The Raúl E. Esparza "Spread the Love" Thread, Part Four — Page 44
#1077
Posted: 9/9/08 at 11:07pm
Were these the pics? There is an article at Playbill.
That second pic is....unfortunate
Speed-The-Plow rehearsal
That second pic is....unfortunate
Speed-The-Plow rehearsal
Sarcasm is an allergic reaction to stupid people.
Updated On: 9/9/08 at 11:07 PM
#1079
Posted: 9/10/08 at 9:45am
These are almost like stage door pictures - everyone is standing and no one is relaxed.
#1080
Posted: 9/10/08 at 12:10pm
Yeah, more here:
https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=32149
I like the blond eyebrows!
https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=32149
I like the blond eyebrows!
"My name's Lenny. What's yours?"
#1081
Posted: 9/10/08 at 12:28pm
Is that the same PR person as The Homecoming? Whoever takes those pictures is very fond of the close up.
Raul is looking very trim. And I love the cons
Raul is looking very trim. And I love the cons
The morning star always gets wonderful bright the minute before it has to go --doesn't it?
#1083
Posted: 9/10/08 at 3:28pm
I see the chain!
Probably a silly question, but what exactly is the "meet and greet"?
Probably a silly question, but what exactly is the "meet and greet"?
The morning star always gets wonderful bright the minute before it has to go --doesn't it?
#1085
Posted: 9/10/08 at 6:16pm
Yeah, I don't think he'll be wearing those around midtown anytime soon, but hey - he can prove me wrong.
I see Jeremy Piven is upstaging Raul by getting the thumbnail pic for the story. Let the games begin..
I see Jeremy Piven is upstaging Raul by getting the thumbnail pic for the story. Let the games begin..
The morning star always gets wonderful bright the minute before it has to go --doesn't it?
Updated On: 9/10/08 at 06:16 PM
#1086
Posted: 9/10/08 at 10:28pm
That's my favorite of the bunch, Fromage. Hot hot hot.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
#1088
Posted: 9/11/08 at 9:08am
Fromage wrote:
The blond eyebrows, at least in this picture, actually kinda work.
Aha, when I said "I like the blond eyebrows", I actually meant "I like the blond eyebrows". :)
The blond eyebrows, at least in this picture, actually kinda work.
Aha, when I said "I like the blond eyebrows", I actually meant "I like the blond eyebrows". :)
"My name's Lenny. What's yours?"
#1089
Posted: 9/11/08 at 11:19am
Some off-stage competition between Piven and Esparza will make the play even more intense ("I like being intense" ) but the reason I'm going to see the play is obviously the "Blond Eyebrow Man."
Am I the only one assuming that Raul is not going to be in a musical on Broadway this season?
Am I the only one assuming that Raul is not going to be in a musical on Broadway this season?
#1091
Posted: 9/11/08 at 11:31pm
Broadway.com has a feature on the first day of rehearsals for STP:
http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Photo_Op.aspx?ci=570803
http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Photo_Op.aspx?ci=570803
Sarcasm is an allergic reaction to stupid people.
#1092
Posted: 9/11/08 at 11:44pm
Good to see the article but intrigued by the fact that Raul is treated almost as an also ran - mentioned third of three as the one who "rounds out" the cast. But the most amusing caption was Piven's - theater is in his blood, did you know that? After all, his parents were both in the theater. (This is his debut, and Moss's.) The Raul Esparza school of Broadway scenery chewing.
#1093
Posted: 9/12/08 at 12:50am
Photo from TheatreMania:
I guess Piven and Moss are seen as bigger stars than Raúl by reason of their higher pop culture profile, because of the TV exposure they get. But Raúl is the veteran performer any way you look at it. Hopefully the rest is just publicity spin.
I guess Piven and Moss are seen as bigger stars than Raúl by reason of their higher pop culture profile, because of the TV exposure they get. But Raúl is the veteran performer any way you look at it. Hopefully the rest is just publicity spin.
Sarcasm is an allergic reaction to stupid people.
#1094
Posted: 9/12/08 at 4:12am
Higher profile actors are always at the forefront of the publicity stuff -- look at Ian McShane with The Homecoming, and he's not even as "hot" as Piven (who has been doing movie/tv work for more than twenty years) is right now. I hope Raul is the standout on stage, but one can hardly be surprised that he's not the focus. I also didn't see "rounds out the cast" as demeaning, especially since he's mentioned right alongside Piven and Moss in everything I've read. It's not like "these two stars...and, oh yeah, that one guy." It seems like some of you might be perceiving slights where there aren't really any.
Anyway, I can't wait to see the play. And yes, Raul looks totally hot in those pictures.
Anyway, I can't wait to see the play. And yes, Raul looks totally hot in those pictures.
