| re: Hugh will be back in the show 1/6 (COVID) | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:25 pm EST 12/28/21 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:12 pm EST 12/28/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hugh will be back in the show 1/6 (COVID) - PlayWiz 01:01 pm EST 12/28/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think it's just about the absence of a huge star who is why the majority of people are buying tickets... it's the insane prices they are charging specifically because of that. Yes a good production of Music Man with a good cast is always worth seeing, for reasonable price. But let's also understand the reality of understudies. For every understudy who is *also* perfect casting and blows you away and takes away regret that you missed the normally cast actor... there are 3 who are disappointments for any number of reasons (usually having nothing to do with their ability) -- one main reason is the shows can't afford an understudy for each role, so they hire people who could in theory cover 2-4 roles... and there's just no way those people are perfectly cast for all, let alone even any, of those roles. Harold Hill carries the show to an extent. It can't just be played by anyone. This kind of experience just happened to me a month ago, I went to see Hadestown and learned first hand just how essential the specific presence and qualities of Andre deShields's talents are and what he brings... because the understudy on for him, supremely talented and capable as he was, just absolutely was not up to filling Andre's shoes. And the experience of the show really did suffer because of it. No disrespect to the talent and skill of the understudy nor to the enormous challenge it is to be able to learn and execute multiple roles, ready to go on in any of them any given day with little notice (and sometimes no rehearsal at all)... but that doesn't change what is happening for the audience experience especially for a lead role and especially for one that the show is built around AND the pricing of tickets is built around. I also saw an understudy for Val Jean in Les Miz... and I'm sorry, he just was not good enough. He was way too young and didn't have the acting chops at all, and his voice was good but not insane, and it didn't make up for what was lost otherwise. That was not a show built on a star as Val Jean... but it still messed up the entire experience for me. Perhaps he was the best they could get to be an understudy who was technically ok to play multiple big male roles, and maybe he only played the Priest if no one was out. I don't know. But I do know it's extremely unlikely he'd have been straight up cast as Val Jean on broadway at that point... and when you're seeing a broadway show and an understudy is on for a lead, you want to feel like you're at least seeing someone who would have been cast in that role. I don't blame this actor, I blame the producers. I'd much rather see an understudy for Marian than for Harold. And I'd much rather see an understudy for Orpheus than for Hermes. I'd rather see one for Buddy than for Sally, and rather see one for Fiyero than for Glinda. This does not mean, again, that you don't *often* get understudies or swings who are well cast in the role they're stepping in for... this happens all the time. And when it's something like a Marie Christine, or Max Bialystock, or Evita, or Hamilton, or Caroline... they hire specifically with this in mind, and in some cases you're lucky to be seeing the understudy or alternate (i am VERY glad I first experienced Hamilton with Javier on as Hamilton rather than LMM, I think I liked the show way more because of it). And sometimes it was good enough but you come out knowing the difference between a talented cast member capable of doing the role vs a star. And if you paid for a star, if the production was built for or around a star, there's no denying that. And sometimes an understudy IS a star they just haven't been discovered yet, and how thrilling is that to see before the world knows. (And in rarer cases, sometimes a star is cast in a role that didn't need a "star", it needed someone who could actually play the role and sing the role as written, and then you get a chance to see the role played as intended rather than through the filter of a massive and possibly limited ability of the "star" they cast to sell tickets). I know this is not the time to say anything that isn't glowing about understudies and swings, and trust me I don't mean it that way. And I agree they are heroes of the cast who are the backbone of the broadway community, and they also should be compensated way more than they are for what they're asked to learn and do, and the stress of going into the situation. But the reality of the common practice of hiring people to play a smaller role and then must cover multiple different roles... is that the probability that they're a perfect replacement for ALL the roles they have to be ready to step into is not great. So it can be a roll of the dice. But hey, even when they are not ideal for the role they're stepping into... it's better than the show being cancelled. But the bigger point is that regardless of how good or perfect the understudy/swing may or may not be, audiences *paying star prices to see a star* should not be asked to see it without that star without either a refund or an option to have the star-priced ticket switched to a normal-priced ticket (they may well want to still see the show that day without the star, but they shouldn't be paying the same price). And luckily, they do at least have the full refund or date exchange option, as long as they star is above the title. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Hugh will be back in the show 1/6 (COVID) - PlayWiz 01:01 pm EST 12/28/21 |
| Next: | re: Hugh will be back in the show 1/6 (COVID) - jo 08:05 pm EST 12/28/21 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.016178 seconds.