Why do performers of today have no STAR quality?- Page 2

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 10:14pm

It's ironic that more Broadway sensations don't become stars. Back in the golden age, Hollywood used to recruit actors from the stage. Kate Hepburn, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart all came from the stage.

But nowadays, Hollywood producers will hire reality show stars to act in their movies before they hire stage-trained actors. It's all about hiring the person with the highest profile or bigger name.

As was recently said on another thread, the last time Broadway performers were well-known by the public at large, was the 1950's when much of the television industry was still located in New York. During that time, Broadway stars frequently appeared on national TV performing numbers from hit shows.

So even people in the sticks knew about many NY actors. Not so today.

[cindy013]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 10:21pm

Stephanie J. Block! She has the most powerful voice I've ever heard, but uses so much emotion whenever she sings that you can't help but feel a connection to whatever character she's portraying. Love her!:)

[insomniak]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 10:49pm

Most people today idolize the Golden Age so much that they wouldn't dare admit that anyone else could be as good.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 10:56pm

Most people today idolize the Golden Age so much that they wouldn't dare admit that anyone else could be as good.


Broadway audiences are generally too young to have experienced the "Golden Age" of anything, imo.
There is more great talent than ever on stages everywhere. But the shows don't seem to last long enough for them to become popular enough to be remebered.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 10:57pm

There have been many other discussions in many forums on this topic, but basically what it comes down to is the fact that there are no real theater "stars" anymore because theater is no longer in the mainstream. Rather than plays being sold to audiences on the basis of what performer is starring, the show itself becomes the product, usually based on a reliable, pre-established source (i.e. a movie).

When there IS a star attached to the show, it's a movie or TV star, since no one on Broadway has really been allowed to get to the point that enough people in the country really care about who they are--therefore if the producers want a name, they're going to have to look to the other coast.

There are indeed Broadway performers who are "stars" to a relatively small number of people--we, the theater fans--but these performers are not on the national radar. I would venture to say that performers like Kristen Chenoweth, Idina Menzel, Brian Stokes Mitchell, and Audra McDonald have just as much "star" quality as the likes of Ethel Merman and Alfred Drake once had, but unfortunately, not enough people care anymore.

Updated On: 8/24/05 at 10:57 PM

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 11:07pm

Excellent comment and very true. The fact that Broadway has become so pricy (and risky) to produce and to attend doesn't help. This is a nice disussion. A refreshing change.

[insomniak]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 11:11pm

PB, I was referring to some of the older theatregoers.

I will say that some of the roles that are around today aren't cradles for the Next Big Thing. I mean, Avenue Q was cute and popular, but no one role really stood out in writing, choreography and music. Not to discredit the actors in that show, but I think most of them are replaceable because they aren't required to be unique.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 11:27pm

OMG, there is SO much delusion in some of these posts but perhaps NONE more "Anyone here over 40 remembers when [Maureen McGovern -- if you can fricking believe that] was a music superstar." That woman was never, ever, EVER a "music superstar" in ANY sense of the word. The absolute HEIGHT of her popular fame was singing the love themes in two DISASTER films, The Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno. Disaster films, for you young'uns, were to film what jukebox shows are to musicals. She did a couple of other movie themes and THEN she really soared on the theme of the sitcom Angie.

A music superstar. HA! (Like I needed any further proof that Rathnait doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.) It is worth seeking out the sleeve photo from "The Morning After," however. If only to see what her ORIGINAL nose looked like.

As for why so many performers don't have IT? Well, many are trained in a specific performance style and come out as sort of cookie cutter robo-performers. I've particularly noticed this among Carnegie Mellon grads.

Updated On: 8/24/05 at 11:27 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 11:42pm

Well, out of curiousity... I checked Mcgovern's billboard chart history.

And she had 1 number pop hit "The Morning After."

And that was really her only mainstream hit judging from this website.

Her 1973 debut album only peaked at #77 on the POP ALBUMS chart.
Her 1979 self titled release ONLY peaked at #162.

And her 1987 release "Another Woman In Love" peaked at number 8 on the Contemporary Jazz albums.

Just some info I researched.
And looks like Namo is right, she is indeed NOT a music superstar.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 11:48pm

Believe me. She was NOT a superstar. She was actually kind of a laughing stock.