Updated On: 9/12/08 at 04:12 AM
#1095
Posted: 9/12/08 at 11:00am
1. Jeremy IS the bigger star, like it or not. Yes, Raul is the veteran of the stage here, but in terms of popular appeal, which is what people generally mean when they talk about stardom, it's about widespread fame. I agree with sweetestsiren -- are we really surprised the focus isn't going to be entirely on Raul? I'm sorry, but the general public -- meaning, not the theater people who are going to flock to this for reasons other than Piven and Moss -- aren't as interested in him as we are. For many of the people who are going to see this for "that guy from Entourage," it's "who's that other dude?" and "What's Company?" It's not an intentional slight to Raul, and I think it's unreasonable to spin it as such. It's just the way it is. There's no need to invent slights where there aren't any. And, look at it this way. Someone who has made a name for himself entirely on stage -- someone who is true theater blood -- is in a three-person play on Broadway, with two huge stars. How often does that happen? Honestly, I think that's really impressive; doesn't it speak to his talent, and how highly people regard him? (And by the way, Charlie was offered to a laundry list of massive mainstream stars.)
2. "Rounds out the cast" is not meant to be demeaning it all. It's just used when someone... well, rounds out -- or completes -- the cast. Edited: I originally wrote that in this case it means he was cast last, and then realized that he was announced second, and Elisabeth was last. Either way, though, I don't see that as an insult at all. There are three people in the cast. If there were 25 people in the cast and he was listed at the end, I could see questioning it. And he is billed second -- have we forgotten that?
3. As far as the publicity, yes, some stuff is inevitably going to focus on Jeremy and Elisabeth because they have the wider fame. But on the other hand, look at those recent interviews Raul did -- the one in the New York season preview and wherever else. He was the one being interviewed to represent the play, not them. That could well be because he's more accessible than they are, but I wouldn't simply up and assume that. People in the press know what a great interview he can give, and how enjoyable he is to talk to.
On a lighter note: tickets go on sale tomorrow, holla.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
2. "Rounds out the cast" is not meant to be demeaning it all. It's just used when someone... well, rounds out -- or completes -- the cast. Edited: I originally wrote that in this case it means he was cast last, and then realized that he was announced second, and Elisabeth was last. Either way, though, I don't see that as an insult at all. There are three people in the cast. If there were 25 people in the cast and he was listed at the end, I could see questioning it. And he is billed second -- have we forgotten that?
3. As far as the publicity, yes, some stuff is inevitably going to focus on Jeremy and Elisabeth because they have the wider fame. But on the other hand, look at those recent interviews Raul did -- the one in the New York season preview and wherever else. He was the one being interviewed to represent the play, not them. That could well be because he's more accessible than they are, but I wouldn't simply up and assume that. People in the press know what a great interview he can give, and how enjoyable he is to talk to.
On a lighter note: tickets go on sale tomorrow, holla.
Updated On: 9/12/08 at 11:00 AM
#1096
Posted: 9/12/08 at 12:32pm
Emcee wrote:
(And by the way, Charlie was offered to a laundry list of massive mainstream stars.)
Having worked in the office of Neil Pepe's agent, I can attest to this. When I left, the offer was out to Mos Def! :)
(And by the way, Charlie was offered to a laundry list of massive mainstream stars.)
Having worked in the office of Neil Pepe's agent, I can attest to this. When I left, the offer was out to Mos Def! :)
"My name's Lenny. What's yours?"
#1097
Posted: 9/12/08 at 4:49pm
I'm not seriously looking to find slights as much as demonstrating my own surprise that Mamet of all things should be a potential vehicle for star casting. I actually like Mos Def - but don't think I would be buying tickets to STP if the cast consisted entirely of TV and/or movie "stars" getting some theater validation.
Personally, Terence Howard's hissy fits about how much work Broadway plays involve just makes me the teeniest bit queasy about a lot of Broadway virgins taking on a challenging piece of theater.
Personally, Terence Howard's hissy fits about how much work Broadway plays involve just makes me the teeniest bit queasy about a lot of Broadway virgins taking on a challenging piece of theater.
#1098
Posted: 9/12/08 at 5:24pm
See, I don't know. This is "star casting" in the obvious sense that Piven is a mainstream star and this is the vehicle for his Broadway debut. But I don't think it's necessarily "stunt casting" the way the term has gotten itself a very negative connotation lately. This isn't a case of a talentless superstar being thrown into a show as a last resort to keep it open. That I don't agree with. But I also don't think it's fair to automatically turn your nose up at an actor just because he isn't a stage veteran, or is making his Broadway debut. I don't think placing a famous actor in a Broadway show is always a cheap trick, although sadly more often than not, it is. But there are -- and I think this is one of them -- rare occurrences of those celebrities actually deserving to be here just as much as the hometown cultivated theater stars are. Raul has more talent in his left pinky than most of Hollywood does in their entire bodies, and generally, I am pretty elitist about treating stage actors with a higher regard. But I have to disagree with this automatic write-off just because it's his debut out of annoyance that Raul's not going to get all of the attention.
