Making It On Broadway - thoughts

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 7/24/04 at 11:51pm

I finally read Making it on Broadway, and although I found it an engrossing and enjoyable read, I did have some issues with it. I admired how the entire book is made up of first-hand anecdotes and quotations from Broadway performers, and the writers do try to be as objective as possible - however I couldn't help but feel I was still being manipulated. Some thoughts:

- The chapters seemed almost purposely slanted towards the negative. I know life on Broadway is hard, but I felt they were really hitting me over the head with it. Even the "hopeful" or joyful sections of the book all begin with a chapter blurb that says something to the tune of, these are the happy moments of Broadway, but they are far and inbetween. Take these quotations as exceptions in a life of disappointment.

- I felt there was a vein of xenophobia in the book, as if the mega-musical was solely a British invention, a type of British invasion of Broadway. But there was little discussion of the Broadway community's own role in the commercialization of the scene. The book singles out Disney and Cameron Mackintosh as sole catalysts of this, but I think it would have been more accurate to also examine how Broadway producers were moving in this direction anyway; it didn't happen overnight, and there was evidence of it happening way before Cats opened.

- While the book tries its best to cover a wide range of shows and periods, there was still definitely askewed representation. While some mega-musicals like Cats and Les Miserables were covered at length (particularly Les Miserables - in the manner it was discussed, I felt like the writers had some kind of vendetta against the show or something), others were either ignored or only briefly mentioned. A show that was suspiciously absent was Phantom, the quintessential bastion of the mega-musical. Considering how much discussion of the modern-day mega-musical there was, I was surprised Phantom didn't feature much in the book. Another glaring example is Rent; the show was and remains a prominent iconic musical of contemporary Broadway, yet I believe the only performer interviewed was Wilson Jermaine Heredia, who didn't talk about the show at all. (There was more material on Martin Guerre, a musical which never made it to Broadway, than there was of these two "overlooked" shows combined.)

- The issue of sexuality backstage also felt incomplete. There was discussion on how most men in musical theatre are homosexual, yet there were very few quotations from gay men talking about their experiences. Instead, we were treated with a plethora of anecdotes about what it was like being a straight man in musical theatre.

- With an entire section on sex in theatre, I felt they could have also explored a more pertinent issue on Broadway, that being racial casting. The only quotation that touched on that was one by Lea Salonga; but it's something that I'm surprised was pretty much ignored in the book.

- I felt the writers were "pushing" their message a little too much, to the point when it became an agenda. The book's conclusion, for instance, seems more like a strongly motivated incitement to action - a kind of, "this is why Broadway is suffering, this is why it's bad, and this is what you should do about it." It felt a bit condescending and rather contentious.

- On a lighter note, Jason Alexander was annoying, but his foreward was good.

Any thoughts, disagreements, debates?

[aspiringguy715]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 12:06am

Agreed fully BlueWizard, I felt that they were pushing their point to an extreme, forcing it on you.

I'll use the dash system to comment lol

-The negatives were very evident, in fact I found it hard to look for the positives. There were few only positive stories, a good amount of positive stories changed by the negative, and the majority being negative instances.

-I also found it strange that they focused only on Cameron Mackintosh and Disney, especially when the producers are the ones feuling these shows.

-They metioned "Martin Guerre" so many times in one chapter I thought I'd scream. Les Miserables was also covered to the extreme. Cats had good representation, and I agree with the lack of Phantom recognition. Hugh Panaro did in fact contribute, but not much about Phantom was discussed.

-The issue of gay vs. straight back stage was very poorly balanced. All these straight stories and how the straight man is the odd one out etc. The gay man was very poorly represented. If there are so many, why aren't there any stories? I'd like to have seen more stories of gay men back stage, to balance the gay vs straight "issue" as they made it seem.

-You bring up a great point on the race issue. I was wondering as I read the stories of performers cast in Asian-American shows (Flower Drum Song) if they had trouble finding jobs outside of those types of shows. Lea did mention something, but I don't recall. Very interesting idea BlueWizard.

-Overall, as "true" as they say it is, the false encouragement at the end was such bull to be quite frank.

