARY MARTIN SLAPPED HERE. And she did go on as Maria that night! Laura | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | sf 05:02 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 03:35 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| What charming language. You don't see a *slight* difference between performing in a medium-sized West End theatre to a single audience and performing on a soundstage to a television audience of millions? Or between performing a play over an extended run of somewhere between a few weeks and a few months and getting *one shot* at getting it right? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 05:13 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - sf 05:02 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| In terms of the craft of acting and the "stretching" thereof, which is what you stated as the reason he would do this, no I don't, and I find it hard to believe anyone would. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | sf 05:29 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 05:13 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| Really? You don't see any difference at all between honing a performance over weeks of previews in front of an audience, or developing a performance in multiple takes on a film set, and a live TV broadcast in front of millions in which there's no opportunity at all to correct a mistake? Whatever. Thank you, at least, for managing to express yourself this time without resorting to juvenile profanity. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 10:19 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - sf 05:29 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| from the standpoint of the craft of acting, or, more specifically, the sort of "stretching" that Daniel Radcliffe might be inclined to seek in projects, no, not at all. I also don't think he would be inclined to walk a tight rope, just because it exposes him to risks he would otherwise avoid. That's not how I define acting. "Juvenile profanity"? That sounds like an oxymoron. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 04:33 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 03:35 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| And you don't think there's a HUGE difference in performing live for a theater audience of about 1,500 and performing live for a TV audience in the multi-millions? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | JohnDunlop 07:10 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 06:49 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| I agree that it is unlikely that Radcliffe would do it, although he is short enough to off set his age (and perhaps pass for a boy). On past form, I can not argue strongly with your phrase, "big junky maninstream TV special." But, there's always the off chance that NBC will cast Peter and Hook just right. It's a little early to dismiss that whole thing, don't you think. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 08:23 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - JohnDunlop 07:10 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| Yes there is a chance that the network will lose its mind and cast this show in a way that would interest me (and perhaps you). But I think it's more like an off-off chance. I'd think that the sort of version that would even start to get Radcliffee's attention would need a parental advisory at the top, and I have a funny feeling that's not what they have in mind. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 08:29 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 08:23 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| And probably at the bottom as well. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | mikem 08:43 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - LegitOnce 08:29 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| I'm not sure why appearing in Peter Pan would be less appealing than appearing in How to Succeed in Business. How to Succeed is about as mainstream as it gets. And I think, now that the concept has been shown to draw in ratings, I wouldn't be surprised if NBC was able to snag someone who wouldn't have considered it the first time around. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 09:06 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - mikem 08:43 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| LOL. Is it your sense that Radcliffe's choices are based on ratings? How to Succeed was a way of demonstrating that he had the chops to do it. And it was on Broadway, not in a TV studio. And he was a teenager when it materialized. This thing, however successful it might be, is several rungs down the ladder. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 09:30 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 09:06 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| I completely disagree with your reasoning. And if you're implying that Radcliffe is now ONLY interested in doing edgy, dark, adult material, and will never again consider doing anything lighter that would appeal to his younger fans, then I guess you think you know what's in his mind as well as he does. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 10:46 pm EST 01/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - Michael_Portantiere 09:30 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| I'll say it once more: it is not about the material; it is about the medium. I can only go on the same things you can, which is what he has said publicly. And based on what we know of him, I do not think he is going to do a junky TV special. I also don't expect to see him on Celebrity Apprentice. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 04:36 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 10:46 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| PETER PAN may not turn out well if it's as poorly directed and woefully miscast as THE SOUND OF MUSIC, but there's nothing inherently "junky" about a huge-budget, well-rehearsed production of a classic musical by a major TV network. I fail to see the comparison to CELEBRITY APPRENTICE. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 05:26 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - Michael_Portantiere 04:36 pm EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| Michael, the disconnect between what you are talking about, and what NBC has done and almost undoubtedly will do again is gaping. Your wishful thinking is the reason you and I are not communicating on this subject. This endeavor is not about art, it is about ratings. And the result is going to be the lowest common denominator on all levels. I admire your optimism, but I think it is ill-placed, and I don't think Daniel Radcliffe or anyone else of his stature and intention is going to touch something like this. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | mikem 05:03 am EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 10:46 pm EST 01/19/14 |
|
| |
| Your ideas about the relative prestige of film and TV are outdated. Think of all the film stars (Matthew McConaughey being the latest) to appear on TV recently. And Daniel Radcliffe is one of them. He stars in a TV series, A Young Doctor's Notebook, which has run two seasons and whose most recent episode was last month. And I don't think this Peter Pan is automatically "junky." If there was a revival of Peter Pan on Broadway, I don't think it would get dismissed automatically as "junky." This year's Sound of Music could have been better, but a lot of people found it entertaining, and it was successful in the way Hollywood measures success (by ratings, and it also got a Directors Guild nomination, voted on by other directors.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 11:01 am EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - mikem 05:03 am EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| The issue is not TV vs film, nor is it Peter Pan. (I was not suggesting the property itself was junky.) But this show is not borne of making something great; it is about ratings for a family special, and it is going to be perceived as ratings junk unless and until NBC foolishly tries to make it into something more artful that wil have the sort of ratings the Tonys get in the same time slot. Lots of things are successful in Hollywood that I don't expect to see Daniel Radcliffe signing up for. Do you expect him on Dancing with the Stars too? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? | |
| Posted by: | SuzanneR 05:04 pm EST 01/20/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe Daniel Radcliffe? - ryhog 11:01 am EST 01/20/14 |
|
| |
| "But this show is not borne of making something great; it is about ratings" Perfect description ... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 1.614649 seconds.