Personally, Terence Howard's hissy fits about how much work Broadway plays involve just makes me the teeniest bit queasy about a lot of Broadway virgins taking on a challenging piece of theater.
First of all, I don't think it's fair to hold an entire huge group of people accountable for what one dumbass actor said. Just because he's a "Broadway virgin," does that really mean he can't take on a challenging play? Just recently, you were calling Chicago the "cradle of civilization" because so many talented actors got their stage starts out there, and now Jeremy Piven isn't qualified enough to share the stage with Raul because this is his Broadway debut? I'm sorry, but do you know how many of those actors in Company were making their debuts with that show? What about some of the actors in August? You'll probably say it's incomparable because none of them were Hollywood celebrities. And I can't exactly say, "Well, an actor is an actor," because that isn't true. Sometimes it is just about the celebrity. But the issue here is about this "Broadway virgin" thing. Yes, the people I mentioned above had almost exclusively stage experience, but who's to say Piven is not equipped to handle this production just because it's his Broadway debut? It's not as though he's never done stage before. And it's not like his stage experience was community theater in some random podunk town. Everyone who gets to Broadway had to make his or her debut at some point. (Even Raul.) It's got to be the first time sometime.
Honestly, whatever qualms people have with his off-screen persona aside, I think Jeremy is very talented, and perfectly cast for this role. And kind of adorable in that slimy-but-charming-anyway kind of way, which is perfect for Mamet plays. Apparently he's a friend of Mamet's, too. These producers consistently back wonderful work. I'm trusting their judgment on this one. Unfortunately, the reality of producing plays means you often need a big name to draw people in. In order to make these plays happen, it's becoming more and more of a necessity. If you want to get these plays produced, maybe that's the sacrifice. Hell, look at All My Sons. Arthur F-ing Miller and it's a cast dominated by huge names. It's a sad reality to accept, but you just have to hope that at least the fits are right.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Personally, Terence Howard's hissy fits about how much work Broadway plays involve just makes me the teeniest bit queasy about a lot of Broadway virgins taking on a challenging piece of theater.
First of all, I don't think it's fair to hold an entire huge group of people accountable for what one dumbass actor said. Just because he's a "Broadway virgin," does that really mean he can't take on a challenging play? Just recently, you were calling Chicago the "cradle of civilization" because so many talented actors got their stage starts out there, and now Jeremy Piven isn't qualified enough to share the stage with Raul because this is his Broadway debut? I'm sorry, but do you know how many of those actors in Company were making their debuts with that show? What about some of the actors in August? You'll probably say it's incomparable because none of them were Hollywood celebrities. And I can't exactly say, "Well, an actor is an actor," because that isn't true. Sometimes it is just about the celebrity. But the issue here is about this "Broadway virgin" thing. Yes, the people I mentioned above had almost exclusively stage experience, but who's to say Piven is not equipped to handle this production just because it's his Broadway debut? It's not as though he's never done stage before. And it's not like his stage experience was community theater in some random podunk town. Everyone who gets to Broadway had to make his or her debut at some point. (Even Raul.) It's got to be the first time sometime.
Honestly, whatever qualms people have with his off-screen persona aside, I think Jeremy is very talented, and perfectly cast for this role. And kind of adorable in that slimy-but-charming-anyway kind of way, which is perfect for Mamet plays. Apparently he's a friend of Mamet's, too. These producers consistently back wonderful work. I'm trusting their judgment on this one. Unfortunately, the reality of producing plays means you often need a big name to draw people in. In order to make these plays happen, it's becoming more and more of a necessity. If you want to get these plays produced, maybe that's the sacrifice. Hell, look at All My Sons. Arthur F-ing Miller and it's a cast dominated by huge names. It's a sad reality to accept, but you just have to hope that at least the fits are right.
Updated On: 9/12/08 at 05:24 PM
#1099
Posted: 9/12/08 at 8:04pm
OT - but you're confusing me with someone else because I have never been caught making any comments about CHICAGO much less calling it the cradle of anything.
I am not suggesting that Piven and Moss aren't going to do well - in fact Piven seems to be successfully playing a similar role in ENTOURAGE, and I am already a fan of Moss based on her multi-layered performances in MAD MEN. But the Broadway debut issue is so much more complex when it is a 2/3rds of the cast of three than some significant proportion of a larger cast as was the case in COMPANY.
And one more time and I'll stop - this isn't about Raul. For me it is really about Mamet. No one hopes more than I do that this is a success for all three actors (and the producers, God love them).
I am not suggesting that Piven and Moss aren't going to do well - in fact Piven seems to be successfully playing a similar role in ENTOURAGE, and I am already a fan of Moss based on her multi-layered performances in MAD MEN. But the Broadway debut issue is so much more complex when it is a 2/3rds of the cast of three than some significant proportion of a larger cast as was the case in COMPANY.
