GavestonPS said: "pnewelljr said: "I have a side question. Can anyone tell me more about Bette Midler compared to Donna Murphy, just in general (as we obviously can't compare their performances at this point)? Why is Bette such a big deal?
"
I'm speaking of Bette Midler in her prime here. Donna Murphy is almost certainly a superior actress; Bette Midler is the greatest entertainer I have ever seen live. In her day, there was real danger in a Midler concert, a palpable feeling that she just might--and often did--say or do ANYthing! In later years, she learned (had to learn, really, after collapsing on stage) to save her voice, energy, etc., so that her outrageousness is more show than reality. But it is still damn, good show! She actually sings better and her comic timing has lost nothing in the process.
As for Midler v. Murphy, I'd be thrilled to see either one. But the role calls for a bravura performance more than acting skill, which is why Midler is starring and Murphy, as good as she is, is doing Tuesdays.
(I too was surprised by your question at first. But then I really couldn't see anything wrong with it. Scanning a list of credits doesn't really tell one why a performer has appeal. I know WHY Mary Pickford and Louise Brooks were important based on their resumes, but that means little in terms of why they had so much appeal.)
I am green with envy of those of you who get to see her in DOLLY!
"
Great answer. Listen, I've been a fan of Bette since I was five years old, and even I was fine with the asking of this question. On this board every other thread is a "should I see this or that" and no one says "Go Google the reviews" even though that would probably make more sense. It's fine to ask why he should care about either one.
pnewelljr, while I am jealous you'll get to see the show before I do - my sick/now deceased cat ate up my Bette funds - I hope you'll become her newest fan!
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008