Breaking News: Douglas Hodge to Play 'Willy Wonka' in West End's CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY!

[Rob]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 6:25pm

Click Here to Read Breaking News: Douglas Hodge to Play 'Willy Wonka' in West End's CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 6:27pm

I ain't mad at dat.

[Huss417]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 7:24pm

I can actually see this. Not a bad choice.

[Sheri]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 9:59pm

I admit to being incredibly biased, but I think this is a great choice of casting! :)

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 10:34pm

Nice choice. Although, I didn't see all the hub-bub in La Cage. We'll see how he does..

[SingingChef]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 10:50pm

Yes, love this. Such a talent.

[willep]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 10:57pm

That sounds like great casting to me.

[darquegk]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 11:36pm

Hodge seems too... warm to me. When it was Shaiman's longtime partner in crime Martin Short reported, that made perfect sense, since like both Wilder and Depp, there was a duality to him. You were never entirely sure if Wonka was sweet with a core of deep unpleasantness, or unpleasant with a deep core of sweetness. Short's entire career has revolved around playing characters like that to great acclaim- plus, Shaiman always seems to have the most fun writing for Marty.

[Skip2]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 11:37pm

Much better than casting him as ZaZa.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 11:39pm

Very inspired choice. Love it and hope he brings it to Broadway.

[Overkill]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 4:43am

I agree, that Martin Short would have been very ideal, but still! Douglas is so great, and I can't wait to see what he brings to the role. Maybe Martin can take over if it ever comes to Broadway. :)

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 9:31am

I hate to say this, but the cynic in me says they're avoiding casting a "big star" like Short, and instead going the "reputable actor" route by casting Hodge, who would be easily replaceable in these big factory (no pun intended) stage musicals.

Hodge is not a household name. Short is, and if you cast him, when it comes time to replace him, they'll be facing a major disappointment from audiences who want to see a Hollywood star if they can't find someone of equal caliber to replace him.

Plus, it's no secret that Hodge and others with similar reputation would cost a lot less than Martin Short.

In some cases, casting a big name (particularly for a revival or a limited run) is a great idea. With revivals it can make and clearly sustain the production.

With an original musical (well, as "original" as most musicals get these days), they are wise to establish it by its name recognition alone, and not by the "big name" talent in a leading role.

Updated On: 9/7/12 at 09:31 AM

[darquegk]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 12:56pm

Is Martin Short really still an A-list name? I think of him as very prime C-list, other than maybe on Broadway. The ultimate in guest star potential, but certainly not a "big name" except as a Broadway star or sometimes comic.

Don't get me wrong, he's probably one of my favorite performers, but he's an anomaly in the states- his multi-character-artist schtick is the quintessential modern British comedian's genre.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 12:58pm

Martin Short is absolutely NOT a household name in the UK.

[Younger Brother]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 3:14pm

Great casting! On a side note, does anybody know who starred in the readings? I know Mike Tevee was played by Andrew Keenan Bolger

[DeNada]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 3:16pm

Indeed - as HistoryBoy2 says, Martin Short is a nobody in the UK. Dougie Hodge isn't a name to the general public but definitely is to theatregoers (and can sell a show on his name alone, pretty much) - but it's the title, and Sam Mendes, that will sell this one here.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 3:30pm

I was definitely think of the US and a transfer when I said that. I wouldn't claim to know how recognizable Martin Short is in the UK. Although he has starred in films in the past, which unless I'm mistaken were released in the UK, right? And Saturday Night Live is or rather WAS shown in the UK, right?

As for A-list vs. C-list, that sadly seems irrelevant today. Everyone from Snookie to Linsday Lohan is a household name. That in no way implies they are A-list, only that most people know who they are and would recognize their names on a marquee. They have an audience and a following.

Updated On: 9/7/12 at 03:30 PM

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 4:07pm

You have to agree there is nothing more uncomfortable than watching a big star in a role, that just can't cut the mustard on stage, it is better to go for a good/great stage actor, or can actually ACT.

[DeNada]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 4:25pm

With Martin Short it's a whole lot of "was". He WAS in films, he WAS in Saturday Night Live - but Father Of The Bride is twenty years old now, and SNL has only ever been shown on obscure cable/satellite channels in the dead of night in the UK.

Obviously if you're thinking of a Broadway transfer such casting would make a lot more sense.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 4:46pm

I hope you understand that I'm not really "for" it. I think it makes more sense (from a producer POV) to make the show the real star and cast "good" actors in the main roles, but actors who can also be replaced fairly easily by other good actors. How recogizable they are isn't as important.

The trend I'm seeing is that revivals (and yes, I'm speaking primarily of U.S. revivals) seem to go for star casting. It has become a giant summer stock theatre, but with "Harry Potter" headlining instead of Joyce De Witt.

New musicals tend to go for reputable leads (former Tony-winners and certainly known and beloved actors in the theatre community) but not usually "household names."

The problem is if you open a "new" show with stars, the audiences that flock to it will want to see a star when they go. If they get a "no name" replacement, many of them will be disappointed. Also, it becomes a little unclear if the show itself is the hit or the celebrity in the role who sold the tickets. (With a revival, you can factor in past glories and the recognizability of the original run.)

With a new show that could potentially run for years, it's actually better to leave the stars out of it.