Jaquel Spivey Sick/ Continuing to Miss Performances- Page 2

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/9/22 at 6:32pm

JBroadway, I agree with many of your points and don't want to dump on this young man too much. He is a very unusual situation to be making his professional debut on Broadway in a hugely demanding leading role. I don't mean to say that he doesn't have a good work ethic, especially since I don't know him or his situation.

That said, I think some of the posters here clutching their pearls over my comments should use their empathy super-power to try to understand how this situation might make other actors feel who would give their right arm to be in his position and would gladly take his place for one of the performances he "didn't feel up to" doing. If I finally make it to Broadway one day, you can bet I won't be missing a single performance unless I'm going to a wedding, a funeral, or I've died myself!

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/9/22 at 7:14pm

Agreed, and doing Summer Stock, Regional Theater, Non Union tours, etc, a lot of the times you don't have an understudy or the luxury of calling out and just have to "figure it out." 

Not pointing blame at either people here, but I do think it's a matter of proper training. 

Same goes for people who said it's too emotionally demanding. I, personally, don't think that's a thing when you take in shows like Caroline, or Change, The Inheritance, Angels in America, etc. All much bigger, emotionally heavy and demanding shows. 

Again, as a seasoned performer, you learn how to deal with these emotions. I remember being in college and seeing an upperclassman do a production of "The Seagull." The lead actress was in tears during the final scene, and all through curtain call, and then again backstage after. I remember years later playing George in "Our Town" and the director telling me you have to control your emotions because you might be having a huge breakdown in one scene, and then next scene is 5 years later and you're fine. So, sure, it might be emotional and heavy, but as an actor you should not be putting that on your shoulders. It's ACTING. You're pretending to take on that emotion. Just my thoughts. 

 

Xoxo Gossip Girl

[Rainah]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 1:25am

I'd rather see an understudy at the top of their game than a lead who is sick and struggling through the material. Audiences deserve better than watching someone trying to push through when they're not at their best, especially when there is almost always a great understudy easily able to take it on

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 2:29am

I was at the show tonight and Kyle was excellent, you’re on great hands if you see him. 
 

However, there are pictures of the cast, Spivey included, at Broadway Barks today. Call me crazy, but if you’re not able to perform, you probably shouldn’t be at a big event like that. 
 

Imagine if Beanie was at Broadway Barks today… the board would be talking about it for weeks!

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 10:00am

Ha, she *wasnt* at Broadway Barks, and already the lunatics here declared that she was missing a show to chill with Ben Platt, part of a totally invented theory about her casually missing shows just to chill with her friends.

I thought Spivey's understudy was phenomenal when I saw Strange Loop, and I dont begrudge him one bit, but compare the thoughtful, apology-infused discussion here about HIS myriad absences, with the gleeful Beanie hatred elsewhere. 

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 10:27am

PegasusOasis said: "I think younger performers feel less pressure to perform if they're not up to it compared to generations prior."

This.  I know it's hard to believe, but once upon a time, worrying about missing a lead performer as you walked into the theatre lobby and peeked at the call board wasn't a thing.   And not that long ago. 

And I'm sorry, everyone here says "so and so's understudy is sooo good, you're not missing a thing!".  Nope.  Unless it's a known star's replacement (where sometimes fame-to-sell-tickets has more to do with the original casting than talent), an understudy performance is just that. Someone who wasn't good enough to get the role and is second best, thus a cheat to the audience. 

Are there some wonderful understudies who have gone on to show how amazing they are?  Of course.  Swings and understudies are wonderful ways to showcase new talent.  But the original casting is the original casting for a reason. The leads have been vetted again and again through multiple auditions.

Two other things.  What happened to Larry Owen's who originated the role of Usher at Playwrights?

And Sutton Ross knows EVERYTHING about being a dick.

 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 10:41am

For the record, since her name is now in this thread: the discussion of Feldstein has centered on her casting suitability, her negotiation of the iconic score, her reviews, her lack of award nominations, and her 23 absences (12 apparently non Covid specific) over the first three and a half months as the star of the un-revived musical - all classic and justified topics for this board. I’ve been posting here since 2003 and have encountered countless threads addressing these decidedly Broadway related issues. Speculation is in the DNA here; this is a forum for opinion, not a news source. Feldstein’s performance didn’t please most critics and a significant percentage of posters; that reality unavoidably creates a catalog of negatives in discussion. It is nuanced and befitting this board’s mission, subjective. It is not “hatred.”

Updated On: 7/10/22 at 10:41 AM

[JBroadway]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 10:59am

Owen22 said: "an understudy performance is just that. Someone who wasn't good enough to get the role and is second best, thus a cheat to the audience"

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think the flaw in your logic is the assumption that only one person was good enough to originate the leading role. It could very well be (and in fact I'm assuming this is quite frequently the case) that there were multiple people whom they would've liked to pick, but they ultimately can only pick one. Even if someone is "2nd best," the margin could be so narrow as to be unrecognizable to most audiences. Because when you're dealing with a large pool of professional-caliber talent, even 2nd, 3rd best, etc. has the potential to be very, very good.

