God Bless Brooke Shields- Page 2

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 10:43pm

Roz Russell was the definition of 'glamorous'.

Perhaps some people feel that Ms. Shields particular brand of beauty doesn't work for this role, which I suppose is valid.

But who here has actually seen her in the show?

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 10:49pm

Alright. Remove the god damn comment, but i still stand by what i said. And yes, I realize that it costs a lot to put on a musical. Im not an idiot. And yes, i realize that it takes over a year to turn a profit. I dont really care what you think of my theatrical intelligence frankly. My point in the post was to say that stunt casting in order to ATTEMPT TO TURN A PROFIT is a shame. Id rather see amazing stage talent perform nightly over a formerly popular, and in my opnion, abominable tv and film actress anyday. Regardless of which rich producers are losing money or not. Do you honestly think that when producing a sondheim show, producers expect to turn a massive profit? No. And they certainly dont pull this stunt casting in order to. Why should a great work of leonard bernstein get this treatment then? All im saying is real talent deserves work over stunt casting. Period. Please, inform me of my ignorance again, as im sure you will.

[CJR]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 10:50pm

Like I said, I'm seeing Brooke's "return to Broadway" show on Thursday... full report upon my return.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 10:53pm

All I can say to you is that I would love for Karen Ziemba to be headlining in a show. I really think she deserves it. However, she doesn't sell tickets. It's a vicious circle - the unions demand high rates of pay and benefits for their members. Theater owners want lots of money too. The producers have to come up with all that money, plus money to pay back their investors. So, the rental fees and salaries have to come from ticket sales. I'm not disagreeing that stunt casting of an untalented actor is upsetting and wrong. However, in this case, they are obviously in the hole for quite a bit of money. And, I'm not convinced that Ms. Shields can't handle this particular role.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 10:56pm

Glad im not so stunningly ignorant as i thought for a second.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 10:57pm

Well, I didn't say that.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:04pm

Stunt Casting.....

Yes it exists. But do you people reliaze that everyone has to agree on it. Someone like Brooke Shields has to be approved by Betty Comden before she goes in. I have a friend who was recently cast, and yes, Betty came and watched her audition. So apparantly its not just Weissler stunt casting, Betty Comden a little old lady who wrote a show, is guilty too.

Maybe people would like to take a star who isnt as talented, but gives a certain crowd a thrill, and has fun doing it a chance.

Brooke will be there for a few months, wont get stale, will grow in the role, will sell tickets, and Ive seen her, shes not horrible by any measure. Shes also 1000 times easier to work with than Donna Murphy, she is a delight backstage ive been told

Just remember 1 thing, something like 10% of shows turn a profit, without those rich producers doing a little stunt casting, we would have no message board to read because there would be no broadway. Do you have 12 million dollars? No, so we have to view the art that is presented to us. In a perfect world, great shows would be cast with every perfect person and they would run forever and we would build more theatres and everything would be sold out, but its not the reality.

Broadway is business, and Brooke is good for business. I just think we need to lay off a bit on this stuff. No i dont like that fact that amazing ladies dont work, and brooke does, but with her there is a show, without her, they would have closed, im glad to see my friends employed. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest! Updated On: 10/12/04 at 11:04 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:05pm

Hear hear!

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:08pm

And at the expense of one actor in a starring role, thirty others are still making a living, paying into their pensions and getting health insurance.

I'm sure they're saying 'Thank God for Brooke Shields!'

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:09pm

And all this goes to show--we need a national theatre. A place where stunt casting doesnt have to exist and great art can still thrive. Haha, now hows that for a shift in topic?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:15pm

Thats called regional theatre :)

My viewpoint is this. Not every show needs stunt casting, and sometimes its not stunt casting. I think Christina Applegate will be amazing, is that stunt casting? Was Hugh Jackman? Lets say they do mouling Roughe with Hugh and Jane Krakowski, is that stunt casting? No they are all talented people. Just because you dont like someone, you cant call it stunt casting. Just say, Brooke sucks, your opinion is heard, and move on. But many many people will leave that theatre saying "she wasss, AMAZING!" And they just had the "broadway experience" I dont think thats a bad thing, maybe next time they will go see Brooklyn.

