Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.015654 seconds.