But you have to admit, the nose job was very impressive.

[theater4life]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 11:49pm

If people like Kristen Chenoweth and others of today aren't considered "star quality" I don't know who would be because she and others are just amazing and ARE stars
Updated On: 8/24/05 at 11:49 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 11:59pm

Okay, I exaggerated. She wasn't a music superstar. But she was a star, a point that wasn't getting across to Orpheum.

Namo, we grew up in different times and places. She was not a laughingstock in my world. (I know you're going to take THAT and run with it - enjoy)

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 12:09am

She was a laughing stock in most of the culture. Not in Christian summer camp circles, perhaps, but a real joke to people in the real world. I mean, THEME songs. That's it. And badly produced, '70s radio pop pablum theme songs at that. Her tunes were beyond middle of the road, they made The Starland Vocal Band seem edgy. Her music was, basically, crap.

And your fixation on her has clouded your sense of reality and informs all of your overheated and not particularly critically astute assessments of Ms McGovern's "gifts." Not only was she not a superstar at all, most of us over 40 remember that The Morning After was a hit because of the MOVIE it was in, not because of who performed it. Hell, it might as well have been Cindy Bullens in her pre-"Doin' It Our Way" Laverne & Shirley theme song days for all that song speficically needed Mo McGovern on it.

She was a joke. She's done some career rehab on stage, and good for her. But she barely registers with anybody, except for you. She'd have to register a lot stronger, with a lot more people, to ever, EVER be considered to have "IT."

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 12:13am

Thanks for the enlightenment, Namo. As always, you've changed all our lives and views.

She is a successful recording and concert artist. That is a cold hard fact. I know she's not your cup of tea, Mr. Rock God, but she is more talented than most of what passes for talent in the recording/concert industry.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 12:21am

Well, you've certainly ratcheted it down a bit from your overwrought hyperbole of just a few short posts ago, haven't you Rath? There's very little point in mocking me because you were more wrong than you usually are and were forced to take back your less-than-well-informed assertions.

I'll just take your shift from "music superstar" to "sucessful" (a much more elastic word that can mean, yes, she has recorded and released music and yes she has given concerts, that, in some measure, is a "success") as your special little way of saying, "I didn't know what I was talking about, you're right, Namo."


Oh, look! I thought all copies of this Maureen McGovern picture had been destroyed. If only we could go back and recast "Honk!," huh?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 12:37am

Now HERE'S star quality. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Miss Maureen McGovern, in a screen grab from one of the approximately 9 seconds of screen time the producers of the three hour epic "The Towering Inferno" allotted to the "It" Girl Music Superstar of her Era!

[bjivie2]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 12:50am

"Shows are simply not being written as well as they were in the past."

This is simply false. The musical has gone through leaps and bounds since the "Golden Age." The form has developed very well over the years, and if shows really weren't being written as well as they used to, then there wouldn't be a Broadway any more. Not saying they're better written, because now is another time, but they're most definitely not worse. (for the most part - keep in mind there were some pretty awful shows in the "Golden Age")

I do agree, however, (for the most part) that shows are not being written as star vehicles as they once were, but I think that's also because the form of the musical now. No one is content to watch a thinly-veiled plot just so that they can hear someone like Ethel Merman belt out some showstoppers. (exception to the rule: The Boy From Oz) People REALLY are looking for more plot, and whether they trick people into thinking they're getting plot with shows like Wicked when they're actually getting very old-fashioned razzle-dazzle, or extremely plot- and emotion-heavy shows like The Light in the Piazza, theatre today is just not made for the "star turns" as they were in the 40s, 50s and 60s. It just doesn't happen as often.

Updated On: 8/25/05 at 12:50 AM

[Aigoo]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 12:58am

Little Women seemed like a show that was SOLELY based on Sutton's mere appearance. And look how that turned out. It certainly isn't as common for shows to be written for the actual performer, keeping their personal characteristics in mind, but it's much easier not to. It'd be more convenient to the money-makers of the show to create a SHOW that will last much longer, with easily replacable performers than a show that hinges its ticket sales on the appearance of a certain someone.