But Brooklyn gets slammed too because it looks like rent and theres no story. But theres no stunt casting and its original, what does everyone want???? Sometimes it seems no one likes anything they see.

Im on a total rant right now, but you want original work with great talents, go see some random off broadway stuff. Caligula was impressive, and the highlight of the show was not their draw, Euon, it was its ensemble and supporting chracters. If it has a billboard in times square its probably not a show designed around artistic integrity, but whatever i love them all. You can leave a show you hated, or depsised a performace in by an actor, and still have learned and grown from the experience, and isnt that what art is all about. Lets just enjoy ourselves.

ROCK ON BROOKE, ROCK ON REGIONAL THEATRE!!!! :) Im done goodnight Updated On: 10/12/04 at 11:15 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:18pm

PS ~ I totally agree on the National Theatre thing! Lets start a fund!

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:21pm

i won't go see brooke in the role, but only because I know I'll be unhappy with her performance. but if her being in WT is boosting sales and keeping the rest of the cast and staff employed a little longer, I say great!

the revival has a lot of great things going for it. it honestly changed the way I look at revivals. and i'm a spiteful, cynical man, so that's saying something! it's a fine production that deserves to be seen, so i'm happy that it has a little time to attract crowds that otherwise would never have given WT a 2nd look.

and with Carolee coming into MAMMA MIA, she can keep a close eye on Brooke, make sure she doesn't try any funny stuff with Edelman (beloved of all ladies). if Brooke thinks her fame provides immunity to a pissed-off Carmello, well, Ms. Mugleston would suddenly be a very busy lasy. but i guess she's used to it.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:30pm

How do you "know" you'll be unhappy with her performance if you haven't seen her in it?

[RadioTV2]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:39pm

I am officially boycotting my own thread.

Updated On: 10/12/04 at 11:39 PM

[CJR]

Posted: 10/12/04 at 11:48pm

You made your bed babe, lie in it.

It's a healthy, albiet heated discussion. There's no slander or deformation of character, therefore no reason to delete the thread.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/13/04 at 9:24am

Deformation?

[Marquise]

Posted: 10/13/04 at 9:41am

i think you people need to *chill*, reality is: brooke's in the role. you can't do anything about it. all the b!tching and moaning isn't gonna change it. so just live with it, and if you don't agree with it just do one simple thing: don't go see wonderful town and call it a day.

if on the other hand you do like brooke then by all means go see wonderful town and enjoy the hell out of it and cheer brooke on.

[CJR]

Posted: 10/13/04 at 10:37am

Deformation?

HAHA I can't believe I actually typed that last night... that's what I get for posting half asleep! lol

Of course, I meant defamation of character.

*hits self in forehead*

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/13/04 at 10:56am

Actually, I am more interested in seeing the show with Brooke than when Donna was in it. Having a diva who can sing the hell out of Swing makes absolutely no sense and is totally out of character. That, and Donna's attendance record really left a bad taste in my mouth, which is why Jarico and I passed the show up on our NYC trip. With Brooke, however, I have a newfound interest in the show. She has proven to be quite charismatic and plays the insecure and clumsy bombshell quite well. Though she is glamorous, as robbiej said, Russell was glamorous and not especially ugly. Thousands of beautiful women never get a second glance because they are shy, or insecure, or never discovered their beauty. And put Brooke next to a twentysomething blonde knockout and guess which will draws the guys' attractions. It's not so far-fetched.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/13/04 at 12:17pm

"Do you honestly think that when producing a sondheim show, producers expect to turn a massive profit? No. And they certainly dont pull this stunt casting in order to."

The Chris Kattan debacle comes dangerously close to negating your point, theatreboy.