The book didn't change my views of wanting to perform on Broadway, in fact I was motivated to overcome. But I think they could have been a little more general when it comes to their points, not just focusing on the bad.

My two cents!

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 2:02am

Ooooh, some small things I forgot to point out:

- The title of the book is misleading. "Broadway" includes plays, but the book focuses only on musicals, and makes no effort in pointing out the omission.

- The short characterization of Off-Broadway is misleading. It was only mentioned in one quotation, but the inference is that Off-Broadway is somehow shameful. A casual, theatre-unsavvy reader would read that and think that off-Broadway has inferior theatre, when really the difference is only venue-size and union/producer contracts. Many actors would probably consider off-Broadway a much more rewarding experience, but that's not what you get from the book.

And you're right, Hugh Panaro was in the book, but nothing about Phantom. Strange, that this most prominent of mega-musicals was virtually ignored in the book.

Updated On: 7/25/04 at 02:02 AM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 10:40am

I'm in the midst of reading it, but I did notice that Karen Ziemba was quoted only once, where a woman whose only Broadway job was understudying in Les Miz was quoted 4 - 5 times. I just found that odd - not putting down understudying in Les Miz, but that was ONE job on Broadway, where KZ has had 8 shows. Just wondering what the criteria was for quoting certain people many times, and others only once.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 12:49pm

It does make you wonder, doesn't it? I applaud the writers for letting the actors speak for themselves, but there's something suspicious about the way it's all arranged. What we are getting, really, are quotations taken out of their original context, and put into a context that the writers want to present. They're very selective with their quotations, who gets to speak, and what is printed. It's a bit disconcerting.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 12:51pm

Yeah, but it's great fun to read. Just leave it at that and enjoy it!

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 1:38pm

Either you know people or you **** them.

[ScarletFever]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 3:50pm

I loved this book and can forgive the several valid criticisms listed in this post. I read through it voraciously and was dreading finishing it. I just loved reading a lot of first hand stories and people telling me just what it is like to be a broadway actor- something I wonder. I only wish there was more or a sequel.
I did mind a lot of the whining from people who supposedly have reached their dream. I am sure the thousands of people who do not get cast and audition like crazy and would kill to sing one song on a broadway stage would gladly live with the 'misery and suffering' some of the actors make being on broadway to be. I think it is like some of them forget where they came from and how lucky they are to be where they are (as talent is not the only thing that makes for success in this industry, luck has a major part). I can understand some of the complaints, but some of it came accross as ingrateful whining and disappointing to hear. I do understand how gross show business can be, and that every job no matter what has its gripes and downsides, but I really felt some of the complaining was really overboard and petty.

I will never forget when I met a Javert after Les Mis and told him how moved I was by his suicide scene and he was nice to me and all, but his reply was: "yeah, me too because then I get to go to my dressing room till the end." I would think for a performer whose passion is supposedly singing and acting for an audience, they'd have a bit more heart for what it is they do, not just be in a hurry to be done and offstage. And, when I told other castmembers how bothered I was by the cuts and how I felt it took away some of the beautiful music and bridges and I couldn't help but feel something was missing (maybe just because I knew the show so well by heart and loved every minute of the score practically), they said they were just happier to get to be done 15 minutes earlier and they love the revisions.
Les Mis was the first musical I saw when I was 17 since seeing Annie when I was 5, and it made me fall in love with Broadway. I then went to see shows constantly and kept going back to Les Mis having thought it to be the most beautiful score ever and the absolute best show out there. I felt there was so much depth to the story and I remember after the first few times seeing it back in the early 90's thinking that the actors in the show all had the absolute best voices I've ever heard with my own ears. I listened to the complete symphonic recording all the time (though I hated the Fantine in that version). I saw Les Mis a total of 20 or so times in all from '90 till it closed. Maybe 5 years before the end of the show's run, I became disenchanted. It stopped seeming so magical. I felt that the passion was gone from it for some reason, though I wasn't sure why. I remember once I was even a little bored during parts of it and looking at my watch. I couldn't figure out if it was something lacking in the show, the cuts that made it feel incomplete to me and were like nails on a blackboard everytime there were missing lyrics or the music jumped and skipped differently than the original complete version, or if I was just burnt out of the show. I stopped listening to the CD and didn't go to see the show for a long time. I think part of me did get burnt out of it, but I do think that a lot of what I read in "Making it on Broadway" was definitely evident in the casts I saw. I think that many of the actors were simply phoning in their performances, not acting or even believing in their own story and their own lines and their own songs. That the powers that be discouraged any individualism or any creativity or heart in the roles or rather tracks. I can see that the powers that be just wanted mirrored immitations of previous actors' performances and I'm sure it creates massive resentment and burn out by actors who feel they have a talent and a voice and those are basically surpressed. And, if everyone is just in such a hurry to get it done, well then the passion and beauty is going to be sorely lacking. I think all of that played into the performances of Les Mis in the last years of its run with a few exceptions and it made what was once a gorgeous, rich, exciting, passionate show almost boring.
I resent the actors for letting it become that. I mean despite your burn out, your job is to give an amazing, captivating performance to people who are paying money to see Broadway caliber. Fine, have an off day; but I felt it was almost everyone, not one person on one day. And, if you hate it all so much, quit and do something else or take a sabatical. But, I think it sucks to deliberately not act your way through a show that people are seeing for the first or twentieth time.

