Diana Rigg Leaving My Fair Lady — Page 4

Soaring29 said: "Rigg has a point about Ambrose's decision, although it isn't totally off the wall to me- vocal health is important after all and what Ambrose is doing does not seem unprofessional. That said, Eliza Doolittle is not an incredibly difficult role to singand although obviously the whole roleis a daunting, demanding challenge to do 8 times a week , this is BROADWAY, where everyone is expected to meet those demands. Mary Beth Peilsums it up perfectly here:“As a 78 year old, I’m expected to do eight shows a week at the same kind of routine as the 25-year-olds in my show,”(http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/mary-beth-peil-sides-with-diana-rigg-in-my-fair-lady-dispute.html)."

People are very quick to say a role isn’t difficult to sing, without taking into account all the other factors that go with it. This isn’t a concert of the show with no dialogue, choreography or costume changes-this is a role that goes from A-Z emotionally and the vocal demands of the flower girl portions of the show are high. You then take into account how much time the actor is doing nothing, when backstage or how much of that time is spent changing wigs and costumes, also the physical demands of the show - movement, choreography. It’s the same with ‘Hello, Dolly!’ no the score isn’t the most challenging to sing that has ever been written but if you take all the above into account, it’s a marathon.

Whilst there are others who could sing the score with more ease, this isn’t the business of putting ‘easy’ on the stage. This production and its director are more interested in dramatic, emotional thrills and raw storytelling over the sorts of safe choices one might associate with a revival of this piece - whether the role is easy to sing for one person in comparison to another, is irrelevant. They have chosen the Eliza they wanted to make this new production and they have chosen to give her a day off, doesn’t matter if some other actor would or wouldn’t need it, as they didn’t get the gig.

Loopin’theloop said: "Soaring29 said: "Rigg has a point about Ambrose's decision, although it isn't totally off the wall to me- vocal health is important after all and what Ambrose is doing does not seem unprofessional. That said, Eliza Doolittle is not an incredibly difficult role to sing and although obviously the whole role is a daunting, demanding challenge to do 8 times a week , this is BROADWAY, where everyone is expected to meet those demands. Mary Beth Peilsums it up perfectly here:“As a 78 year old, I’m expected to do eight shows a week at the same kind of routine as the 25-year-olds in my show,”(http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/mary-beth-peil-sides-with-diana-rigg-in-my-fair-lady-dispute.html)."

People are very quick to say a role isn’t difficult to sing, without taking into account all the other factors that go with it. This isn’t a concert of the show with no dialogue, choreography or costume changes-this is a role that goes from A-Z emotionally and the vocal demands of the flower girl portions of the show are high. You then take into account how much time the actor is doing nothing, when backstage or how much of that time is spent changing wigs and costumes, also the physical demands of the show - movement, choreography. It’s the same with ?Hello, Dolly!’ no the score isn’t the most challenging to sing that has ever been written but if you take all the above into account, it’s a marathon.

Whilst there are others who could sing the score with more ease, this isn’t the business of putting ?easy’ on the stage. This production and its director are more interested in dramatic, emotional thrills and raw storytelling over the sorts of safe choices one might associate with a revival of this piece - whether the role is easy to sing for one person in comparison to another, is irrelevant. They have chosen the Eliza they wanted to make this new production and they have chosen to give her a day off, doesn’t matter if some other actor would or wouldn’t need it, as they didn’t get the gig.

"

If you see my bolded portion above , you can see that I did make an allowance for Ambrose given all of the reasons you explained in depth in the also bolded portion above. I just feel that Rigg has a point in that the vocal demands of a role played on Broadway should be met by the actor playing them to the point it will not cause an actor to have to take a day off every week from the normal show schedule. To me, Eliza(and any role really) is a role that should be handled vocally by the actress playing her, whether that means vocal rest entirely (excluding vocal work done in preparation for and in the of course of the show itself), resting one's voice completely or moderately during off periods, building more stamina by exercising, cooling the voice down every day, etc. Obviously, she is a mother, so being quiet all day may not be an option, but there are other options for her position then taking a day off every week from the standard schedule.

I think Diana Rigg is just being a shady queen who wants out of the show. #ByeFelicia

Why shouldn't Dame Diana say so?

Because it is tacky, unprofessional, and an issue best left to the producers and director.