[chrissly]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:02am

Stepping back from the Maureen bashing for a bit, the original post's subject was "Why do performers of today have no STAR quality?" I'm always very interested whenever anyone brings up this "star quality" thing.

To answer the original question, I think Star Quality needs to be defined. Saying it's "that certain something" isn't good enough. To know something is to be able to define it. If you can define it (and here's a hint, it's not album sales) then you can begin to ponder why it may not exist today.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:11am

I'll tell you why it doesn't exist as much nowadays. Now, schools are churning out cookie-cutter ensemble members that all sing, dance and act the same. There are obviously exceptions, but performers aren't developing their talent in unique ways like they used to. Now they're all going to colleges that use the same techniques. These colleges don't seem to be that interested in cultivating individual talent, but to get their "employment after graduation" statistic as high as possible, so they just teach people what you need to be an ensemble member on Broadway.

Not to say that these people aren't amazingly talented, but I think that's a main reason. There are many people like Hunter Foster, Jennifer Laura Thompson, Shoshana Bean, who all went to these kinds of schools and have turned out to be very individual and successful. But I think that's why we don't have the strangely remarkably talented people.

We also don't get the quirky types anymore. Musicals are so rock-heavy that the likes of Carol Channing and Robert Preston would never be at home on Broadway nowadays. It's such a requirement that people need to sing their asses off that the ACTOR-singers are getting pushed to the side to make way for the SINGER-actors. I love me a singer-actor, but it's also nice to get those different and unique types too.

Updated On: 8/25/05 at 01:11 AM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:15am

Well, someone astutely made the point I was going to about star quality vs. actually being stars. I agree that it has to do with broadway in the mainstream, the differences in the way shows are being written where so many people can play the roles it's rare to get someone that gets well-known, at least other than our little community.

But I think there are certainly some broadway performances with star quality...I think the embodyment of this is Hugh Jackman, again someone astutely pointed out, I wouldn't even have thought of him. Yes, you can argue he has done movies, etc. but again, if we're talking about quality, not who actually is a star...strictly in his broadway performances, movies, etc. aside his performances on broadway have star quality written all over them.

[Aigoo]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:18am

bjivie2-

I know what you mean by the cookie-cutter thing. It seems that aspiring performers just think that they can just go to New York, audition, sing, and be on Broadway. Or the "smarter" ones think they can make into some "prestigious BFA college" then go right on to working. And usually, that is the case. But it just seems that being on Broadway is becoming DANGEROUSLY close to having the same exact traits as corporate-America office jobs does. If you want to be a lawyer, you'll go to Harvard, get that degree, and go be a lawyer. If you want to be a performer, you'll go to Juilliard, get that drama degree, and go be a performer. Of course, the number of jobs for lawyers outnumbers the number of jobs for performers by a MILE, but it's really not that much different, whereas, in the past, it was MUCH more different than this.

But going through a "cookie-cutter" phase is inevitable. The general philosophy right now is being the most versatile performer that you can be will make you unique and it will make you stand out. And that's a great thing to live by. But when everyone ELSE knows that philosophy and is being taught the exact same thing, what makes you so unique in the end? You're just like everyone else.

Updated On: 8/25/05 at 01:18 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:21am

Well personally..

I think stars like Brooke Shields, John Lithgow, and Christina Applegate are doing GREAT on Broadway in Actor-singer roles. They aren't known for their singing, but they are great actors and have a great stage presence.. and can carry a tune!

[bjivie2]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:26am

Exactly. And you've got to be incredibly talented to go through all that, so it's not a bash on the people, it's just a phase that's going on. It's simply truth: to be employed as a musical theatre performer you need to be able to sing legit and belt, and you need to have ballet, jazz and tap training. We can all be honest and say that acting is not an essential element, b/c to be in a chorus you REALLY don't have to act that well. If you want to be a STAR, acting is one of the most important things. So if you just want to work, then go learn to sing and dance. If you want to be a star, you'll have to learn to do it exceptionally well with your own style and spirit.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:28am

I don't consider Brooke or Christina Broadway STARS. More like Broadway marketing techniques. If you were to cast someone that TRULY would be the best person in the world to play the part, it wouldn't be either of them. They're money-makers if anything.

Updated On: 8/25/05 at 01:28 AM