I have moved on from Les Mis by the way and try to see everything out there with some exceptions that I am merely not interested in (Mama Mia) and have been moved by many other shows. Les Mis was just the thing that got me so interested in theater and it is apt I guess that Making it on Broadway mentioned it so many times. I still consider the original, unedited, unf*cked with version to be my favorite musical.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 3:53pm

You are absolutely right, Scarlet, and I felt the same way while reading the book.

Actually, in giving it some thought, perhaps that's why KZ was only quoted once. She wasn't negative enough to match the book's tone.

Updated On: 7/25/04 at 03:53 PM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 4:24pm

I think all shows die. Although it saddened me when Les Miz closed, I'm now glad it did, so it doesn't (further?) overstay its welcome. But the book takes on the opinion that all long runs are bad, without acknowleding that this is the intent of ALL shows ever to play Broadway. Shows don't close because the producers go, "Oh no, the quality is dying - let's shutter this one and mount another!" They close because the show isn't making money - and if it is, it stays open. That's the truth of Broadway, and always has been, not just in the era of the mega-musical.

I resent the actors for letting it become that. I mean despite your burn out, your job is to give an amazing, captivating performance to people who are paying money to see Broadway caliber.

I agree. Although I sympathized with some actors feeling depressed at falling into a rut, they should know: this is what you do. They're trained and paid to perform 8 times a week. Yes, it can get monotonous, but so can data entry - and goodness knows people get fired for entering the wrong data. You just have to give it your all, because that's what you're paid to do.

I was also irritated by the notion that if the audience doesn't see or pay attention to you, you can just goof off. Acting and performing should be an experience within itself; you don't do it to impress other people. You do it because it feeds your soul. And if a performer is no longer fulfilled with a show, he or she should move on; otherwise, they better give the best performance of their lives, and not do a half-a$$ job of it.

Actually, in giving it some thought, perhaps that's why KZ was only quoted once. She wasn't negative enough to match the book's tone.

Heheheh, probably true. I liked how sometimes the writers put in a quotation that contrasted the ones around it, but these were far and inbetween; their presence in the book functioned almost exclusively as a way of embellishing and adding variety, rather than to be taken seriously.

Posted: 7/25/04 at 4:34pm

I hear that, in its next publishing, it will be called Making it With Everyone on Broadway.

[rclocalz]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 7:09pm

I think the reason why Les Mis was quoted a whole lot more than Phantom was because Les Mis is already closed and Phantom is still running. I guess they just don't want to give Phantom a negative feel by being represented so much in this book. Just my 1 cent.

[dramaqueen]

Posted: 7/25/04 at 10:40pm

I've been trying and trying to read that book , but the library never has it, and I'm to poor to go out and get it
*sobs in a corner*

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 8/9/04 at 8:46pm

I'm bumping this up, because someone is interested in the book.