It may have been better to have Ambrose stay with the 8 performance a week schedule while missing a bunch of performances without notice that seems to be more the norm among favored Broadway performers. I think people are just latching on to Ambrose taking one performance off a week because it presents an opportunity to talk about how a "B-list celebrity" took a role from a more deserving performer...yet again. It's funny how that works. People are guilty of exhibiting attitudes that they say they dislike. People go on about big named celebrities doing theatre work and can't wait to say they can't handle the schedule or not up to snuff, but are now super offended that a bigger star didn't take the role of Eliza Doolittle. This is like another version of the same sort of attitude producers have when they fund productions as star vehicles for movie actors that they claim to dislike so much.

I enjoyed Ambrose, and I enjoyed Rigg.

Personally, I applaud Ambrose for taking the initative to take care of herself. We should be talking about our health more, and I think Rigg's initial response showed that she's from a different time when performers were expected to power through and hurt themselves.

I know this is Broadway, and many performers do 8 performances a week without issues. I just don't undertand why we can support other performers who consider their health, and complain in this instance.

(I do consider the argument about ticket sales prior to the announcement, though as an audience member, *I* personally would understand. I don't pretend to speak for everyone, though!)

poisonivy2 said: Here's a pretty good account of the fighting over money that eventually led to tensions with LMM as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-hamilton-broadway-profit/

But you know what? By that time the OBC cast had made the producers rich men, and they had devoted a big chunk of their lives to the show. And they didn't run to Mr. Riedel blabbing all the details of the tense money disputes. And they were 100% right. They had been a huge part of the show's success and they did deserve a bigger slice of the pie.

The Hamilton OBC (other than Lin Manuel Miranda) absolutely did not and does not deserve any slice of the pie bigger than what their salary was when they signed their contract. Those actors did not create, write, compose, inspire, direct, or choreograph the show. That's why LMM, Ron Chernow, Thomas Kail, Andy Blankenbueler, and Alex Lacamoire have their jobs and deserve their credit. But the rest of the actors do not. They are performers and their job is to do what the creative team tells them to do. I don't care if they were there since the workshop, they are not creators, they are not billed above the title.

The deal that was settled for them was ridiculous, none of them added anything to the production that any other actor could have - and any other actor could have done their job as we now see since they have all left and no production is hurting. None of them were stars. This was not a Chorus Line situation. None of those actors inspired the story or the work on stage. All that credit should have gone to LMM and the rest of the creative team. They are now getting money for work that they did not do. If they want credit for material made for the stage, then they can go out and do the work themselves and become a director, writer, or choreographer on another production. But I'm sorry, they should have understood this when they chose performing as a profession. They are absolutely not entitled to any royalties for that production at all.

A completely different cast in that show would not have changed the impact that it made. It was the material. Ask any other OBC. They all devote their lives to the show they're in. They were nothing special.

adamgreer said: "poisonivy2 said: "Everyone's acting like Ambrose has huge attendance issues. She doesn't. I think she missed four shows in May because she was sick and hasn't missed any other shows. MFL isn't that much of a sell-out that people can't exchange tickets if they want to see her. Bart Sher was smart in that he cast an understudy (Kerstin Anderson) who had already done a national tour of The Sound of Music and therefore could carry an iconic soprano part.

As for the Laura Benanti thing, has she ever had a run where she had good attendance? This isn't a knock on her. I love her. But she;s open about the fact that she has had a number of health issues that have caused her to miss shows."

Gypsy, for one. Though some of that may have been the result of being around Patti, who said in an interview at the time that she “spoke with” Benanti about her attendance.

I think she had good attendance in She Loves Me as well."

Laura Benanti missed a number of performances in She Loves Me. I believe by the end of her run she was only playing 6 shows a week, with Laura Shoop doing the matinees. I don't think it was announced at the time, but one assumes that this was because of her pregnancy.

newintown said: "But I tend to doubt that she would come in as a replacement for such a small role."

When Lansbury's return to Broadway in The Chalk Garden got nixed a few years ago, she said the rigors of leading a play for seven or eight performance week were “a bit too much for me to handle at this time." She also said she's "feeling fine" and her "health is very good."

Mrs. Higgins would be the perfect role for her then. It is literally seven or eight minutes of stage time in a role she can make a major impact in. We will almost certainly never see her in a leading stage performance again, so I think this role, as small as it is, would fit her like a glove.

I would love it to happen.