Do you think Roles are more demanding?

You gotta be kidding me!

You want see large, challenging roles, just think (off the top of my head) about Rose in Gypsy (late 50s), Eve / Princess Barberra (sic), Passionella in The Apple Tree (mid-60s), Ella Peterson in Bells are Ringing (mid-50s), Coco (early 70s), Cyrano (late 70s, I think), Harold Hill (late 50s), Tevye (mid-60s), Fanny Brice (mid-60s), Peter Allen (2003), Mame (mid-60s), Evita (early 80s), Sweeney Todd (1979), Agnes and Michael in I Do! I Do (mid 60s) (although Martin and Preston did begin to play only 6 performances a week (mind you, 10 months after opening night), and their replacements for matinees were stars), Jean Val Jean (mid-80s). I could go on and on, and these are just musicals. There are a huge number of plays with massive, challenging roles for their leads (Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neil alone...).

I think there are a lot of people today who just don't see Broadway as their destination; rather, it is just a stop on the way to movies or a long running TV show. I am probably being crotchety, but I am just tired of all the times that leads have missed performances I attended in the last decade, most recently in the case of Frozen, which I saw in the spring shortly after it opened; both leads were out, yet no one else in the entire cast was also out, so I am not guessing there was not a flu going through the cast (it was not flu season).

I may be a cynic, but I left the theatre that night wondering whether they just were not in the mood that night; but also, luckily, I ended up not missing them a bit, because both understudies were up to the challenges of the roles (and the roles were so...characterless, that I would be shocked if ANYONE could have given a great performance).

PS -- there is NO role in Wicked that is as large and challenging as any of the roles above, although Elphaba may come close due to the vocal demands, if not size, of the role; and, to answer your question, Mary Martin would've been terrible in Wicked, not because the roles were too challenging for her, but because neither role was right for her. She was never IMO bubbly (Glinda), or serious enough for Elphaba. The few times I saw her, I got the impression that she was mainly playing herself, abetted by a warmth that drew the audience in and a pleasant, if unexceptional, voice. But, the show would have gone on!

No, roles on Broadway have always been incredibly demanding. But, with the gradual (slow) acceptance of actually being able to talk about mental health, I think more performers are more honest and practice self care than the past generations. Roles did not change, humans did.

LuPita2 said: "No, roles on Broadway have always been incredibly demanding. But, with the gradual (slow)acceptance of actually being able to talk about mental health, I think more performers are more honest and practice self care than the past generations. Roles did not change, humans did."



Huhh??

While I think the arguments above are true, I think there is also something to be said for the prevalence of crazy-high sustained belting in today's music. There seems to be a mentality among composers that "if we don't make all the men belt As and all the women belt Fs, no one will cheer for them at the end of the song, nobody will be impressed!" And sure enough, belting seems to be enough to get someone nominated for a Tony.

There are plenty of roles from older musicals that are difficult to sing, but in my experience (having actually played a couple of the more difficult ones - though not necessarily very well), they are difficult in a very different way. They require stamina, smart musicianship, and very good acting to pull off (again, not saying I hit all those checkmarks). But nowadays, roles are written to be screlted, which can wear down the voice very quickly, especially among young musical theatre actors who do not have as much technical experience.

In the days when being a professional on Broadway could be someone's bread-and-butter calling out unless absolutely necessary was unheard of. Now, Broadway is either a stop-towards, a stop-while-doing, or a stop-before-winding-down.....but everyone has other fish to fry if they're well known. It's not the same make-or-break it used to be for performers by and large. What's also changed with that is the professional discipline for eight shows a week. It's daunting and different from the disciplines of television and film and many don't have that and are overwhelmed by it, I think.

Honestly, I don’t think any role that someone has to perform 8x a week is easy. Whether it’s a role that is notorious for being challenging, to a role that might only be on stage for a number or two- performance is never easy. People also have to take into account that while someone might not be onstage during a show, there are also standbys, who don’t usuallg appear onstage unless the person they’re standing by for calls out. There are swings, who have to know many different roles and sometimes have a few hours to prepare to go on for an actor who’s out. The year a role is performed doesn’t matter- performance takes so much out of a performer. Maybe it’s their first time in a lead role in a huge show. Maybe it’s their first time in a show. It’s NEVER easy. You can say all you want about “well if they couldn’t handle the role they shouldn’t have taken it on” or “there should be an alternate” all you want, but these actors have worked so, so hard to get to where they are. It could be their dream role (Laura Benanti In MFL) but it could also be a difficult role. It could just plain take a lot out of someone each show (Evan Hansen is the first example that comes to mind in recent years). I’m not saying you should give them a free pass, because excessive call outs could show a lack of interest in the role, but the majority of the time-all of the time, the actors want to be there. You never, ever know what’s going on behind the scenes. Social media has made it easier for actors to be vocal about why they call out-it has also made it easier for unsupportive people to attack them. The roles haven’t changed; people’s ability to call out a performer has. And boy do they abuse that. Next time you want to make some snide remark about someone calling out of a show,

I think it’s a complex answer but another contributor is in 2013 if a performer missed more than something like 5 or so days of work in a month then their pay would be docked, so you had to “recover” within a certain time in order to keep your full pay. Now they are not allowed to take away some of your wages if you are sick and need more time to recover which would encourage more time off knowing there is no financial penalty.

Updated On: 12/12/18 at 09:55 AM

Interesting read after a very shakey start[subject wording].

Roles are how they are written and the audition process is there to discover any weakness from a performer.

These screechy big note endings are all the rage--imagine Mary Martin trying to do it.

Forgot now which thread I'm in--anyhow, I never go to a show or movie because of who is in it. My friend goes one better, he turns up at a movie complex and whatever is about to start when he arrives then that is the movie he sees.

Apart from 2 a day shows there are 20 hours on other days to rest the voice.

Why should you perform if you are really sick--Doctors certificate? It's a J.O.B.that ends each shift with applause.

God what a ramble, hope the mods step in and delete, save me doing it.