About Performers 'Niceness'

Folks, I understand that many of us have had many friendly and exciting encounters with many of the performers we discuss on these boards. It's part of Broadway's magic, after all, that we often get the chance to personally thank and meet the performers we like and admire.

But, it does frustrate me when people are trying to have a sensible conversation about the merits (or lack thereof) of a PERFORMANCE and someone insists on chiming in that the person is a nice and/or amazing person. That's all fine and dandy but, and I realize a lot of people can't understand this, a performance critique (even a negative one) is NOT a personal slight on a person. It's judging a work. Now, I'm not excusing insulting posts about performers that people pass off as critique because they're mentally incapable of having a discussion about theater above continually reiterating their primal reactions to something based on their own limited knowledge base and underdeveloped communication skills, that's entirely different (and frankly I think it should be seen as trolling and treated as such.)

I was under the impression the point of a message board was to discuss, not just to start a bunch of fan clubs. If you're incapable of handling even basic discussion about certain performers for whatever reason, please excuse yourself from reading those threads. It's more distracting to read 'but they're SOOOOOOOOO nice' every ten posts.

Look, these people are pros and a) aren't reading these posts and b) can certainly handle common discussion, especially civil and reasoned discussion, about their work. They do it themselves, just ask them sometime.

No one's saying anyone's a bad person, even if we hate them in a role.

Just food for thought next time anyone insists on pointing out how nice someone is when everyone else is trying to talk about a show and their theatrical experience.

I hear you big time.

I got into trouble recently for daring to say that I found John Ritter one of the biggest snoozes I'd ever seen on stage or (small) screen. His untimely passing provoked (appropriately) an outpouring of grief, and appreciation of his spirit, warmth, and Papa's word "niceness." He was one of the good guys. But as an actor/comedian, he bored me to tears, most recently in that dreary Simon play where he trundled out his bag of tricks --bewidlerment, fey amusement, archly voiced observations -- and I shocked people by saying I didn't think he'd ultimately be remembered for his body of work. Perhaps my timing was unseemly -- but it wasn't in an obit. His death made me stand back, evaluate. My prerogative. It was in an objective discussion, far from the eyes of his widow,etc.

A man's character may be above reproach. Fine. Niceness is a wonderful attribute. But neither are barometers for talent -- or even craft. Boards like this -- where critical faculties are allowed to flourish -- should be exempt from such rigid fan club-like standards.

---

I believe a performer's PERFORMANCE is up for critique, but when someone personally attacks their work ethic or... issues (lets leave it at issues)... and they don't know first hand whats really going on, that's really not their place. I hate it more than anything when people sit around and debate performers work ethic... you don't know whats happening in their lives... as an audience member, its really not your business either. I mean, there are understudies for a REASON.

Hey, I critique a lot of actor's performances -- those whom I think are prolly the nicest people in the world (at least they've been nice to me in past encounters). It's just part of the profession... you have to look at things with a critical eye. No one is great 100% of the time... people get miscast and you have bad performances. It's just life. No one's perfect... not even Bernadette Peters... I know, shocking as that may be! Or Alice Ripley -- ack! Good ole Al has even had a bad performance or two in her day... it's sack relig... but sadly enough, true.

---

But Daisy, work ethic comes into play when there are patterns of absenteeism. The Bernadette/Donna Murphy situations -- flu over a 2-3 week period, and then consistent showing up -- are very different from people who miss sporadically over a 6-9 month run. I'm sorry, when you sign up for 8 shows a week,that's the requirement of the job. Like 9 to 5 in a bank. If you're having onpoing health problems, voice issues, feet that hurt, or a significant other on the other coast -- please, don't take the gig. That's the work ethic of the working actor and working STAR -- particularly one on whose shoulders the box office squarely sits.

---

Updated On: 12/3/03 at 12:44 PM

I just posted about this very thing on the Kerry Butler thread ,so I won't be repetitive but to add, I have often been fervently chastised for saying that I feel "so and so" is *performing* terribly in a role. It's never about the person, it's about the performance that I and 1000's of others have just shelled out a hundred bucks to see. I don't want nor do I care if a performer is *nice*, I want/need them to be great in a role they were hired and paid handsomely to perform. I'm not going to dinner then home with these people, so I could care less how "nice" they are. If they stink on stage and performing is their JOB, I'm calling them on it. End of the story. And as for talking about a work ethic Daisy, there's no one who isn't put off by Benanti's *lack* of one. That's a whole different story.

When discussing talent vs. work ethic, and the effects a bad work ethic can have on a career, I have one name to throw out to you: Wanda Richert. Discuss amongst yourselves.

i only want to agree with one thing..when anyone is critqued i noticed, not just here but in person..that someone always has to say ..oh but they are a nice person...so what..who cares if they are nice..they could be the nastiest human being in the world and be a great co-worker or artist or performer..i think its a defense mechanism cause most people cant take criticsim that is constructive..your point is very smart. congrats for saying it.

You tease you!

Amen, Cmleidi. We've read your harrowing track record with understudies at this and other sites -- so you are uniquely qualified to have a strong opinion here! (Did you ever write the MILLIE producers about the elusive Ms. Foster?)

---

"I'm sorry, when you sign up for 8 shows a week, that's the requirement of the job. Like 9 to 5 in a bank. If you're having onpoing health problems, voice issues, feet that hurt, or a significant other on the other coast -- please, don't take the gig."

(applause)
I totally agree. I know I'm going to get yelled at for this, but the first actor that comes to mind is Nathan Lane. I know I'm not the only one worrying that after buying tickets, there still is a chance he may call out if you look at his track record from The Producers last time.
However, and I know from the people I've talked to through PM on here that I'm not alone on this, 112 performances is not a long run at all. And he is getting paid well above actors from any other show that I can think of. Does anyone else know any other actor that is making $12,500 per performance (not counting matthew!)?
After the whole ticket buying nightmare, if he starts calling out I think people are going to get very upset. You think you saw angry people on that ticket line? I can't imagine what will happen if he gets sick or whatever.

---

I wrote to the producers of MILLIE as well as Ms. Foster, but I haven't received a response. I did receive an apology from Mr. Sunjata, but I received nothing from the producers of TMO or the theatre management at the Walter Kerr. I don't really expect to.

My sense from talking with some of them is that performers don't connect their missing performances with a ticket buyer being disappointed. They don't think there's anything wrong with excessive use of an understudy. I'm baffled by the nonchalant attitude. It does make me think less of certain performers.

... "Look, these people are pros and a) aren't reading these posts and b) can certainly handle common discussion, especially civil and reasoned discussion, about their work. They do it themselves, just ask them sometime."

This is true... oh so true lol!, BUT... their opinions about each other are a little more qualifed because they personally know or work/worked with them as opposed to hearsay or brief stagedoor encounters or the " I have a friend who's knows a friend who works with so and so".

Unless a person has a relationship, business, friendship, casual or acquaintence with ANY other person...how can you know them?

Gossip's worth its weight in gold. LOL!

---

"But they're sooooo nicee!!!"