HOW TO SUCCEED... Reviews — Page 5

If 'some people only like this show because of Radcliffe's involvement,' isn't the opposite also possible? That some people resent this show because of Radcliffe's involvement? Is there some jealousy or feeling that he hasn't paid his dues?

Critics are not known for being kindly pushovers, and don't hesitate to pan something if they don't like it. They don't have a vested interest in whether Radcliffe's 'Succeeds' or not. Maybe Radcliffe didn't win over Brantley or Marks, but there were plenty of critics who thought he did a terrific job.

Bottom line: Don't want to see Radcliffe on Broadway? You don't have to. Interestingly enough, he got wonderful reviews for 'Equus' and had trouble filling the house; he does his first musical ever, and now he's selling out the Hirschfeld. We can debate this on BWW until the cows come home, but ultimately, the marketplace and the audiences decide what they want.

DOH! I swear I read the thread and did not recall seeing the LA Times. Early onset senility must be setting in!

Well, we now know what Brantley will say about the choreography in next season's EVITA.

The big problem is, if this succeeds, it drives another nail into the coffin of Broadway as we know it. Why hire Patti LuPone or Sutton Foster or Kristin Chenoweth when you can hire the latest winner from American Idol? Why spend years developing and training and grooming true Broadway stars when the star of the las Judd Apatow film is available?

Don't think half of the Broadway producers aren't thinking that already.

If I were Norbert Leo Buntz, I'd start sweating. I hear Zack Garaflakis can carry a tune....

---

The big problem is, if this succeeds, it drives another nail into the coffin of Broadway as we know it. Why hire Patti LuPone or Sutton Foster or Kristin Chenoweth when you can hire the latest winner from American Idol? Why spend years developing and training and grooming true Broadway stars when the star of the las Judd Apatow film is available?


Sad but true isn't it? Why bother going to college or cattle calls when you know the latest Frankenstein creation of Simon Cowell is just naturally going to be offered the plum roles?

Broadway stars are going to be a lost art form. So is the talent of being a triple threat.

---

Why can't Broadway be a home for BOTH rising stage actors AND TV/movie stars who want to play the Great White Way? We often cheer when we see Broadway actors make it big on TV or in the movies. Why not vice versa? And let's keep things in context.

Look at who's leading this season's new musicals:

* 'Baby, It's You': Beth Leavel
* 'Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson': Benjamin Walker
* 'The Book of Mormon': Andrew Rannells, Josh Gad
* 'Catch Me If You Can': Aaron Tveit
* 'Elf': Sebastian Arcelus
* 'People in the Picture': Donna Murphy
* 'Priscilla': Tony Sheldon, Will Swenson, Nick Adams
* 'The Scottsboro Boys': Joshua Henry
* 'Sister Act': Patina Miller
* 'Spider-Man': Reeve Carney, Jennifer Damiano
* 'Women on the Verge': Sherie Rene Scott
* 'Wonderland': Janet Dacal

And there's not a movie star among them. These are all stage pros (OK, Carney's a musician). But some of you are wringing your hands over ONE movie guy who's starring in a revival, Daniel Radcliffe? Clearly, film actors heading a Broadway musical are the exception, not the rule. There's no giant invasion from Hollywood. And from everything I've read, Radcliffe loves the stage. He did 'Equus' here and abroad. And for the past year or so, he's been taking singing and dancing lessons to prepare for 'How to Succeed.' He's dedicated. With the exception of some naysaying critics (and posters), Radcliffe has 'Succeed'-ed in winning over many reviewers AND selling out the Hirschfeld. That's quite a coup.

So welcome the guy who's keeping dozens of cast and crew members employed at 'How to Succeed' AND possibly helping grow the NEXT generation of Broadway theatergoers.

In all postings I've made, especially in 'How to...' threads, I have never passed judgement on Radcliffe's performnace from the video, etc. I have little or no problem wiwth the fact that he's come out as well as he has, all things considering -- especially due to Ashford's "astute" direction. I think a Tony nom is a long shot for him, but it's not at all because I have my own opinion about his performance. That prediction is due to the critics and a number of responses from posters.
I thought I cited enough instances to address that unknowns are getting the chance to lead Broadway shows, but it's no longer the norm, and the problem is FAR greater in the casting of plays -- BENGAL TIGER being a perfect example. Posters that have seen the play have all mentioned that Robin Williams has an ensemble role, but to sell such a serious play they can hardly sell it on the names of the other actors -- or just the play alone (even a Pulitzer finalist).
That was usually not the case again several years ago.

Allofmylife: It IS one guy. My posting was about THIS season. Hayes is from last season. And I specifically said 'Not one movie star among them.' Sean Hayes is a TV star, but NOT a movie star, certainly not on the level that Radcliffe is.

The world is changing. Look at the overnight sensations, like Justin Bieber, that have come from YouTube. They're not 'paying dues' playing in dingy clubs, waiting for years and years to be discovered. Or the overnight sensations from 'American Idol.' Audiences don't care how long you 'gestate.' If you have the goods, and people wanna pay for 'em, you're a star.

Boardwalker2: If you look at my list again, producers HAVE chosen rising stage stars over TV/movie stars. 'Book of Mormon' probably could've booked TV/movie stars; they didn't. Etc., etc. And let's face it: Many TV/movie stars probably don't WANT to make a one-year commitment to a Broadway show.

Movie stars have been coming to Broadway for decades. Sometimes, they succeed; sometimes, they don't. ... If you don't think Radcliffe pulled it off, so be it. But there are plenty of audiences, and even critics, who thought he did.

Finally caught HOW TO SUCCEED last night, and have to say on this one I have to side with Brantley. In truth, most of my issues were really with Ashford's choices, but it was a painful evening for me.

Radcliffe, who gives it a good college try, is still a performer I find myself rooting for. He's in over his head here for this role in a Broadway production, but I hope he keeps coming back to the playground.

I wouldn't compare someone who has starred in Harry Potter movies and one Broadway play to the likes of Burton, Bacall and Harrison. Radcliffe is a movie star for playing one character in a series of films since he was a kid. The others are Hollywood royalty, and all brilliant actors.

I saw Burton in Camelot and he was fantastic. First of all, he could sing a great deal better than he is given credit for. He was fabulous in the dramatic parts (his soliloquy at the end of act one still reverberates in my mind and I was a mere child when I saw it.) Burton held his own with Julie Andrews and Robert Goulet. Must be the Welsh thing.

I saw Bacall in "Applause" and she was a Broadway star. She too, could deliver a song with gusto and perfect timing. Sure, she was no Patti LuPone (although I don't think Lupone sings much better) but she absolutely held the damn stage in her two hands and shook it. She was old time entertainment royalty - she'd been a superstar for 25 years by then and she did the role with a great deal of confidence.

I saw Harrison late in his life, somewhat frail and basically no sign of the "Sexy Rexy" of old - until he opened his mouth and bellowed. He could obviously do the limited singing in My Fair Lady in his sleep by then.

These three were long-careered superstars when the made their Broadway debuts (Harrison had been on stage for 30 years as a star by then) and it made sense to cast them in lead roles.

Daniel Radcliffe's onstage talent might grow, but so far, he's stunt casting that should be in regional theater in the hinterland.

---

"Thinking about it, I would like to add that a real star does roles that's created for him/her; most of the celebs today that come crawling to Broadway seem too terrified to do that, relying on the safety of an already proven vehicle."

Actually, I think that statement is better directed at producers than the stars. Based on that statement, one could argue that LuPone and Peters are not Broadway stars. Women on the Verge was LuPone first original musical role on Broadway since Evita, and Peters hasn't originated a role since Into the Woods.

---