Is Daniel Radcliffe on Broadway on merit? — Page 2

The BWW Estelle Parsons interview she makes mention that in the past you did Broadway to make a name for yourself so you could do other things. Now it is reversed. You see how quickly the numbers drop when the "stars" leave the show. Producers aren't looking to find ingenues anymore. They want a name.

Daniel, however, has played by the "rules" and has endeared himself to the theatre community. He is a hard working actor and works his butt off.

---

And the response of the 'ticket-buying audience' seems to indicate that THEY feel they are more than well-served.

"...I was just genuinely wondering if he is the right man for the job."

As it has been previously stated in this thread by PRS, this production would not even be happening if it weren't for Daniel Radcliffe.

A revival of "How to Succeed..." wasn't even in the pipeline to be produced until Daniel said that he had a desire to do a musical and Rob Ashford came to him and suggested this show.

If Daniel Radcliffe didn't want to do it then no one was going to do it. He hasn't taken anything away from anyone.

Updated On: 4/5/11 at 01:18 PM

If you really want to attack stunt casting, Daniel Radcliffe is really not a good direction to direct your ire.

Not sure exactly if you meant it to come off this way, but the post in general seems to smack of the kind of elitism that Broadway fanatics have unfortunately become characterized for. There is a thinking on Broadway that if an actor/actress known primarily for film or television work decides to expand to legitimate theater, they should immediately be discouraged and considered somehow lesser than an established stage actor. There are a number of problems with this outlook.

First, actor are actors whether they ply their trade on stage, film, TV or across the spectrum. I do not believe that any actors should be discouraged from expanding or allowing their marquee appeal to bring potential new viewers into shows that they may otherwise not have seen. A while back I made a rare trip to NYC (my first trip there since my pre-teens) solely on the basis of seeing actress Nicole Kidman in The Blue Room. It was not the type of play that I would normally see, but I was a Kidman fan and wanted to see her act in person. I loved it and subsequently have turned trips to NYC into a yearly or bi-yearly tradition since then.

Second, in the case of Radcliffe, he has already legitimized himself in both the West End and on Broadway with his acclaimed performance in Equus, so it is hardly like this is an actor unknown to the theater coming out of no where. How to Succeed in Business was re-mounted largely on the basis of his participation, so it is unlikely we would be seeing it at all now without his interest in the project. Further, most of the critical reviews I have read singled Radcliffe out as a plus for the production, so this is not the case of Julia Roberts or Melanie Griffith coming onto a stage project and proving to be lacking. And as someone who has seen the show with Radcliffe, I can assure you that he is far better in the part than Matthew Broderick, who won the Tony for the role despite so-so reviews. I also do not remember anyone questioning the "merit" of casting Broderick (who was an established stage actor) in the role.

Last, there are a number of Broadway actors interested in expanding to film and TV. Conversely applying this attitude to that, should the "merit" of casting them in TV or film roles be called into question because they are known primarily as "stage" actors? I would certainly hope not. If this view of pigeon-holing performers into only one area and not allowing them to cross over based on some misguided notion of "merit" were universally shared, we would never have seen Laurence Olivier crossing into film and all of his performances would have been lost to time. We currently now would not see current actors like Patrick Wilson crossing into film. Instead, they would be dismissed by the individual industries and their work would be consigned solely to the stage. I would not want or expect that for a Broadway performer and I think the same should apply to performers known for film and TV that want to give Broadway a shot.

The answer to the question is yes; he got the role because he's a mega-celebrity. However, he deserves the role. I wouldn't have gone to see H2$ if he hadn't been in it, and I left fully convinced that he deserved a Tony nom.

He's certainly a celebrity on merit. It's clear that he worked hard over the course of the Harry Potter franchise and personally I believe he's proven himself to be truly a good actor. Is he on Broadway on merit? I don't know. I didn't cast him. And, neither did you.

---

However I will say that I don't particularly care about how hard someone may work, I prioritize natural talent!

Have you seen Radcliffe onstage in anything? Or on screen in anything besides the Potter films?

Radcliffe has tons of talent.

This is not a Melanie Griffiths in Chicago type of situation, so don't make it out to be one.

Adamgreer, my point about natural talent was a more general one, not aimed at Daniel. No, I have never seen him in anything other than the HP movies.

Taryn, I really would rather a lazy natural genius, than a mediocre hard-worker! Hard work does not equal talent. Anybody can work hard.

And what's with all the Brits coming to Broadway taking jobs from Americans....Just Kidding!

---

Updated On: 4/5/11 at 11:42 PM

I saw How to Succeed last weekend, and while I wasn't completely blown away by the production itself (I really liked it, didn't LOVE it), I think Radcliffe was a total joy to watch.

He was *completely* engaged in his role--he sings well, dances well and he had the audience in the palm of his hand. At curtain call he got maybe the most exuberant reaction I've ever heard from an audience. Maybe some of that audience reaction is because many might be fans via Harry Potter, but I think that's irrelevant when he's shown he can do the job and he wants to prove he's much more than just "Harry.”

He's going to pack in the audiences and is thus bringing work to the Broadway community, so good on him! (He also raised $9,000 for Broadway Cares via an after-show auction of autographed books the night I saw him, so double props!)

I wouldn't hesitate to see him in more stage productions; he's proven he's serious about it and he can back it up with talent, which will only get better as he gets more experience under his belt. I got nuthin' but love for this kid....

No, I have never worked in professional theatre, but hope to one day. Perhaps when that day comes I will be better placed to pass comment, as I guess you're implying!

---

best12bars, your guess is pretty close to accurate...your post has definitely given me something to think about. A bit scary though to think that life is more out of my hands than I imagined!

---

Best said it best. I think you'll also find that hard working people are much better to work with than less diligent folks who are more naturally talented. I usually talk about a graph with a crazy/talented line (crazy on one axis, talented on the other) that someone has to fall above for others to be willing to work with them. (I.e., if you're really crazy, you better be ridiculously talented to make up for it.) I think a hard-working/talented graph would have a far steeper line, because not pulling your weight is a much faster way to get people to not work with you.