Is Lupone Tony Bound? — Page 5

Did I say she can ONLY play herself?

---

"It would have been absurd for any performer in the SWEENEY TODD revival to win a Tony Award for a performance in which they were standing still the whole time."

Wow. That's an amazingly laughable statement. The fact that it's an insult to the incredible production that John Doyle and his extraordinary cast exhibited aside, are you really suggesting that Tony Awards should be given out based on how much movement an actor must do in her/his role?

Because the comment quoted above leads one to believe that you'd put great acting and nuance aside for a physically active track. How 'bout that...givin' Tonys for movin' around a lot onstage!

H.Higgins, read the rest of my post and respond to the whole thing instead of taking bits and pieces out as though they were said alone.

---

Foster, I read your entire post initially and can understand and appreciate your thoughts on why you thought Lachanze was more deserving of the Tony. We have differing opinions and there's nothing wrong with that.

I was just questioning this notion of how physically active performances could be considered more worthy. Again, I DID read everything you said and even though you made further comments on why Lachanze should have won, you still stated that no one in Sweeney should have won based on movement.

Wasn't trying to start anything, that just struck me as unfair and I wanted to know if you really meant it the way it sounds.

I'm sorry.

re: Patti originating roles. in addition to what theaterkid so eloquently said, Patti's talked about being born AFTER the roles were written for specific voices. she and a lot of critics and reporters have all said [and probably not incorrectly] that if she had been born 10-20 years earlier than she was, she would've had composers writing roles for her all the time. Broadway's a different place now; roles aren't written to suit a specific actor or actress. plus, there aren't many musical roles for actresses "of a certain age."

might I point out, though, that Patti did just originate the role of Anne in Jake Heggie's one act opera "To Hell and Back"? and Heggie wrote it with her voice in mind. maybe she'll get to do more opera? who knows?

---

Foster, are you involved in theatre?

Enough with this "Patti playing Patti business"!! ENOUGH!

This is what actors do. True, some actors alter behavioral gestures, even voices, to make the impression they are truly other people, yet none of these things are required to be a storyteller, the medium of theatre. Even more telling then altering ones appearance or other affectations is the emotional and intellectual approach to text and character. ***This will stay consistent with an actor through every performance, every character.*** The way an actor comes at humor, arrives at discoveries, and conveys struggle rarely changes.

Meryl Streep is brilliant storyteller, incredible actress in almost everything she does, yet I see Meryl Streep's particular way of processing information and her droll, roll-of-the-eyes humor in absolutely every performance she gives. And, in her case, most people do not know her personality or temperment enough to say she is just "playing herself".

Patti's temperment is well known, and her concert work is well known enough for most to be accustomed to how she handles emotionality and storytelling in a song. So, you recognize these in her performance as Rose. Great. Then, if you've seen it, you are seeing what great casting is: when those temperments and approaches fit a character perfectly.

Patti didn't used to be big. It;s the MUSICALS that got small.

---

Brick, for some reason when you mentioned Meryl Streep, I was reminded of something I read about Katharine Hepburn not liking Streep very much. I believe "Click, click, click" were the words she chose to describe the sound of gears turning in Meryl's head.

anyway, I was just thinking that it's such an insult to performers, but most especially trained actors [as Patti is] to simply state that they're "playing themselves." I agree with almost all of what Brick says; actors have methods for approaching roles, and it's not going to change from role to role. I think Patti has a big enough personality that...duh, you know it's Patti LuPone when you go see a show. you pretty much always know it's Meryl Streep when you're watching a movie. that doesn't mean that they're simply playing themselves over and over again.

Unfortunately, I don't know either Patti or Meryl personally, but from what I've gleaned from interviews, neither one of them is like their characters. Older interviews with Patti, or interviews where she talks about Evita, show that she's actually easily hurt and almost a little frail. She's also sweet and funny; she still makes silly faces when she talks about meeting her husband and her eyes light up when she mentions her son. And I always think Meryl is thisclose to crazy when I watch her; not like some of the cold as ice characters she's played.

so that's why I personally don't think Patti plays Patti. [or Meryl plays Meryl]

---

Foster, I know you didn't say "over and over again." my post, at least, wasn't directed towards you specifically; rather, I was attempting to address the handful of people who repeatedly say that it's always Patti playing Patti.

which Sweeney Todd are you talking about? the Broadway revival or the concert with the New York Phil and San Francisco Symphony? because I'll give you the concert version, at least. that performance was pure Patti, haha. and I loved every minute of it.

---

In the NY Phil concert, she was mimicking Angela Lansbury.

In the Broadway SWEENEY, she was playing herself.

---

Well, let's say this. What she's doing right now at the St. James is a heck of a lot more hard work than she was doing in Broadway's SWEENEY.

She completely BECOMES Rose.

I didn't see even close to a similar transformation into Mrs. Lovett a few years ago.

---

Foster, I stand corrected.