Why do performers of today have no STAR quality?

[Orpheum]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 7:57pm

They have talent sure (in abundance), but where's that special something, that magic X that says 'star!'?

Is Bernadette the last one?

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 7:58pm

Don't shoot me people.

"Christina has that mysterious thing known as STAR QUALITY!"
- Jacques le Sourd, THE JOURNAL NEWS

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 7:58pm

Maybe you're just not seeing it. Because I sure am in some of them.

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 7:59pm

Well, many say Victoria Clark has that. I think Maureen McGovern does.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:03pm

MFL, I daresay that Ms. McGovern has been a genuine star for 30+ years.

[MyNameInLights]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:06pm

I'm sorry you feel that way, Orpheum.

[Orpheum]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:12pm

I think the word 'star' has been diluted. Marilyn Monroe was a star. Audrey Hepburn was a star. Maureen McGovern is clearly talented, but star? No. Not in my eyes. Talent does not equal 'star'.

However, before you pounce - I respect all of your opinions!
Updated On: 8/24/05 at 08:12 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:16pm

Orph, she is a star. She is a singer - a hugely successful one. Anyone here over 40 remembers when she was a music superstar. And she continues a highly successful concert career. As a STAR performer.

[Orpheum]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:18pm

As a STAR performer...who takes SUPPORTING roles.

But please don't misunderstand me, I do like her enormously - she charmed me no end in Little Women, and she has a beautiful voice.

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

i have star quality. (:

at least that's what my mommy says.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:22pm

There aren't many lead roles on Broadway for a woman her age, now, are there? Taking a supporting role on Broadway doesn't make her any less a star. And she sure made it into a star turn, in my book, and in most of the reviewers' and audience members' books as well. That is the mark of a star.

Updated On: 8/24/05 at 08:22 PM

[Orpheum]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:23pm

You're actually starting to convince me!

[bjivie2]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:23pm

Sutton Foster, Kristin Chenoweth, Audra McDonald

Billy Porter, Michael Arden, Matthew Morrison

[Rathnait62]

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

Because it's the truth.

[yipper]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:26pm

Interesting Question. I think "Star" quality has as much to do with the public relations industry working overtime as it has to do with anything else.
Theatre needs great actors, people who are talented and dedicated to their craft, people who can move us, scare us, make us smile. In the Theatre the show or play must be the star. If a show can only run because its star is in, it really is a show about worshipping a performer rather than anything the authors have to say. A recent example is "Boy From Oz."

If you are hungry for worshipping other human beings stick with movies and television. If you want a soul enriching experience go see a great play, done well, with a talented cast.

[Orpheum]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:26pm

But I still think that she lacks a certain charisma, an aura of stardom. How can you compare her to Marilyn Monroe, Ethel Merman, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn etc.?

By today's standards, yes - she may be a star. But as I say, standards have slipped.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:30pm

Now hold on. Are we talking about people who have star QUALITY, or that ARE stars? You're right in saying that people don't make the huge deal about Broadway stars the way they used to, but people still flock in droves to see Bernadette Peters, Nathan Lane, Christina Applegate, Hugh Jackman, John Lithgow and Patti LuPone. And then you've got the folks to will BE stars big enough to sell an entire show soon like Kristin and Audra and Sutton.

There are a lot more people that have star QUALITY than there are that are actual STARS. People don't always get what they deserve.

[Orpheum]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:31pm

Good point, bjivie2.

I concede - Maureen McGovern has immense star quality, but alas is NOT a star. Which is a crying shame.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:32pm

All of those people lived in an age when the movie studios were run by publicity machines.

And Merman was a force on Broadway - because shows were written for her talent. That doesn't happen anymore. Sometimes it does, but it doesn't seem to really work out so well anymore...it's just not done like it used to be.

[Orpheum]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 8:35pm

Maybe I'm just a (premature) old fogey.

[justme2]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 9:01pm

"How can you compare her to Marilyn Monroe, Ethel Merman, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn etc.?"


How can you compare Marilyn MOnroe to Bette Davis?

Monroe was a "media icon"

Bette Davis was a STAR (as was Hepburn and Merman)!

[EganFan2]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 9:49pm

I have noticed that Broadway actors are breaking into movies and TV, but often in projects that fall flat, or they are in minor roles. Is that what you mean? They can't quite make the transition from stage to big time Hollywood? Kudos for them even getting that far. But "Nikki!" wasn't the greatest show for Susan Egan. And Kristin Chenoweth's show didn't last long, either.

Please don't eat me. Just a thought.

[kangaroo]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 9:54pm

I think Hugh Jackman has immense star quality, but also has the fortunes of being a star.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 9:55pm

Julia Roberts.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 8/24/05 at 10:11pm

And Merman was a force on Broadway - because shows were written for her talent. That doesn't happen anymore. Sometimes it does, but it doesn't seem to really work out so well anymore...it's just not done like it used to be.

I agree with this statement. Shows are simply not being written as well as they were in the past and do not showcase the talent as they did years ago. That, and the fact that Broadway has become like an assmebly line of shows that open and close within 6 mos. to a year. This leaves little room for "stars" to become legendary as in the past.

In my opinion, Producers, DRS, Boy From Oz and maybe Spamalot are good examples of well written shows that proved to be a springboard to those who star(ed)in them. And Broderick, Jackman, Lithgow, Curry, Hyde-Pierce were already well established names in the industry.

Broadway is swallowed up by other forms of entertainment that is preferred by the general audiences. It simply does not have the impact it did in the past. And less people are willing to put out $100 for shows that may not like. That's why so many Idinas, Kristins, etc. etc are moving on. But that doesn't mean people will remember them 5 years from now.

There's no simple answer to this. It a combination of many factors that have changes over time.