Brooke Shields discusses her LEAP OF FAITH experience...

Yikes. Doesn't sound like she'll continue with it.

"I was so intent on [originating a role] for the longest [time], but after that experience, I'm acutely aware now it has to be perfect for me to go out on that limb," she says. "If you replace, you have nothing to lose. It doesn't rest on you. They're just hoping you can keep it open. With a new show, you must be clear and know what you're getting into. I was a bit naïve about that. I'm able to keep coming back to Broadway because I do all of it well enough — but it's everything. If you take out one of those things and just compare me to the best in that field — whether it's dancing or singing or acting — I'm not going to win that battle. Take away two out of the three and leave me just singing in the spotlight, I'm going to lose. The role [in Leap of Faith] had virtually no dancing, no humor. I'm proud of what I did...but I think what they wanted was somebody above the title with Raúl. The show is all him, and he's so extraordinary in it, but what he needs around him is not just someone to get them in the seats. I felt fenced [in] through the whole thing, but I learned it's better to have learned that out of town."

edit: Just saw this was old. Still interesting.

Updated On: 7/6/11 at 11:17 PM

I applaud her for being so honest and candid, but I saw LEAP OF FAITH and she was not the show's biggest problem. That would be a three-way tie between the God awful score, God awful book, and God awful direction/choreography.

It's unfortunate that the show's ill-fated tryout was blamed on her when she was merely an actor doing her job and giving a competent performance. She wasn't great, but I'd take her over pretty much anything else in the show.

I love when people are just honest and upfront about things. That's refreshing, and I'm glad she put that out there.

You're right, Curtain. There was absolutely nothing to the role. I believe she could have been terrific had they given her something to work with. Was it Kelli O'Hara who did previous readings, or am I mistaken?

I don't like her acting, and still don't, but this has given me respect for her self-effacingness and professionalism.

---

I hope they going in a new direction means losing Raul. He's not a box office draw and his vibrato is an acquired taste.

Raul's EVERYTHING is an acquired taste.

---

It would have been interesting to see Elizabeth Stanley in the role, she and Raul had such great chemistry in Company, but I don't know enough about this show to make a judgement on if she's right for the role.

---

Luv the... Who played Marva and who directed this last "twittered" reading.
I saw Stanley (up very close) in HELLO AGAIN and she certainly looks old enough to have a 12 year old child.
And she was great.

As someone stated, Brooke was hardly the problem with this show. In fact, she was the ONLY thing I liked about it - why? Because she was real, warm, and likable, while the rest of the show didn't know what the hell it was. Most of this can be laid at the feet of that productions endlessly cocky director/choreographer - when everyone, and I mean everyone is saying the same thing about your staging, then that's not the time to go back to NY and leave everyone in the lurch because YOU'RE happy with it. It was awful - all that Agnes de Mille crap - it's not what the show is about. But this is a director/choreographer who doesn't seem to know what any show is about. And then you had writers, both of whom I respect and like very much, who also didn't help Miss Shields.

She was the best thing about the show and yes they should all go in a brand new direction and it should be far away from Broadway until they get it right, IF they can get it right and the only way they can get it right is with someone at the helm who understands the material and is strong enough to take on the rest of the creative team. For now, if I want to see a musical of The Rainmaker, I'll see 110 In The Shade.

I really love Brooke. I always have, even when she was modeling jeans and lip gloss as a kid. This is why she has been a star and working actress for nearly 40 years, and she's only 46 years old. This is also why when she screws up at the Tony Awards, she's given a free pass and people still love her. (Goldie Hawn and Cher used to do that at the Oscars all the time, BTW.) She is as "real" as any Hollywood personality could be. Granted, that only goes so far, but she keeps it at a charming and sustainable level.

I love that she has an honest understanding of her strengths and her weaknesses, and I hope playwrights out there think of Brooke for their plays, if the part is right. I'd actually like to see her originate a non-musical role. A comedy where she could really shine. I wouldn't be surprised if she won a Tony someday. Perhaps even soon.

---