[Miphba]

Posted: 8/9/04 at 10:39pm

I read this book a little while ago and my feelings mirrored those of Rathnait62,Scarlet, and Blue when speaking of the actors allowing themselves to goof off and act-up on stage inappropriatley- I specifically remembered the actors recalling games they used to play to make the show more interesting (i.e. tying shirts together in Les Miz, eating M&M's on the barricades, and trying to exit/ enter before a cue)and was upset- the audience is paying good money to watch you bring a character to life truthfully, not play around under lights, and I have subsequently found myself trying to catch actors such as these in the act when I go to a show- slightly depressing, no?

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 8/10/04 at 2:34am

"I think the reason why Les Mis was quoted a whole lot more than Phantom was because Les Mis is already closed and Phantom is still running."

The fact that Jodie Langel was in Les Miz on both Broadway and tour probably says a lot, too.

Posted: 8/10/04 at 3:38am

I really enjoyed the book alot. Was it me or did Sarah Uriarte Berry came off as really angry? Updated On: 8/10/04 at 03:38 AM

[kitkatgirl54]

Posted: 8/10/04 at 10:45am

i knew this book was going to be ridiculously biased as soon as i read the "moving to new york" section. yes, a lot of actors they interviewed had some scary stories about moving, getting robbed, their apartments being infested, etc. that section completely grossed me out and made me feel like new york was disgusting and full of muggers. then i thought "wait a minute. I live in new york and love it! what the hell am i reading this for?" i'm sure i could dig up my fair share of stories. hell, a mouse keeled over and died in the middle of my living room and a guy scammed me out of my metrocard yesterday. but does that sour my entire view of new york? hell, no. but if you read 20 pages of that, that's what you're going to think new york is like.

miphba, i agree, the part about the actors playing games and goofing off during the show is what upset me most about the book as well. i know a few people in shows that always treat the entire thing as a game, and i understand that having fun is important. i can also understand that the repetition of the same show for years could make someone lose their mind. most of all, i can imagine it is frusterating to be in the background of a scene where you are barely lit or distinguishable. but goofing off during the entire show is incredibly disrespectful.

over the past few years, i have lost interest in auditioning for broadway musicals. i see very little difference in being in les mis towards the end of its run than being in one of those stunt shows at disney world. you have very little interpretation, ignored by industry professionals (who is going to come see yoU? a bunch of tourists and field trips at this point) and the director has been long gone from the show for over a decade. it's really unfortunate. i think the book does show that broadway is not this magical dream world where you will be famous and everyone will love you. however, i could have used a lot more good stories about the profession. the one from (i believe) doug storm about giving the girl the poster was very touching -- i'm sure most broadway performers have a story like that. if they could scatter some of those throughout the book, i would have felt it was a little less skewed.

[NightLaughs]

Posted: 8/10/04 at 11:24am

I recently read this book as well, and it really opened my eyes to things I had never considered before. All of you have made great points, I agree completely. It was very biased and forceful in it's oppinions, some times it felt over-bearing.

I remember reading a quote with a actor who said that it used to be a special thing when the audience stood up for a standing ovation at the end of a performance, and now it happens at every single show, good or bad. I guess I come from a different generation, because I have never attended a show and NOT had a standing ovation. I've always thought of it as a respect sort of thing, not neccesarily a way to say "That was simply outstanding". Now I am considering things a little differently... Also the quote about an audience not being able to tell a good performance from a bad one, sort of offended me. I suppose it's true in many cases, but I felt like the actor was deeming the audience more inferior than necessary. Like previously mentioned, an audience member doesn't have to be the most theater-savy person out there to feel when something is off in a show. No, they won't scream and demand their money back, but I believe people can tell more than the actors like to think they can. The goofing off on stage and game playing doesn't help matters any... that part really irked me. Can you imagine someone with a desk job playing "Freedom"? "Hmm I'm bored today, lets see how many of my co-workers cubicles I can walk into when I am not supposed to. Tee hee hee!!" Plus, tourists and theater lovers alike pay their heard earned cash to see a seriously performed show, don't have such little respect for people supporting YOU and your work that you would do something as childish as that. Yes, rant over, just my two cents.

