Christina Applegate vs. John Lithgow (just hear me out)

[bella cantato]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:09am

The other day, as I was driving in my car, I was thinking about Christina Applegate and my adament dislike of her. I began to wonder if it was more so bc as a blonde, young, female, I was jealous of this woman who I believe kind of just waltzed into Broadway and achieved success, or whether it was because she really had a mediocre performance and did not deserve a Tony nom or the chance to headline a show simply bc she was a B-list Hollywood actor.

I began to wonder if there was a male equivalent, and if I would feel the same way. The next person I thought of was John Lithgow. I see them both as former TV actors who really aren't very good singers... but are both starring in Broadway productions.

However, I adore John Lithgow. I think that he is insanely talented and that his work in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was just brilliant.

Now, I will admit-- I have never seen Applegate in Sweet Charity, however, having seen her performance at the Tony's and even heard clips of her recording I still just don't think she's that good. I began to wonder if her stage presence was similar to Lithgow's-- was it a performance that, despite the mediocre singing, completely stole the audience's hearts? I have heard very good things about her ACTING in the role. I just don't think that as a singer, she is up to par.

Basically, the jist of this post is... IF it is possible that Applegate's stage presence is comparable to Lithgows... why would she get all the bad press and he get such great reviews? Do you think there is a double standard for females in this industry? I work for corporate America, and I can tell you that there is definitely a double standard here... Women who are attractive and blonde have to earn their respect much more than a man.

Is it possible that there is a double standard on Broadway? Thoughts, please.

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:11am

While not in the same league as Lithgow, I found Christina utterly charming and capable in Sweet Charity. Lithgow has legitimate stage credentials as well as a Tony Award on his mantel. No one can deny him his Broadway reputation. It is well deserved.

History has shown you do not need to be a good singer to be utterly entrancing in a starring musical performance.

[bella cantato]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:13am

No, I know that you don't have to be a great singer to be a great peformer-- I said that, I think, pretty clearly when I stated my admiration for Lithgow. That wasn't the question I was asking...

Basically there are two questions. I honestly do not know how Christina's performance measures up to Lithgows bc I haven't seen her. So, 1.) do you think it does and 2.) If so, why does she get all the bad press? Is it possible bc there is a double standard on Broadway?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:14am

I'd much rather listen to Christina than John sing.

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:14am

Why bother comparing them?

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:21am

Yes, no need to compare them.

I really don't think John is in the same boat as Christina.

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:22am

Agreed - totally different leagues.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:22am

You also have to remember that John Lithgow starred in M. Butterfly in the late 80s, prior to his success on 3rd Rock.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:23am

A better comparison would be Christina & Brooke Shields.

Both came to Broadway primarily through TV fame, both have more charm and comic timing than singing and dancing talent, both ladies want to prove themselves on stage, are hard workers and great colleagues. And both are Weissler Gals and are audience favorites.

But for some reason, Brooke never recieved the concentrated loathing and hysterical breast-beating and garment-rending wails over "the demise of the thee-ay-tah" that Christina has.

Updated On: 8/4/05 at 10:23 AM

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:24am

I agree with the Brooke/Christina comparison - they are at the same professional level from a stage perspective.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:28am

Lithgow has TONS of Broadway experience, and is considered by most to be a legit stage actor.

Here are his many, many credits. Comparing him to Applegate is silly.

http://www.ibdb.com/person.asp?ID=15448

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:28am

Rentboy -- totally agree. I haven't gotten her SC cast recording yet, but I have listened to some of it and she seems to be a better singer than John. Also, I would guess that she's a MUCH better dancer. Based on what most people have said, she is quite a good actress in the role of Charity. I LOVED John in DRS, but he really isn't a singer and it comes across very clearly in the recording, just as it did onstage. When he does his "character" singing (e.g. Ruprecht or Ruffhousin'), he's stronger than he is in "Give them what they want" or "Love Sneaks In."

Edit: It's even more obvious about John's singing when he does the title song with Norbert, because Norbert is such an accomplished singer. You hear John attempting to execute some jazz techniques on notes and he just sounds a little flat. Then Norbert does the same thing (but properly) in his verse and you can understand what John was attempting. However, it doesn't get around the fact that John TOTALLY sells his numbers.

Updated On: 8/4/05 at 10:28 AM

[gymman]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:30am

Lack of history here--Lithgow began his career in theater, and won a Tony for The Changing Room.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:33am

John Lithgow is a tv actor????? Do you know that Lithgow won his first Tony (he has two) over 30 years ago? That he has 20 Broadway credits to his name (and dozens of other non-Broadway credits) -- and more than a dozen of them came before "Third Rock."