And one more time and I'll stop - this isn't about Raul. For me it is really about Mamet. No one hopes more than I do that this is a success for all three actors (and the producers, God love them).
#1100
Posted: 9/12/08 at 8:28pm
Really? 'Cause the search feature generally doesn't lie:
The Raúl E. Esparza 'Spread The Love' Thread, Part Four - keen on kean Aug 26, 04:34 PM
So Jeremy and Raul both got started in Chicago - the new cradle of civilization.... [more]
(I meant Chicago the city, not the musical.)
How is suggesting that actors making their Broadway debuts aren't good enough to handle the material "not suggesting [they] aren't going to do well"? So it's two thirds of a cast making their Broadway debuts as opposed to handful in a fourteen person musical company. Unintended. But really, if you're implying that performers who have never done Broadway before shouldn't be trusted with the work of a master like Mamet (which I'm sure you'll tell me you're not)... well, what's Sondheim? Chopped liver? Why should it be okay for Company but not for Speed-the-Plow? If it's truly about the proportion, then I see your point, but I still have to disagree. Just because this is the Broadway debut for both of them doesn't mean they can't handle it. I just think it's kind of an insult -- you're basically saying that if it's a handful of people in a bigger show, it's okay, because they can ride on other people's backs and hide behind those who will carry their inadequate performances. But in a smaller show where they're more exposed and can't hide behind an ensemble, it's a problem because having not done Broadway before, they aren't good enough for it.
What I don't understand about your argument is that... you seem to be saying if they've never done Broadway before, they aren't good enough for it. But how would they ever be ready, by that logic? It's like you're saying that if you've never been on Broadway, you obviously can't do it. Everyone who's ever been on Broadway was once at a point where they hadn't been. So how is it remotely logical to insinuate that just because they have never been on Broadway, they shouldn't be in this show? How would we ever get new blood if actors yet who hadn't done Broadway were dismissed because of that fact? Celebrity aside here, I think that's an incredibly narrow viewpoint. These are two well-regarded actors with pretty strong followings. Not having done Broadway before changes the type of experience they have. It doesn't mean they aren't experienced enough.
I have a lot of optimism about this one. Mamet isn't even my personal cup of tea, but I think it's going to be great. Mamet founded the Atlantic, and Neil Pepe is the artistic director, so I trust the play is in good hands there, and I'm confident in the cast. I don't say that a lot about television and film actors. But this casting seems like it was done with the right ideas in mind.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
The Raúl E. Esparza 'Spread The Love' Thread, Part Four - keen on kean Aug 26, 04:34 PM
So Jeremy and Raul both got started in Chicago - the new cradle of civilization.... [more]
(I meant Chicago the city, not the musical.)
How is suggesting that actors making their Broadway debuts aren't good enough to handle the material "not suggesting [they] aren't going to do well"? So it's two thirds of a cast making their Broadway debuts as opposed to handful in a fourteen person musical company. Unintended. But really, if you're implying that performers who have never done Broadway before shouldn't be trusted with the work of a master like Mamet (which I'm sure you'll tell me you're not)... well, what's Sondheim? Chopped liver? Why should it be okay for Company but not for Speed-the-Plow? If it's truly about the proportion, then I see your point, but I still have to disagree. Just because this is the Broadway debut for both of them doesn't mean they can't handle it. I just think it's kind of an insult -- you're basically saying that if it's a handful of people in a bigger show, it's okay, because they can ride on other people's backs and hide behind those who will carry their inadequate performances. But in a smaller show where they're more exposed and can't hide behind an ensemble, it's a problem because having not done Broadway before, they aren't good enough for it.
What I don't understand about your argument is that... you seem to be saying if they've never done Broadway before, they aren't good enough for it. But how would they ever be ready, by that logic? It's like you're saying that if you've never been on Broadway, you obviously can't do it. Everyone who's ever been on Broadway was once at a point where they hadn't been. So how is it remotely logical to insinuate that just because they have never been on Broadway, they shouldn't be in this show? How would we ever get new blood if actors yet who hadn't done Broadway were dismissed because of that fact? Celebrity aside here, I think that's an incredibly narrow viewpoint. These are two well-regarded actors with pretty strong followings. Not having done Broadway before changes the type of experience they have. It doesn't mean they aren't experienced enough.
I have a lot of optimism about this one. Mamet isn't even my personal cup of tea, but I think it's going to be great. Mamet founded the Atlantic, and Neil Pepe is the artistic director, so I trust the play is in good hands there, and I'm confident in the cast. I don't say that a lot about television and film actors. But this casting seems like it was done with the right ideas in mind.
Updated On: 9/12/08 at 08:28 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $60
Tickets From $71
