Is Daniel Radcliffe on Broadway on merit?- Page 2

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 12:02pm

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.

[Taryn]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 12:36pm

But I still think the ticket-buying audience would be better served by somebody else.

I'm pretty sure the ticket-buying audience wouldn't exist with somebody else in the role.

[Q]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 12:50pm

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

[adamgreer]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 1:13pm

Yeah...the "ticket buying audience" seems to have indicated (based on the show's grosses) that they want to see Radcliffe play the role.

I can't imagine they'd be turning out to see Hunter Foster as Finch.

[Tom1071]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 1:18pm

"...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

[perfectliar]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 1:33pm

Jay, this is a completely ridiculous topic. You begrudge him a role which, upon his acceptance, created hundreds of jobs for actors and production staff?

Yeah, let's be pissed off that he's famous enough to have that kind of power.

[Taryn]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 2:56pm

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

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 3:06pm

I agree with what everyone else has said...of all the celebrities who get cast on Broadway, Daniel is one I definitely wouldn't complain about. He was fantastic in Equus and he's really wonderful in How to Succeed too. He's trying to build a post-Potter career for himself, and he's demonstrated that he's a hard-working actor and he seems to be a very humble and grounded person to boot. I don't begrudge him any of his success, and plus this revival never would have happened if he hadn't wanted to do it.

[Christoph]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 4:55pm

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.

[Bettyboy72]

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

Well said Christoph! I concur!

[ReggieonBway]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 8:04pm

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.

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 8:12pm

This whole discussion is tiring, and do you know why? There would not have been a revival of How to Succeed without Radcliffe (or another star) in the driving seat. The show is dated and creaky, and the "director" is not sophisticated enough to rediscover the material (indeed there may not be anything further to discover); the only currency the show has is that it happens to share an era and a wardrobe vocabulary with Mad Men, but that's not enough to pull investors without a known draw.

So whine less about Radcliffe taking jobs from gypsies and adjust to the reality of the situation: Radcliffe's involvement in this project means an entire production company is employed, and 20 or so Broadway actors have jobs that would not have existed otherwise. Sure, its a terrible show, but it's a Broadway credit and a paycheck. I'm sure the ensemble is thrilled.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 8:58pm

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.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 11:17pm

I certainly don't mean to sound like a snob, and I hope I'm not one. All of your points have been well taken, especially the ones about the production employing a large company which might be out of work otherwise. That hadn't occurred to me, and my begrudgery levels have gone down significantly since I started this thread.

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

[adamgreer]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 11:28pm

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.

[Taryn]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 11:33pm

So you would rather have someone lazy with an amazing natural singing voice?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 11:42pm

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

[Taryn]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 12:26am

Have you worked much in professional theatre, Jay?

[Dawn Davenport]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 9:31am

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....

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 10:28am

I just remember thinking as I was leaving the theater how cool it is that he probably had his choice of projects and he decided he wanted to do stage work and come to Broadway. The man is probably set for life and it is nice to see that he isn't going for the big money but doing something that he truly loves and wanted to do instead.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 12:32pm

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]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 1:34pm

Jay, I'm going to guess that you haven't been out in the "real world" much. And what I mean by that is you're probably young and still in school or recently graduated.

Your perception sounds like it's coming from someone who has been in an academic environment for most of his conscious existence.

In the academic setting, merit counts above all else. Not to say there aren't politics involved, but they usually will take a back seat to achievement. You are graded on how well you do in a given subject. It's all right there in black and white on your school transcripts. And merit is the key to success.

Once you get out in the "real world," the world outside of academia, you will see that few jobs in ANY profession are awarded on merit alone, and I'm not just talking about theatre.

It's usually a combination of "who you know," experience, and last, and usually LEAST ... merit.

This goes for everything from lawyers to nurses to librarians. Merit, more often than not, will only open a door for you with entry-level access, especially if you know no one and have little to no experience. The rest will be up to you. There are exceptions to that rule, but merit is not the norm. And if you get in on merit, you'd better work quickly on who you know and gather some experience.

The person most qualified for whatever job you want to name is far from guaranteed to get it.

Now throw in "artistic" jobs, like acting, dancing, singing, painting, sculpture, etc., where merit is usually a consensus of collective opinions at best. You'll be scratching your head a lot then. Not only are these jobs rarely awarded on merit alone, "artistic" merit is always subjective. It can't be measured by the yard or tallied up by a point-system (despite what they teach you on TV).

Basically, I don't think you'll ever have a firm answer to your question. But hopefully you'll have a better understanding of what you're asking.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 3:40pm

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!

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 4:19pm

The first several years out of academia are eye-opening. Don't worry. Everybody goes through it, so you're far from alone.

And in time, you'll be the one who has the "experience" and who "knows people," whatever your professional path is.

[Taryn]

Posted: 4/7/11 at 1:16am

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.