Not to mention: replacement casting would also be considered "cheating the audience" by your logic, because those actors were likewise not chosen to originate the role. Same with tour casting.

But of course millions of audience members happily pay top dollar to watch non-original cast members, in a wide range of shows, year after year. Because they don't care. Because the people they're watching are perfectly capable of filling the roles, and in most cases (including A Strange Loop), most audiences are paying for the show more than the actor. And the fact that original understudies are often chosen to replace in the role just illustrates that point further: that they are perfectly capable of playing the leads.

Not to mention there's a vast amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that understudy performances are often just as good. Maybe not always the case, but it sounds like it's the case here.

 

 

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 11:13am

JBroadway said: "Not to mention: replacement casting would also be considered "cheating the audience" by your logic, because those actors were likewise not chosen to originate the role. Same with tour casting."

Yeah, I admit I have often been let down by replacement and tour casting as well...but again, there, I knew what I was getting into.  I walked into the show knowing it wasn't the original casting.  And more to my original point, in my first years going to Broadway shows I was so very rarely forced to sit through an inferior understudy performance.

I'm also directing my position at this forum.  Of course tour and tourist audiences will revel in the wonderful talent of a whole show and are usually completely happy with a swing performance. These actors are more than capable and incredibly talented. BUT, I hate that these audiences payed top dollar to see a lead or supporting performance that isn't a production's first choice just because said first choice stubbed their toe.

Updated On: 7/10/22 at 11:13 AM

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 11:43am

JBroadway said: "I understand what you're saying, but I think the flaw in your logic is the assumption that only one person was good enough to originate the leading role. It could very well be (and in fact I'm assuming this is quite frequently the case) that there were multiple people whom they would've liked to pick, but they ultimately can only pick one. Even if someone is "2nd best," the margin could be so narrow as to be unrecognizable to most audiences. Because when you're dealing with a large pool of professional-caliber talent, even 2nd, 3rd best, etc. has the potential to be very, very good."

Anybody working as a performer on Broadway is good enough to perform in the show, and I'm not at all suggesting an understudy is going to be bad. But they're still the second best in the role (at least in the production's opinion) and so audiences do have the right to feel like they're not seeing the best while still paying the same price as those who are seeing the best. Every backup quarterback in the NFL is better than 99.9999% of kids who every play football, but they're still second best and fans will rightfully be disappointed to be seeing them play.

Regarding Spivey, obviously I can't at all speculate on his health issues and if he's too ill to be doing the show, that's that. But Broadway is not about how well you can do a role, it's about how well you can do a role 8 times a week, and when you sign up to do a Broadway show, you're making a commitment to do it 8 times a week. And if you repeatedly can't, then frankly, maybe Broadway isn't for you. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but there are thousands of people who can and who would love to be the lead in a Broadway musical right now.

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 11:44am

 

Updated On: 7/10/22 at 11:44 AM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 11:48am

Owen22 said: "an understudy performance is just that. Someone who wasn't good enough to get the role and is second best, thus a cheat to the audience"

Not necessarily. There’s a million reasons why say, Beanie was cast and not Julie who is arguably giving a much better performance. Having sat in on some pretty big casting decisions I can tell you that the “best person for the job” isn’t always the one who gets it and again, that’s for any number of reasons. 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 11:51am

I normally try to avoid understudies and standbys whenever possible, but, in the case of FUNNY GIRL, where the production was built around someone who clearly isn't the "best" for the role, the issue becomes less cut and dried for me. I'll finally be seeing Julie Benko next month, and there's absolutely no way I'll think she's inferior to Beanie, who I thought was completely miscast.

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 11:55am

You beat me to it, Jordan.

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 11:57am

Jordan is totally correct about this.

[CreatureKitchen]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 12:00pm

Alright, it seems like things have cooled down a little, so I just wanted to jump in with a couple general thoughts.

Re: understudies, I absolutely believe there are multiple people capable of originating pretty much any role. So I don’t think an understudy is necessarily inferior in any way. However, I do wonder at what point producers have an obligation to their audience. Of course, you are not guaranteed to see a specific performer when you buy a ticket. But, if there’s a point where it becomes clear that a lead performer will be missing certain shows, at what point do you need to be transparent with the audience? There have been several recent shows (School of Rock comes to mind) where an alternate schedule was announced once it became clear the lead role was too taxing to play 8 times a week. It seems there is a point where it’s beneficial to both performer and audience to do this.


