About Performers 'Niceness'- Page 2

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 12/3/03 at 10:42pm

Daisy, I'm with you 100% here. Everyone else, you are refusing to look at this from another perspective rather than you own.

Auggie, I believe you said earlier on "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." All I have to say is, NICE TRY. DO you REALLy think someone who desires to work on Broadway is gonna turn down that very opportunity (which, I must add, is a rare and special opportunity, for all) just because "Oh, I think I might get sick later. I get sick easily....Oops, I might want vacation" Wake up, someone is not going to turn down a job because their ammune system isn't as good as someoen else's. And if they want to take vacation, then so be it. Nearly everyone, no matter what field of work, gets some sort of vacation, no? SO why can't these people? And no, it's not the same as working at bank. If you work at a bank, you can still go into work if your throat is killing you, or you have an awful cough or something like that. If you are a singer, and your vocal chord really aren't working the way they should be, you can't just show up at work and sing Gimme Gimme or Defying Gravity and actually expect it to be good, or anywhere near your best.

This is the sort of job that you must rely on your health greatly, and if you're under the weather, then so be it. If something comes up where they have to take off, even if it's not for health reasons, a performer is allowed to take off. Just because someone may take off more often than someone else doesn't mean they have a worse work ethic. Perhaps they get sick more easily, or more things have come up where they simple could not attend a show. AS Daisy said, they are not super-humans, they're people. I think you are failing to realize that.

[cmleidi]

Posted: 12/3/03 at 10:56pm

There's a difference between being legitimately sick and simply relying on understudies a bit too much. I would never want a performer to risk their health or the health of their fellow performers by appearing when they are ill. On the other hand, I have a difficult time understanding the motives of someone who consistently misses performances. If you're going to miss 16 performances in a month (and in the example I'm using, there have been many more absences than just 16) for non-ilness and/or family related reasons, your contempt for you job and the audience is obvious.

I don't think it's too much to ask to have performers show up for a job they were hired to do if they aren't ill and there's not a family emergency. I didn't realize this was such a revolutionary concept. Judging from a lot of the private messages and emails I've received, it is a revolutionary concept.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 12/3/03 at 11:16pm

Yes, but how do YOU know why the are out?...You don't. Perhaps their reason for being out was more important than you assumed. My point by mentioning sickness, is that the majority of the time, that is why a performer is unexpectedly out. So it seems to me you are criticizing them for being sick too muc, or you are just assuming that they didn't feel like showing up that day. If you don't know these people, you really don't know why they are out, because you have know way of getting the full story. It's most certainly not too much to ask a performer to show up for the job they're required to do, but if they are out for legitimate reasons, let it be. Most likely these people who are out so often are out for good reasons, and you just don't know it.

You are asking too much of the performers when you just assume, accuse them of something you don't know, and then question their work ethic.

[cmleidi]

Posted: 12/3/03 at 11:28pm

I know for a fact why one performer was out, and that's because HE TOLD ME WHY HE WAS OUT. It had nothing to do with illness or family trouble. The last time that Sutton Foster was out, she was accepting an award which can be verified on the message board of her website. If I don't know, I don't speculate or assume as you did. If I don't know why a performer was out, I say so.

I don't see how you can defend a performer being out half a month's performances. That's astonishing to me. There are actors who have bad work ethics and/or treat their Broadway jobs like an unwanted stepchild when they find something better. Updated On: 12/3/03 at 11:28 PM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 1:23am

Getting back to the Nice/Talented subject, Ned Beatty himself, qualified the fact that his two co-stars were not up to the challenge of Williams by emphasising how Nice and Sweet they are.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 2:46am

So, does this thread mean the demise of threads such as those that debated whether or not Rosie is a terrible person?? I bet not...

I don't see how some of you could not see the right of a performer to use their vacation time when needed. To stay home when they are extremely ill. Would you have enjoyed seeing Donna Murphy barely getting through the show--trying not to puke onto the stage than her understudy giving a damn fine performance? Yes, they may be a star and, yes, the show is on their shoulders--but it is a job and they are human. God Bless the Mermans and Fiersteins of the business. But it sounds like our desire to see the star onstage is so much more important than their well being. I guess stardom does suck. Maybe we'd be much happier if Madame Tussaud could lend us some wax figures to roll around the stage in such cases.