The Doug Storm story literally brought tears to my eyes, it was just that sweet. (I am a sucker, I know) But I agree, if they had more little anecdotes like that, and I am sure there are plenty out there, I wouldn't have finished the book feeling slightly depressed.

[NYC20042]

Posted: 8/10/04 at 11:37am

"But I agree, if they had more little anecdotes like that, and I am sure there are plenty out there, I wouldn't have finished the book feeling slightly depressed."

Maybe that was the point of the book - to share the heartbreaking nature of a career on Broadway. The Authors interviewed over 150 performers, talked to them for hours, and this was the sentiment which they picked up on. Broadway is hard. There is only square one. Perfomers have been marginalized by Disneyfication, and have grown disconnected from the creative process, and even contributed to Broadway's demise (through the games, etc.)

There are many things in this book that many people in the theater industry don't want to come to terms with. It is about time they did. It is only once problems are recognized that they can be addressed. Maybe that is why Yale, UCLA, NYU, and so many others are rallying behind this book.

Everyone is entitled to their feelings, but this is an honest book, with actors coming together and sharing with the world what really happens when their "dreams" come true...

[Al Dente]

Posted: 8/10/04 at 12:13pm

What I find so terribly amusing about this book, is the author. Clearly a disgruntled chorus girl who never got out. I didn't give a rats-ass about any of the first hand accounts and imo, everyone came across as "angry". Seems highly unlikely that someone enjoying any sort of *success* in theater would feel the need to write this book. It tells me nothing. And by the way, it's no big revelation that most men in musical theater are gay, matter of fact, there were no big revelation's at all. I wonder just how much belly-aching these "big B'way stars" would do if they had real jobs in the real world.

[NYC20042]

Posted: 8/10/04 at 12:30pm

wow - someone's bitter.

And, by the way, Jodie is not a chorus girl. Check out her credits. Cosette and Eponine in Les Mis, The Narrator in Joseph, Grizabella in Cats, and Bertrande alternate in Martin Guerre.

Sorry to hear that 55 Tony winners and nominees couldn't provide you with any insight.

Sounds like you are afraid to face reality...

[Al Dente]

Posted: 8/10/04 at 1:44pm

Oh here we go again...I should have known, this is, after all, the cult of Broadwayworld, land of shills and actors without the proper funding for actual publicists to do their shilling for them. Why is it that every single time someone disagrees with the general consensus, they're "bitter"? Why does my thinking the book is banal a reflection on *my* personality rather than a simple critique of something that's put itself out there to be, well, critiqued? Sounds more like you're someone very involved with the author, otherwise, why the severe reaction to my benign post? You do realize that it won't make any difference to sales, what I or anyone on this board say, don't you? so relax. I didn't love the book, big deal. I really don't know why I bother. Opinions are obviously, not allowed around here.

[NYC20042]

Posted: 8/10/04 at 1:54pm

You are entitled to you opinions, of course.

What you are not entitled to do is mischaracterize someone's career and disparage an actress by calling her a "chorus girl," which she certainly is not. Moreover, your suggestion that a chorus girl is somehow a bad thing is childish, and speaks volumes.

I have read the book and believe it is important. I am amazing how threatened you are by it, by any discussion of the gay influence on theater, and by an actress who has simply helped tell the world what Broadway is really about...

[orion59]

Posted: 8/10/04 at 3:23pm

I have to agree with the comments made by Bluewizard and others.

The book is interetsing but very much biased. My feeling is that the author whether knowingly or not, has sought out more represntations of the negative aspects of BW. Certainly these negative aspects exist and are prevelant but, something about the style and the way the book has been put together, indicates just what Al Dente is saying. It's a book compiled by someone who had some negative expereinces and seems to have be profoundly effected by those expereinces to the pont of having an axe to grind or, at very least, wanting to find validatioon from others for these experiences.

I would not discourage anyone from redaing it but, would say it represents only a part of the BW expereince.

I don't believe Al Dente's comments are bitter, just honest opinion. When one writes a book, any book, one has to be prepared for negative reactions from those that disagree with the material.