Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: dreamawakening 01:18 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - Marlo*Manners 08:43 am EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm all for supporting understudies - I have seen some good ones. But sometimes they are simply not good enough for the part - which is why they didn't get the part. When shows have multiple understudies I think the price should be reduced - you're not getting the production they way it was produced and cast. As for taking holiday weekends off - that's not ever a thing is it? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:23 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - dreamawakening 01:18 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don’t think I’ve ever seen an understudy on Broadway be bad. I’ve seen cases where the understudy lacks the star power of the actors they are covering, but also cases where the understudy was excellent and even a star-in-the-making (years ago, I saw a then-unknown Alice Ripley go on as Mrs. Walker in Tommy). | |
| reply to this message |
| None of these understudies were bad (re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th) | |
| Posted by: Marlo*Manners 09:44 am EDT 05/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - Singapore/Fling 09:23 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| I have seen one or two understudies who were bad (In "The Real Thing" original Broadway production 40 years ago, Cynthia Nixon's role as the young daughter was played by a not very good understudy). When I saw "It's Only a Play", Matthew Broderick was out and I saw his understudy Bob Stillman, who I adore. I would imagine that Matthew Broderick was still giving his patented nerdy Leo Bloom performance that he has been recycling for over 20 years. Stillman was delightful. I am also a lucky soul who saw some famous Broadway replacements including Reba McIntyre in "Annie Get Your Gun" and Heather Headley in "The Color Purple" who were deemed superior to the originals! There are others I am forgetting. In this case, no one was bad and Darius Wright was very good. The understudy playing Jimmy Doyle does not have leading man charisma which shifted the story a bit. The character has a "loser" persona in the story which he must overcome. But charisma is not something you can learn in acting school. Marlo Manners (Lady Barrington) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:58 am EDT 05/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - Singapore/Fling 09:23 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| There was only one time when I saw an understudy be exactly bad, and it was so long ago that I'm not even sure at this point if the person was a replacement or an understudy. The person just seem terrified. Oh, now that I think of it, there was another time, and that one was definitely an understudy. This one wasn't exactly painfully bad, but she was clearly not up to the role. I have seen an understudy who I thought was very miscast (and who fell into the traps of a role filled with traps) go on for a Tony-winning lead actor. The understudy went on in the role a good many times. I have seen understudies who were competent but colorless, an understudy who wasn't awful but seemed like a pretty good but not special community theatre actress (this was also a sub for a Tony-winning performance), and an understudy who was skilled and got laughs and was hardly terrible but also wasn't satisfying, perhaps just because the actress she was subbing for had gotten such raves. The last understudy went on a lot. Off-Broadway I have seen an understudy who seemed like a good actress but seemed like she was doing little more than get her lines out correctly, probably because she'd had so little time before going on. Lots of excellent understudies, and sometimes even a really fabulous one are out there, but there are definitely times (at least in my experience) when understudies are distinctly disappointing and very occasionally perhaps even someone who is sort of bad. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: den 11:25 pm EDT 05/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - AlanScott 12:58 am EDT 05/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| I saw Nathan Lane’s understudy in The Producers the very first performance Lane missed. I don’t recall the gentleman’s name but he was clearly underprepared, not really right for the role, and could barely conceal his terror. Happily, Matthew Broderick, Candy Huffman, Gary Beach and Brad Oscar generously carried him through the show and by the end, the audience was forgiving and very much on his side. I don’t know if he continued as Lane’s understudy, but I rather doubt it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Last Edit: Ann 08:54 am EDT 05/31/23 | |
| Posted by: Ann 08:53 am EDT 05/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - den 11:25 pm EDT 05/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure when Lane first missed, but it could have been John Treacy Egan ( I've seen him in the paat in a regional production and loved him), Kevin Login or Mark Lotito. Brad Oscar was the standby even he was there. It others if it was later. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:01 pm EDT 05/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - Ann 08:53 am EDT 05/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Ray Wills was the other Bialystock understudy when the show opened so I would guess it was him. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: den 09:45 pm EDT 05/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - AlanScott 02:01 pm EDT 05/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, I believe it was Mr. Wills. I recall that it was over the Memorial Day weekend … the show had opened about six or seven weeks earlier. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: Thom915 11:06 am EDT 05/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - AlanScott 12:58 am EDT 05/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| I have seen understudies go on in supporting roles and never would have known they were understudies. As pointed out, understudies for stars often lack that certain spark that makes the original performer a star. Only once do I remember being terribly disappointed in an understudie's performance and it affected my view of the play. I wished to go back and see the originals performance but alas, it was a limited run. She had gotten good reviews and may have been nominated for a Tony and other awards. On the other hand, I have seen a couple shows where I have been very disappointed in the original performer at least one of whom won a Tony for their performance. There is one nominee this year who while I don't think was bad, did not give in my possibly flawed estimation a nomination worthy performance. Maybe I should have seen the understudy. ;) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: tenor1350 03:07 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - dreamawakening 01:18 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| But sometimes they are simply not good enough for the part - which is why they didn't get the part. I don't think this is fair. There are many reasons why a show might offer one actor a role and another actor an understudy track. Sometimes the decision is made because one actor is better known or has more experience. And if producers can get a name, they will. It's just good business. Or a more established actor might have progressed to a career level where they aren't interested in understudying. An actor might also be offered an understudy position because they are talented enough to cover multiple roles. It's pretty rare for a Broadway show to hire an actor who isn't "good enough." Unless its stunt casting or perhaps nepotism. NY has far too many actors who are insanely talented. Producers don't need to settle. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: dreamawakening 03:31 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - tenor1350 03:07 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| Sounds like you're talking about good understudies. Sometimes they are bad. I have seen understudies so bad they never get cast again in speaking/singing roles. I won't be mean and name names. But we've all seen bad actors in our lives. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: tenor1350 05:49 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - dreamawakening 03:31 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| That seems to be a different point, entirely independent of the understudy classification. I've seen people who are the regular actor in a role be "bad." Though I'm reluctant to use that word. Whether a performer satisfies you personally is entirely different than whether they are bad. It's a subjective thing, but that word suggests a more universal assessment. And it's unnecessarily cruel. Also, it's a very different job to cover a role than to be playing it every night, when you can really shape it. An understudy's job is a little different. They often have to replicate choices the regular actor makes, so as not to throw things off too much. There may be some room for an understudy to make their own choices or put a slightly different spin on the role. But it's a different job when you're stepping in for a show than when you own the role yourself. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: mikem 08:05 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - tenor1350 05:49 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| I saw a play once with only two female roles: a character with a brash, outsized personality, and a character with a smaller part who was much less worldly and much more reserved. The same woman understudied both roles, and she went on for the more reserved part when I saw the show. But the understudy was much better suited for the brash role, and it really threw off the dynamics of the show because part of the point was that these two characters were very different, but they didn't seem all that different at this performance. I think understudies are in a tough position: they are not as well rehearsed, they have to follow someone else's vision of how the role should be, and they may find out at the last minute and not have time to do a lot of mental preparation. Some understudies are fantastic, and there are times I've seen an understudy who in some ways is actually better than the original actor. But I've also seen understudies who would not have been cast in this role at the Broadway level as the main performer. And I'm not sure I've ever seen an understudy for a performer who was Tony- or Drama Desk-nominated for that role whom I thought was as good as the original performer. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:04 am EDT 05/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - mikem 08:05 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| I saw an understudy once in a show that had two female characters who, similarly to the case you mention, were meant to be strongly contrasted. The very competent understudy for both roles didn't seem altogether right for either role. She wasn't bad, but she wasn't really right. (Maybe she would have been at least a bit more right in the other role.) This was Off-Broadway and I guess they just couldn't afford separate understudies. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th | |
| Posted by: writerkev 05:37 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sunday Fun Day Understudy Matinee at "New York, New York" on May 28th - dreamawakening 03:31 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| What I’ve found to be extremely common isn’t that understudies are “bad,” necessarily, but that they usually lack any kind of special spark (that the eight-a-week actor likely has more of). They usually feel like understudies, in my opinion. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.079141 seconds.