Just my thoughts. =)

P.S. I just want to add (and I know this goes without saying for some of ya), but seeing a musical or play should be about the musical or play--ok, yes, there are times when we want to see THAT actor's Hamlet or THAT actor's Rose--but the way things have gotten to where we are so dependant on seeing the star in everything has gotten crazy!

Updated On: 12/4/03 at 02:46 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 9:06am

Okay, so plunk down your hundred bucks and enjoy your understudies. The good news -- a kind of bottom line: Those of us who want to get returns at the B.O. can do so, and those of you who want to stay and hear somebody else in the star part can do that. All this talk about wanting to see Donna Murphy vomit on stage has put me off my breakfast. I don't want her to do that, or for me to have to watch it, please! I hope everyone gets flu shots and we can all be happy till Tony time.

I'm with Sueleen, let's get back to niceness vs. talent. (Which is kind of the subjext of the other debate isn't it? You know, those hard-working b'way folks are really just nice, ordinary people who deserve our sympathy.) Ned Beatty's mouth turns this whole debate into something else: his homage to Patric and Judd as "nice people" was the heighth of patronization. It's one of the code words for "has no talent:" he's a really LOVELY PERSON. It's like setting up a blind date with someone who has a REALLY GOOD PERSONALITY.

In show biz, "difficult" people are often perceived to be the greater talents. I think Beatty felt he could get away with trashing his costars because it goes with the mantle of genius.

Updated On: 12/4/03 at 09:06 AM

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 9:28am

Wow...lol! this is certaintly going in wild directions!I thought people bought tickets to see "the show" not the actors.

I believe in many cases, if the leading performer is out at the last minuet, the theater will allow you to exchange for another date. For those who cannot do this, not to sound cold, but that's the breaks. It's about seeing a show...not a solo concert.

This whole dispute about work ethics, vacation choices,fake sickness etc. is really out of wack. Unless you are in paying their salary, it doesn't matter.
Please, Go see the shows and lighten up with the behind the scenes dramas. These things happen in all industries.

Updated On: 12/4/03 at 09:28 AM

[Craig]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 9:49am

Don't want to get too involved in this conversation, but wanted to add that for the most part - I do not envy the "life" of an actor on Broadway. These people work and work hard - and they have very little job security/stability if you consider the amount of shows that open and close in a season. They are constantly looking for new work and projects. I don't fault the performer that takes an additional gig, concert or whatever and happens to miss a few shows because of it. As I tell the people that work for and with me - that kind of situation is between the employee and the employer. And if the employer does not have an issue with it, that's that.

I'm all for work ethic.. just wanted to respond to the post that implied that performers lacked "responsibility" to their current show just because they appear in some concert, benefit, etc one night instead of doing their show...

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 9:53am

I thought people bought tickets to see "the show" not the actors.


Oh, Patti. I got three names for you:

Nathan
Matthew
Hugh.

Not too many people are really going to see "Peter Allen: Behind the Music, LIVE" because it is a "show" they were dying to see. It's Hugh. Do you think it would be doing the same business if, as I suggested in the past, starred JM J Bullock (although I have met him and he is SUPER NICE)?

And the huge ticket sales for "The Producers" in January is because a bunch of tourist/convetioneers are coming to NYC for the first time, after having found great airfare on Travelocity.com, and could not get tickets for Mama Mia, right?

Updated On: 12/4/03 at 09:53 AM

[Al Dente]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 9:58am

Craig, what you just posted and what this thread has "turned into" is so NOT what it was intended to be about. It was originally about the fact that everytime someone says something about an actors *performance*, some fool wants to chime in about said actors' "niceness." Most of us who understood the original point of the thread went about discussing it accordingly but as is so often the case at B'wayworld, others decided to digress and bring their own personal feelings in to the discussion. I personally don't care how many shows Donna Murphy or anyone else misses, it's their bank account sufferring, not mine. I care that when they're there, they don't stink and more often than not, they DO! And it doesn't mean that they're a bad person, it just means they're bad in the role. Updated On: 12/4/03 at 09:58 AM

[Craig]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 10:09am

Al-

As my post "tagged" with, I said "just wanted to respond to the post that implied that performers lacked "responsibility" to their current show just because they appear in some concert, benefit, etc one night instead of doing their show... "

I am well aware of the intention/topic of this thread.

As for people going off topic in threads, it's bound to happen - here, there and everywhere. You, yourself have been known to stray from the topic at hand within a post...

[Al Dente]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 10:13am

I do make an effort to not stray from the subject at hand. And when I do, I often acknowledge the fact that I am in fact, veering from the point. Also, you were the last one to post, so I used your name. It was meant for all who had strayed, not just you.