An understudy performance may be as good as a lead, but it’s not the same. If the lead is a big name, you almost certainly have people coming specifically to see them. If the lead is unknown, you almost certainly have people coming because they want to watch a star be born.

 

I’ve honestly never seen this forum take the position that attendance it totally irrelevant. I think the whole Beanie Feldstein situation has turned into a joke because the general consensus is that her standby is exponentially better than her. But what if that wasn’t the case? Can you imagine the outrage if someone like Hugh Jackman was missing almost half his performances? 

 

 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 12:45pm

I think everyone in this thread is on the same page that we're NOT talking about star-casting here. Obviously the situation with star-casting is different.

Although, even in the case of a star, I would apply to the same empathy toward the star themself, in terms of whatever they're going through that's making it difficult for them to perform. The difference is, I recognize that it presents a legitimate problem for others, in terms of what the audience is being promised vs. what the producers are able to deliver. And it REQUIRES a certain degree of transparency or logistical re-evaluation if they aren't able to deliver on what they've advertised.

The difference is, Spivey is not a primary selling point for A Strange Loop.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 12:57pm

Beanie Feldstein should not even be part of this  conversation about this particular situation. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 1:20pm

If that’s directed at me, I used it as an example of casting not always going to the “most qualified”, as was being discussed. 

[CreatureKitchen]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 1:29pm

Of course Jaquel is not the main draw of A Strange Loop. But he is a draw. He got excellent reviews, has performed on the Tonys, multiple talk shows, a Tiny Desk Concert, etc. He has a lot of buzz, and a portion of the audience is almost certainly there to see him.

 

Going back to School of Rock, Alex Brightman had never originated a leading role and was relatively unknown, but generated a lot of buzz through reviews and word of mouth. Again, *some* of the audience was there because of that buzz.

 

My question is: to what extent does that matter? Obviously, audiences aren’t entitled to see a certain performer, and illness, emergencies, etc happen. That’s fine. But if Alex had started quietly not doing matinees once he realized the role was too much to do 8 times a week, would everyone be cool with that? In my opinion, no. I think the production did the right thing by officially announcing an alternate and telling the audience who they were buying tickets to see. From that standpoint, if Jaquel is unable to do matinees for the foreseeable future, I think it would be responsible of the production to say so. Do they have to? Obviously not. This is all a matter of opinion, it’s a question of “should they” not “must they”.

 

Now, I understand that you can quibble about whether someone’s famous or has enough buzz around them for their attendance to matter. And everyone will draw that line in a different place. Some people will see a show and not even notice the understudy slip in their program, someone else could see the same show and be extremely disappointed. 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 1:32pm

When someone makes the generalization that all understudies are second best and weren't good enough to get the role, how could you NOT bring up Beanie Feldstein?

[JBroadway]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 1:42pm

TaffyDavenport said: "When someone makes the generalization that all understudies are second best and weren't good enough to get the role, how could you NOT bring up Beanie Feldstein?"

 

Obviously I disagreed strongly with the person who wrote those comments (I wrote a long post about it) - but to give credit where it's due, even that poster admitted that they weren't talking about cases of star casting. Feldstein may or may not be considered a "star" by people here, but the fact is that the circumstances of her casting more closely resembled Hugh Jackman than Jaquel Spivey.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 2:23pm

I think both have proven that leading a show 8x a week at this highest caliber in theater just isn't for them at this point in their careers. 

Not to compare to legends, but look at Barbra in Funny Girl. She had A versions of the show, B versions, she did what she needed to do to make it through it 8x a week. Lupone took voice lessons to learn how to sing Evita comfortably 8x a week. And sure they all eventually had alternates and I don't think there's anything wrong with that either. 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 2:24pm

Fair enough. I re-read that post, and I can see where the FG/Beanie situation could be excluded from the comments about understudies.

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 7/10/22 at 2:30pm

Owen22 said: "PegasusOasis said: "I think younger performers feel less pressure to perform if they're not up to it compared to generations prior."

This. I know it's hard to believe, but once upon a time, worrying about missing a lead performer as you walked into the theatre lobby and peeked at the call board wasn't a thing. And not that long ago.

And I'm sorry, everyone here says "so and so's understudy is sooo good, you're not missing a thing!". Nope. Unless it's a known star's replacement (where sometimes fame-to-sell-tickets has more to do with the original casting than talent), an understudy performance is just that. Someone who wasn't good enough to get the role and is second best, thus a cheat to the audience.

Are there some wonderful understudies who have gone on to show how amazing they are? Of course. Swings and understudies are wonderful ways to showcase new talent. But the original casting is the original casting for a reason. The leads have been vetted again and again through multiple auditions.

"

Not really. Sometimes a singer is cast because he or she is a big name, or some relationship with the director or EP. 

And in general, if a show has an ALTERNATE, the quality of the alternate tends to be on par with the main star.