| 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 | | |
| 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 | | |
| 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 | |
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: 0.611972 seconds.