[lc1965]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 11:49am

daisy hilton: hear! hear! there's an awful lot of stone-throwing here. how any of us can say that we never took a day off for illness or vacation or pure exhaustion? everyone needs a day off, whether you like it or not.

[ShineOn]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 11:51am

I originally responded to the *topic at hand*, I just added what *did* bother me about people jumping to conclusions. I think it's FINE and perfectly NORMAL to judge an actor's PERFORMANCE, but when people start judging them as people based on attendance or their decorum at a stage door, I think they're asking too much of these performers when they don't know the whole story. The second part of the topic was people replying to a CRITIQUE with, "But they're so nice!" Well, the reverse of that would be people saying, "Ugh, I hate that performing... she lacks total work ethic and is so anti-social!" and just go on from there. I don't understand how one can make accusations not actually knowing the person first hand -- I don't think it's fair. These people have lives OUTSIDE of work, too -- just as everyone does.

Basically, my point was, I welcome and enjoy participating in critiquing a performer's portrayal of a certain role... their genius or their lack of charactization... that's really all we have a right to judge them on. Otherwise, unless you've had a first hand personal encounter with one or you know them and know they do indeed have bad work ethic, then why gossip?

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 12:13pm

i agree with some of y'all. sometimes i go to see a show because of a specific performer. and i don't think there's anything wrong with that. other times i go to see a show, but there are times when i wanted to see a specific person in a given role (i.e. adam pascal in aida and cabaret, daniel sunjata in take me out, nathan and matthew in producers, lea in miss saigon, bebe in chicago).

i don't see anything wrong with that. if that's what gets people in the seats, so be it. as important as it is to have great productions, it is also a necessity to have people in the seats to keep broadway viable. it amazes me sometimes how pretentious people get about the "theatre" when there is room for all kinds of theater on broadway. if people don't like stunt casting they won't go to see the show (i.e. melanie in chicago, toni in aida and john stamos in nine).

[cmleidi]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 12:23pm

A few things I wanted to add to the messages in this thread. Some will be on topic, and some may not be so you may want to divert your eyes if this is too much for you.

1. A performer's niceness does encourage you to see that person's play/musical and/or it makes you rethink their talent. Kerry Butler was so sweet when I met her that I decided to see LITTLE SHOP. I wasn't impressed with the production or most of the performances (including Butler's), but If I were a reviewer, I would have been less critical of her than I would have been otherwise. I do think people tend to be more forgiving of performers they like personally.

2. I get offers all the time from various sources to come see so-and-so in such and such. Just today, I received an email imploring me to buy a ticket to see Delta Burke in TMM. They didn't ask me to see the show. They asked me to come see Delta in the show. They advertised it with Delta Burke so that those fans wanting to see Delta Burke would purchase a ticket. If you buy a ticket as a result of such an inducement, you should be able to get your money back (or an exchange) if Ms. Burke was out. Since her name isn't above the title, my experience with the Marquis says they would not return your money or offer an exchange. If you buy a ticket for 42nd Street or Urinetown, you are buying a ticket for the show because I have yet to see any inducements that mention specific cast members. They are selling the show not certain performers. A lot of the event shows are selling the show rather than the performer. It's disingenuous to assert that you're buying a ticket to a show when they are selling you a ticket by advertising a certain performer in the show.

3. I still contend that a person's record of showing up for performances is part of their niceness. It means they respect their fans enough to show up. I thought THE BOY FROM OZ was dreadful, but Hugh Jackman's commitment to the role and to Broadway in general gives me a more positive feeling about his performance that I wouldn't have had otherwise. I try not to be influenced either way, but it's often impossible.

4. I was aghast to discover the salary of some Broadway performers. I thought it was much more so I don't begrudge them the opportunities to find other more lucrative work. However, missing three weeks of performances in a five week span is excessive especially when that performer's name and face is used as an inducement to purchase a ticket (and this person's name is not above the title). Their employers might okay these extended absences, but if I'm being sold a ticket on the condition that this actor will appear, I should be able to get a refund/exchange or I should be made aware of these scheduled absences so I can decide what I want to do. If the person's name isn't above the title, it's difficult to get your money back. I actually have a box officer worker on tape saying that a certain performer would be performing two days later (a Sunday) when the performer had been absent the entire week because he was on a scheduled vacation.

