Why do performers of today have no STAR quality?- Page 3

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:34am

The "cookie-cutter" thing really is common. Many of the stars on Broadway don't seem to have that unique edge. You can be a great technical singer and a good actress, but still not have that "star-quality."

I think it's safe to say that there are unique, star performers around today, who may not even be the TECHNICAL best, BUT they have presence and charisma and that "size" on top of a great deal of talent. I think Menzel and Chenoweth definitely fall into this category; Sutton Foster as well, Raul Esparza, Victoria Clark. To name a few.

And yes, the edge usually is in acting and presence. There a lot of great singers--leads--on Broadway right now who just aren't "stars" because they lack presence and GREAT acting skills.

[Aigoo]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:42am

As one person had previously asked:

It's hard to define it but you just know if it's there. When a performer enters the scene and just captivates you and has this huge aura of charisma about them, you just KNOW that they have this quality in them that can't be duplicated by another person. You can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:57am

Harvey Fierstein, Nathan Lane, Patti LuPone, Audra McD, Bernadette Peters, Mandy Patinkin...

If they don't have "star quality" what DO they have?

[wickedkiwi]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 2:11am

ok...lemme see if i've got this straight. let's review our "technical definitions"

star: a person of at least national fame, whom is reknown in a particular field regardless (admit it-there's britney) of talent, but who does belong to a certain category (i.e. actor, singer, etc), in contrast to a celebrity, who is simply a famous person. examples: britney spears, julia roberts, robert deniro, michael jordan (?) etc.

legend: people who have become legendary or mythical, whether for a specific talent or for simply having lived an extraordinary life. examples, ethel merman, marylin monroe, annie oakley, etc.

star quality (according to me): a "special something", like an angel over the shoulder (direct spanish translation, sorry) that allows for a specific performer, entertainer, athlete, etc. to stand out from the crowd. sometimes attached to talent, but not always. someone who is instantly adored by a general portion of the audience in whatever medium they participate, and who radiates a certain energy and charisma. someone who has PERSONALITY and is UNIQUE. think b peters, carol burnett (in my opinion), hugh jackman, bianca marroquin (according to me), and the girl i saw who played tracy in hairspray - OMG that girl just GLOWED! again, unconnected to talent, its more about YOU, really.


please let me know if i have misunderstood.

as for cookie cutter performers - it sure as hell makes me feel better about not getting into any of the 3 performing arts programs i auditioned for.

as for cookie cutter parts, im from the school of thought that it took a LOT more guts to be an artist on broadway in the last century than it does today. now u can actually get training for it, before that? zilch. you could end up living on the streets. so now they have a lot more talent to pick from, and they dont need to choose that one person out of so many who risked that life and actually turned out to be pretty to look at AND happened to have some talent.

could it be that the fact that shows don't last long is a sign of the times? everyhting is a lot faster paced in 2005...maybe a sign of globalization. also notice how movies have the ability of getting shorter, nobody reads books, nobody writes letters, etc.

plus, we can't say people today are crap stars or musicals today are not the way they used to be. why? cause we don't really know. especially during the golden age, there must have been a dozen terrible musicals for every good one. we're just expecting every single one to be good, and that's impossible. same as there's only 1 real starquality MT performer for every gazillion "bad" ones, or bland ones, or whatever u want to call it. it's the bad shows that let the good shows be appreciated, and let them get revived and become classics and etc.

we won't know great art from crap art until we see wicked or avenue q or WHATEVER show be revived a gazillion times, and then we'll say, damn, they don't make musicals like those anymore...it's a cycle.

that's my two cents. sorry it took so long

[wickedkiwi]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 2:11am

sorry, double post.

Updated On: 8/25/05 at 02:11 AM

[Magdalene]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 1:34pm

Personally, I think the media has become extremely intrusive (in the name of Freedom Of The Press) and there is no mystique left regarding personalities (of theater, movies, television, etc.) I think that contributed quite a bit to what is considered star quality.

[kas]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 2:07pm

some of the people that i would have killed to see (or did see) were the performers like Heather Headley, Nathan Lane, John Lithgow, Ellen Burstyn, Liza, Bebe Neuwirth, and Julia Murney. Star quality is so rare, but those kinds of performers were/are the ones that I could watch over and over again.

