Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 09:33 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - lowwriter 09:06 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| For me, THERES SOMETHING ABOUT JAMIE in the West End is the adult version of The Prom. Helped by being based on a true story. For me, THE PROM fell down for many reasons. The central character that Brooks A. plays seems like all the mincing prancing gay characters we saw in films in the 30's-60's. I thought this character cliche was dead. And I had no idea why Christopher Sieber or the big hopping Press Agent, or the blonde with long legs were doing in the show. Their characters, for me, just took up stage time - extra songs that go nowhere, etc, while their stories didnt seem, to me, to help the thrust of the show in any way. Why didnt the 'hot blonde' seem to attract the romantic attention of anyone? Why did the press agent have to be a caricature (of a type of p.a. I have never encountered on Broadway). I'd love to see Brooks and Chris Sieber in roles that require them to stretch a bit into new territory, rather than relying on basically the same stuff they did in the last show. NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they ahve done before - that kills your show. Unless it's a star who we come to see do their shtick. And in that case you have to be at the Nathan Lane or Carl Channing or Bette Midler or Ethel Merman or Hugh Jackman to get away with that. These performers are SO talented. I'd love to see them in a show hat expands what we have seen them do before. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:50 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - NewtonUK 09:33 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| "The central character that Brooks A. plays seems like all the mincing prancing gay characters we saw in films in the 30's-60's. I thought this character cliche was dead." First of all, the character is hugely exaggerated because this show is a very broadly humorous musical comedy. Most of the other characters, for example Beth Leavel's character, are similarly exaggerated (if not gay in that case). Also, in my opinion, there is no good reason why this "mincing, prancing" type of character should die, since there are people like that in real life (!) The only thing wrong with that type of character is when it's the ONLY kind of representation of a gay man that we see on stage, or if we see it too often. "And I had no idea why Christopher Sieber or the big hopping Press Agent, or the blonde with long legs were doing in the show. " I loved ALL of those characters, but also, to answer your question, they are there because one of the central jokes of the show is that a small army of social justice warrior theater people head to that small town to protest the cancellation of the prom in order to prevent the lesbians from attending. THE PROM wouldn't be nearly as funny if only one or two New York theater people traveled to Indiana for that purpose. "I'd love to see Brooks and Chris Sieber in roles that require them to stretch a bit into new territory, rather than relying on basically the same stuff they did in the last show. NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they have done before - that kills your show. Sieber's last three Broadway roles were Georges in LA CAGE, Miss Trunchbull in MATILDA, and Charlemagne in PIPPIN, so I'd be interested if you could explain why you feel he's doing in THE PROM is "basically the same stuff" as he did in those shows. "Unless it's a star who we come to see do their shtick. And in that case you have to be at the Nathan Lane or Carl Channing or Bette Midler or Ethel Merman or Hugh Jackman to get away with that." I don't think this only applies to mega-stars with famous "shtick." Even among non-megastars, actors don't ALWAYS have to stretch in each new role, and smart producers realize that audiences want to see popular actors do what they are acknowledged for doing so well, so I think your whole premise here is flawed. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: jconnors 11:05 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - NewtonUK 09:33 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| "NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they have done before - that kills your show." Nonsense. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 11:38 am EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - jconnors 11:05 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| "NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they have done before - that kills your show." I could not agree with this more, whether it's a play, musical, film or television show. I will add that I have not seen The Prom, I am simply agreeing with the statement that jconnors found to be nonsense. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think I would have liked it more | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:00 pm EST 12/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think I would have liked it more - TheOtherOne 11:38 am EST 12/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| Sorry, but "NEVER hire someone because you want them to do what they have done before - that kills your show" is indeed nonsense as a broad, flat-out statement. No, you wouldn't want an actor to TOTALLY pattern their performance of a new character in a new show after a previous performance in another show, but I don't think any decent actor would ever do that. On the other hand, audiences love certain actors for certain talents, abilities, and mannerisms, and they love seeing those things displayed in various shows. Of course, it's also GREAT to see an actor stretch and play a completely different kind of role than they have played before -- if the stretch is successful. Many actors do this all the time, and are often admiringly labeled "character actors" rather than stars with very strong, definable onstage personas. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.012898 seconds.