[Hank]

Posted: 10/13/04 at 1:24pm

I saw Brooke during her opening week in a half full house, but that was September and allmost all the shows were strugling. It's good to see that ticket sales are now back up where they should be.
Brooke Shields has had an amazing career, and I'm glad to have seen her. She is a great comedic actress, but I agree, not that great a singer. She is also very tall, and she towers above those Brazilian cadets in "The Conga".
Jennifer Hope Wills was terrific as Eileen! She's as stunningly beautiful as role calls for, and she has such sweet, lovely voice! Her "I'm A Little Bit In Love" actually sounds better than that other Jennifer on the OBCR.

[DesperatelySeekingStranger]

Posted: 10/13/04 at 1:29pm

What bugs me is I constantly read that people think Hollywood actors don't belong on Broadway, though they will make exceptions for the Hugh Jackmans, etc. On the other hand, they think its perfectly fine for a theatre actor to do movies or television. It's such hypocrisy! If a Hollywood actor is cast in a role, someone obviously thinks they have some iota of talent. And true, the "rich" producers may pocket some money but stunt casting also keeps dozens and dozens of people employed, both cast and crew. If you were part of the ensemble of Wonderful Town, wouldn't you rather have Brooke Shields come in and let you work some more, or would you rather it close and be out of work? Think about it people! And ridiculing an actor's performance without having seen it is stupid and leaves me to take your opinion with a grain of salt...

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 10/13/04 at 1:50pm

Welcome the the board. Now, in response to your comment. I can assure you that most people here on this board are full-well aware of every supposed enlightening comment you have made but the facts are this--There is far more work in LA than in New York for actors. That cannot be disputed. LA is the home of the film industry (far bigger than the stage industry), the television industry (ditto), and many other acting opportunities (voice overs, commercial work, etc.) Therefore (and i realize this is difficult to do at all), it is far easier to attain work in LA than in New York. So, to make it as a steady working actor in New York, you obviously must have a slight advantage in the talent dept. over many who attempt to work in New York, but then move to LA to find more steady employment. Next, it takes a different type of talent to perform something brilliantly once on camera after hundreds of takes than it does to perform a brilliant moment on stage eight times a week, while always keeping it fresh. In my opinion, it is more difficult. I think most would agree. Next, most stage actors are at some point trained in the likes of Shakespeare, Chekov, Ibsen, Mogliere, and many of the other classic playwrights of theatre. Those who take a four week film acting seminar in LA are not. They dont need to be. The work doesnt require that depth. Stage acting does. So here's my gripe--many of the film actors we adore began on stage. This holds them in a higher degree of respect for myself. Because while Kevni Kilne (per say) can make me laugh and cry in a performance like "In and Out", I also realize that his Julliard training allows me to be just as deeply touched when he playes Falstaff. All some of us are saying is that it takes a bit more to act on stage than it does on film. It's a fact. And as for Brooke Shields, I just dont think that getting work from being beatiful aand tall in LA is cause enough for me to pay $100 to see her in anything on the Broadway stage.

and by the way, the "hugh jackmans, etc." began their careers on the stage. Updated On: 10/13/04 at 01:50 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/13/04 at 2:32pm

I'm just in shock at how easily dismissed film acting is for you.

Yes...there are more jobs in LA...but there's also a vastly bigger talent pool.

I've done both stage and film and film is by far more difficult. It takes an intense concentration and one false move...the camera picks it up. You can fake your way through an entire performance on stage and still the audience wouldn't know.

And there is one fact we've left out entirely. I have seen some 'stage actors' give DREADFUL performances.

The Weisslers could not have brought in a nobody. The show was barely standing up when a theatrical 'somebody' was helming it. The went to an actress with whom they've worked and obviously had a positive experience. If you don't like her, ok. Understood. I can't stand Karen Ziemba (sorry Rath!) Our prejudices against performers are completely understandable. But the snobbism of the THEATUH is just ridiculous. And this excoriation of Ms. Shields is truly...well...tacky.

There. I've said it.