[Adam Chris]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 4:12pm

When I think of who would be considered a "star" on Broadway (and by "star" I mean names that the average person would recognize) I think of Glenn Close (after she held together the ticket sales for Sunset Blvd) Micheal Crawford, Angela Lansbury, Patti Lupone, Nathan Lane, Hugh Jackman, and Matthew Broderick among a few others. But I have to admitt... I can't recall very many names with recognized "star" quality.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 4:27pm

"could it be that the fact that shows don't last long is a sign of the times?"

What are you TALKING about?! The three longest-running shows of ALL TIME are (by comparison) recent entries in the musical theatre canon. 10 of the top 12 longest-running shows opened in 1975 or later. If anything, shows are running MUCH longer now than they did in the "Golden Age." The original Kiss Me, Kate hardly broke 1000 performances, and nowadays would be considered a flop. The Sound of Music and Gypsy didn't even break 800. Shows nowadays are running MUCH longer than usual.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 4:45pm

it's an odd thing to describe but i know it when i see it. it's like love or some sort or radiance that the performer emits that scratches your psychic itch and you crave them. i think their needs and dreams must all be bigger than life somehow. also, i think breathing plays a part --performers who are not holding their breath.
re: maureen mcg-- i think she is a singers singer, admired tremendously by other artists but not as famous as she should be. she is a bit touched with frost for me, but her voice is a singular instrument.

[Esther2]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 5:24pm

I have to say Finding Namo's
'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. '
-Seems to be the closest answer there is. I don't think that in todays Musical Theatre world that anyone is encouraged to just be themselves, as they all want to work..and the people doing the hiring tend to go for the'easy replacement' who can kinda do everything well..just not special or spectacularly. The cost effective perfromer who can can be put into any slot, is dependable, and even a triple threat. Doesn't make you a star. One of the differences I think is that the music in lots of musicals today is much more demanding vocally, not better, but more difficult for the non singer to carry. Therefore I think a lot of the 'new generation' of Bway composers want a voice that can sing anything..as opposed to a unique sound that is completely enigmatic.
I think star quality is relative depending on your own personal definition. It's like comparing Audra to Streisand. I think it's apples and oranges, others think it a very fair comparison. I do think it's all relative, and that 30 years from now, many of the best perfrormers today WILL be looked at as a Martin or a Merman, whether they deserve to or not.
But again, Broadway doesn't really 'make' stars anymore, as the pop music world and hollywood, have filled that gap.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 8:13pm

I think my response to this will be fairly predictable, considering those that I so obviously favor. At the risk of that, though, I don't think ever saw a true star until I saw Raúl Esparza. Sure, I saw people with tons of talent, and who are great at what they do - but whatever "it" is, he's got it, and he's got it to spare. Whatever this quality is is so hard to pinpoint, but there's something about his magnetism and radiance that can draw so many people in to him, seemingly with so little effort. He's got natural charisma, but visible drive and work ethic, too. I remain convinced that he's one of the best actors in New York, and of his generation. And that he can do absolutely anything - an actor who constantly reinvents himself. Even hopping onto his bandwagon relatively late in the game, it's going to be quite a journey to watch his star rise; he's got what it takes, and he's going to be a legend.

Updated On: 8/25/05 at 08:13 PM

[Orpheum]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 8:17pm

Really, luvtheEmcee?

He has undeniable talent, it's true - but is swopping the likes of Tick, Tick...Boom! for the likes of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang the best way to become a legend?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 8:18pm

Well, one mistake isn't going to kill a career like that. And while it's not the best thing he's ever done, maybe it'll do more to get his name out there into a bit more of a mainstream - and he IS showing off his versatility. What you see in Chitty is a side of his talent that's not much used.

And it's a bit unfair to say that he swapped Tick, Tick... BOOM! for Chitty. That was nearly four years ago.

[Orpheum]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 8:26pm

Perhaps it was unfair, but it was to illustrate my point. I suppose Chitty is completely different to anything he's ever done before. His next move will be interesting.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 8:28pm

Yeah, it will. I'm extremely curious to see what he does next - but it'll be a bit of a wait, as he's signed to pilot the car for a year.

There is something to be said for his getting in touch with his inner song-and-dance man.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 8:29pm

He really hasn't done anything yet that would make him a star or legend.

That's not to say he doesn't have the talent. I'd say, at this point, it's just what kind of roles he gets. He absolutely IS a stunning talent that can very well end up being a legend. With the right shows/roles.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/25/05 at 8:32pm

No, of course not yet. Besides, he's young, yet. It'll happen.