5. There are performers who have bad work ethics, That happens in every field. I don't see why we should make excuses for those people. I don't equate being ill with a bad work ethic. Considering the amount of sick people I've seen sitting in the seats at the theatres, I'm surprised more performers don't get sick.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 3:08pm

Oh, suellen, sweet thing, I got 3 words for you. I-See-Shows

Odd as this may seem to some, I have yet chosen to see a production simply because a big "star" or popular name was cast....unless 1. it is one of my clients and I can make it. or 2. an actor-friend gets cast and we make plans that include that show & something social after.

Hugh could agree to perform Paul, naked, in A Chorus Line. I wouldn't go if you gave me a ticket. Can't stand the show. Can't judge Hugh dressed or undressed, don't know him.

I've seen Producers with and without Nathan & Matthew. It's the same show to me. Sure they're good, but so is Brad Oscar. I liked the show. Saw it twice, wouldn't go back a third time regarless of who they casted. There's just too many things, PLAYS..etc. I want to see.

If I truly enjoy a certain actor/actress, I will wait for them to do a concert or cabaret so that I can truly enjoy their own creative talent and not a scripted, directed piece of work.

To each his own.

[BroadwayNYC]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 3:58pm

Hi....I'm new to this board!

I've been a broadway fan for the past 3 years...actually I returned from Greece 3 years ago and finished college here. My last course was an intro to theatre course and that is where my love for theatre began...

Ultimately, I think that we expect actors in general to be approachable and be nice to us "fans." I remember back in August when I went to the cd signing for "Gypsy" with B. Peters and John Dosset, I really expected them to shake my hand, say "hello" and so on. I was really surprised that they both just sat there and just signed the cds without really
"acknowledging" the crowd.
But I really didn't mind it. I became a B. Peters fan just 3 years ago, when I caught her hosting the Tony Awards with Gregory Hines. I just really liked her. Then I bought the ITW dvd and just loved it. I saw Gypsy 3 times already and really loved it. Might go 2 more times before she leaves...don't know when that'll be.
I haven't met anyone really, but I'm assuming their "niceness" so-to-speak, is really an act in itself - they all know that if they don't display an attractive and warm attitude, no one will like them. Don't you all agree?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 4:06pm

Okay, mea culpa, I strayed big time (and early) off the topic.

I think all the subsequent straying was more of an evolution. Nice people, not nice people, work ethic -- it's all about what paying customers think they're getting for their money in a performer and a performance. It all seems relevant as hell to me.

I am almost amused by all the finger wagging here -- or to use the phrase above "stone throwing" -- about "judging" these actors. What's a board like this about if not passing judgement on any number of topics? All of this high road talk about how we have no "right" to make our decisions re actors based on "rumor" seems to me to be taking place in an alternative universe. We can get our info from Ben Brantley, Michael Reidel, these boards, or an astrologer, we have a "right" to consider anything and everything before we buy our tickets, folks. And as for stone throwing, if someone has something to vent, I say, let the air be filled with gravel.

Updated On: 12/4/03 at 04:06 PM

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 4:22pm

You have all soiled the purity of my thread.

Bad reviews all around, should I ever need to review you.

[DefyingGravity]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 6:42pm

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.


I do know for a fact a few people who star in broadway shows do read this message board. You also have to remember the people in broadway shows and any celebrity are all human, theyre no better than you, and they also have families to go home to and not always have to put their fans first. But then if it werent for the fans we wouldnt have a job. Updated On: 12/4/03 at 06:42 PM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/4/03 at 7:15pm

Yes...

a.)Performers and stars DO read this and DO see what is written about them.. I know that for a fact as well
b.) The who don't read, I guarantee, KNOW what is being said about them.. don't think for a second that someone won't say something to them.. This happened to me.. I complimented a young actresses performance on THIS board and a poster who saw the show mentioned me to her at teh stage door and not only did said young actress send a message back to me through that poster, I actually recieved an email from a family member of hers thanking me for supporting her in her career. Good or bad, what you say DOES get back to them.

and YES, niceness DOES have a LOT to do with reviewing a performer.. how many times have we seen someone comment on a show/actor on this board and not give them a bad, horrible, et al review.. but just COMPLETELY rip into them without tact or abandon and see people respond commenting that they must have a "personal issue" with an actor beccause they went into personal territory in their review of said actor in an uncalled for manner??

Also, I have seen on numerous occasions, talented actor's trashed by a poster as being horrible and difficult to watch and when asked why, teh person saying those thing comments on said performer's rudeness.