Is Daniel Radcliffe on Broadway on merit?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 10:58pm

Regarding the lead role in How To Succeed in Business...is Daniel Radcliffe really the best man for the job? So he played Harry Potter, big deal. Surely there are more suitable actors, perhaps unknown, that deserve a shot.

Having said that, I fully admit to not having seen this production or being that familiar with the musical at all, or even Daniel Radcliffe for that matter. I guess my real problem is with "celebrity".

[ACL2006]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:01pm

no, but he's filling up the theater quite nicely. and these days that's what producers are looking for.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:03pm

I haven't seen him in How To Succeed. However, if his work in Equus is any indication of his stage work, then I would have to say yes. I do feel that he gave an outstanding performance in his last run on Broadway in Equus and that he was robbed of a Tony for the role.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:11pm

Because this is the first instance of a celebrity being cast, right?

[NYadgal]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:14pm

I don't put Daniel Radcilffe in the 'celebrity' category. At least not with the negative connotations you ascribe to it.

He's an actor who has been working in a series of popular movies, as well as continuing to work on stage, who happens to have found fame, because of his solid work.

Merit? Absolutely.

Updated On: 4/4/11 at 11:14 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:17pm

He's a celebrity. Sorry. He may be a talented one, and one who is electing to pursue stage work over more films, but a celebrity nonetheless.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:19pm

I think the real point is that without him, there wouldn't be a revival anyway, so it's not like he took the job away from someone.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:24pm

I think maybe he took it away from Jay Lerner-Z, if I catch Jay Lerner-Z's drift.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:30pm

NYAdgal, I don't mean to put him in the same category as someone like Paris Hilton. I just wonder...is the best way to become a Broadway star to become a TV or movie star first?

PalJoey is kinda right, I have aspirations to be on Broadway - but that's all they are at the moment!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:30pm

The entire theater world is completely merit-based. So the question is stupid on the face of it.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:34pm

.is the best way to become a Broadway star to become a TV or movie star first?

Yes.

[[e-mail]]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:58pm

I wasn't really interested in seeing this production because I'm not a Harry Potter/Radcliffe fan. And I really didn't think I would enjoy watching him on stage. But when my roommate won tickets I figured it was worth checking out. I'm proud to admit that I was so wrong about Radcliffe. He was great! You can tell he is putting his heart and a **** load of energy into his performance. Now I wouldn't say he was the best guy for the part. But he is highly entertaining and obviously is bringing in the money. So I feel it's a winning situation for all involved. Can't wait to go back and see it again!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 1:43am

That's ridiculous. Saying he shouldn't get the role BECAUSE he's famous and "might" be taking it away from someone "deserving". By that logic, famous folks can never take ANY role once they are famous...because somewhere there is an actor that is unknown that could take the job.

And yes, while maybe not the very best actor for the role, he is indeed worthy of the role. He is bringing a poopload of people to the theater and look at all the other jobs that are happening IN that theater just because of his "merit". All the other actors, the techies, the house management...etc., etc.

And I'll second he was TREMENDOUS in Equus. I'm not sure if he was robbed of the Tony, but he certainly deserved a nomination.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 2:16am

Radcliffe is an actor who has done quite well on stage in the past. He is known for one series of popular films, sure he has had other projects, but perhaps his true aspirations are to be a stage actor.
Maybe we should ask Hunter Foster for his opinion.

[njohn]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 2:31am

"The entire theater world is completely merit-based. So the question is stupid on the face of it."

No, not really. On the surface it seems like a stupid question, but it's a legit question that should be asked.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 3:45am

I find myself hewing toward the explanation Jeff Goldblum's character had in "Jurassic Park"

"I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you’re using here: it didn’t require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn’t earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don’t take any responsibility… for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you’re selling it. You want to sell it!"

This is the conundrum faced by Broadway producers. It doesn't take courage to produce a show with Daniel Radcliffe. Let's face it, he could be doing Charley's Aunt and his fans would come.

These revivals with "celebrities" diminish whatever luster Broadway had left and reduces it to theme park level - a n opulunt but generally dim version of the original.

It makes buckets of money but if more and more producers follow this course, guys like Hunter Foster are in trouble.

(Unless he can get a big role in a hit film.)

[binau]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 4:01am

Hunter Foster should be in trouble for the comments he made about CZJ's Tony. Yep, beating a dead horse I know :P.

But just...argh...I LOVE the revival 'celebrity' thing going on at the moment (if you could say it's only at the moment?)....I mean it's a shame when good shows close because the broadway 'stars' can't keep them open (La Cage in a few weeks), Ragtime. But that's business....I don't see how e.g. Broadway would have more 'luster' if Marin Mazzie was Desiree and not CZJ. I will continue to reinforce this by paying a lot of $$$ to see these stars, be thankful I'm not choosing to throw my money in MAMMA MIA or other shows that people complain are the 'death of broadway'.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 7:16am

Do you want to see How to Succeed...? Then go and see it.
Do you want to see Daniel Radcliffe in a musical? Then go and see it.
Otherwise, why not **** off?

[SoonerOrLater]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 7:36am

HistoryBoy2 sums it up well I feel.

What about the option that DR is trying to cultivate a long term career out of HP stardom, and using an opportunity afforded to him to do so?

He is a talented actor and has expressed his desire to be in it for the long haul rather than just being a star. He could have taken any money spinning film for quick rewards following HP he's chosen theatre, I say good for him.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 8:07am

Out of all the celebrities who have trodded the boards, I don't understand why people are up in arms over Daniel Radcliffe, of all performers. As others have mentioned, this isn't even his Broadway debut. He was mesmerizing in Equus, and robbed of a Tony nomination for that role. He's proven he's more than just "Harry Potter," as evidenced by his performances in Equus and on Extras. He's also quite good in How to Succeed.

There are far more egregious examples of celebrities on Broadway than he.
Updated On: 4/5/11 at 08:07 AM

[Craig]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 8:34am

There's a difference between star casting and stunt casting which some of you are eluding to.

And it's a significant difference.

[Amalia Balash]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 8:43am

If the person playing a role entertains me, I don't care if they're "deserving" or not. If I've been following someone's careeer, I may wish they got some opportunities that someone I think is less "deserving" got instead. But when I'm sitting in the theatre enjoying a show, I don't focus on how someone got a part, but how they play it.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 9:05am

Agreed, adamgreer, I don't understand the outrage. No one cared when Daniel Radcliffe did Equus because it's a play, but it's not ok that he expands his horizons and does a musical because he's robbing "real" Broadway actors of jobs. So, what, people think only musical theatre roles should be protected, but play actors are SOL as Big and Jack Bauer, Wolverine and Bond take over?

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 9:09am

This revival doesn't happen without a star, so if it wasn't Radcliffe, it would be smoething like a Jonas brother, and for my money, I'll take Radcliffe. So, let's forget about him taking the lead from a 'deserving' actor, let's focus on all the actors, musicians, and crew who are working right now BECAUSE Radcliffe took the role. And how about the kids who may be discovering that they like Broadway shows, just BECAUSE they came to see Radcliffe?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 11:57am

I've agreed with all posters so far, even though some points are conflicting! I don't begrudge Daniel the role, I was just genuinely wondering if he is the right man for the job. It seems slighly unfair that someone with no professional experience in musical theatre can waltz into the lead role of a huge Broadway show. Yes, I am jealous. But I still think the ticket-buying audience would be better served by somebody else.

I guess I do begrudge him the role!