If anything, Lithgow is a "stage actor" who did a little television -- not the other way around

[mominator]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:38am

I am not too sure of this, but wasn't Mr. Lithgow also nominated for an Oscar for Footloose?

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:39am

Not sure about Footloose (I can't imagine), but he was nominated for The World According to Garp.

[mominator]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:40am

Thank you!! I knew he had at lease one!

[gymman]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:40am

Terms of Endearment, too...
Not Footloose

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:47am

"Women who are attractive and blonde have to earn their respect much more than a man."

Yeah, and you still get the jobs anyway. On the other hand, men who are short, African-American and gay are often at more of a disadvantage than white women. Twice now I have been told that one of your kind got a job for which I interviewed! (lol, mini-rant, but it is pretty annoying to me to hear women complaining about how they have to work so much harder for what they want than men when -- within the category of men - there are people subject to more discrimination than you.)

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 10:57am

I agree with others. You really should see Christina in the role before judging her. She was a nervous wreck on the Tonys, and she was dancing on a broken foot to a song with a tempo faster than it's suppose to be. She is totally different in the theatre.
And she was completely worthy of her Tony nom. And she most likey would've won - if the amazing Piazza didn't happen in the same season.

And yes Brooke and Christina is a better comparison. I think
Christina is a better singer, but both have great acting skills, and can dance their butts off.
Updated On: 8/4/05 at 10:57 AM

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 3:50pm

Ljay as much as i love you ....Brooke so can not dance at all!....

Go see Charity and then start forming oppions!

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 4:03pm

There was nothing wrong with her dancing - when I saw her in WT.

And it's being said she is handling the original CHICAGO choreography for Roxie - just fine. She even does the cartwheel.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 4:06pm

Christina was fabulous in Sweet Charity.

John is decent in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. His part is very simple.

[Enjolras77]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 4:13pm

As mentioned above I would not put Christina is the same league as Lithgow since he was a stage actor first and has two tony awards already. What I do want to touch on is the singing issue that was touched on briefly but not discussed. In several posts Lithgow's lack of singing ability is mentioned. A lot of times on Broadway, it is not how well you sing, but how well you can sell the role you are playing. That is why actors like Lithgow or Harvey Fierstein for that matter can win the Best Actor in a Musical award without being great (or even good) singers. This used to irk me all the time. With me being a singer and voice major, I always hated seing non-singers getting big roles because in my mind I knew I sang better and it made me jealous. I eventually realized that even though I might could sing the role better, I couldn't embody the role or BE the role like they could. From a musical standpoint, who would want to listen to a CD of Rex Harrison singing? However, cast him as Henry Higgins and all of a sudden you have one of the greatest tour de forces in musical theatre history. I honestly have a hard time imagining anyone else in that role. What is funny is that recently I saw a different production of My Fair Lady and during Higgins's songs I was like "so that is what the MELODY of that song sounds like!" A lot of historically great Broadway stars are not great singers. Zero Mostel and Robert Preston were not great singers (although they could carry a tune), but they are identified immediately with some of the most famous roles in musical theatre history. I am not putting Lithgow into that exclusive group yet, but I do know that both times I have seen him in musicals I was so caught up in the characters he was playing that I didn't notice his lack of vocal ability.

[justme2]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 4:16pm

I can completely understand why so many people were (and still are) up in arms about "tv people" coming to Broadway and snatching plum roles from the grasp of true theatre professionals. It's hard to watch someone with little to no experience on the boards be chosen over our favorites who have 20 plus years of stage experience.

However, keep in mind that some of these "tv people" have done a lot of work outside of LA/TV/movies, as is the case with John Lithgow. There is a lot more to actors than what the public sees. They are studying and preparing for years and we never see it.

Also, take a look at the SC performance before you solidfy your opinion of her talent. There is a reason that many people are praising this actress' performance. There was a reason she was chosen as Charity over Krakowski, Tomei, Abdul and god knows who else we didn't even hear about.

This is not a new trend, either. I remember being surprised upon hearing that Mac Davis would be taking over for Keith Carradine in Will Rogers Follies. And then Larry Gaitlin. And lets not forget Marla Maples Trump taking over Cady Huffman's role in that same show. It's a business, and if the tickets can't be sold on a (strictly) theater professional's name, then a "name" will be sought.

PS...NO ONE looked good at the Tony's this year :)