Leading Roles that Don't Really Do Much/Featured Roles that Do A Ton

Another that comes to mind is Carrie Pepperidge in "Carousel". Carrie has more musical material than Julie, with "You're a Queer One, Julie Jordan", "Mister Snow" (and reprise), "When the Children Are Asleep", plus a solo section in "June is Busting Out All Over" and "This Was a Real Nice Clambake". In recent revivals, both Audra McDonald and Lindsay Mendez received Tonys for the role. For McDonald it was the Broadway debut to a record-breaking career. Carrie is only a supporting role because she is in the secondary romantic plot of "Carousel", rather than the central Billy/Julie relationship.

Edna in "Hairspray" is an unusual case. Since the role was conceived to be played by a cis-male, it became a Tony-winning Leading Actor role (Harvey Fierstein). If it had been played by a cis-woman, it would have been in the Supporting Actress category I think, since Tracy is clearly the female lead.

Mary in JCC is a leading role only because there are no other female principals in the show. Also agree about Judas. If "Gethsemane" wasn't in the score, the show would belong to Judas, imho.

Marius is a tricky one. The primary plot belongs to Valjean and Javert, but once Javert (spoiler alert) jumps off a bridge and Valjean disappears, the last half hour rides on Marius' shoulders. If there is not a compelling singing actor in that role, it can be a long 30 minutes.

In a related and perhaps apocryphal story, Grace Bumbry was playing Amneris to the Aida of Leontyne Price in a production of Verdi's "Aida". While sitting next to one another being wigged for the performance, Bumbry pointed out that Verdi had considered calling the opera "Amneris" since the character has so much stage time and musical prominence. Ms. Price stood to leave and said, "Well, tonight you'll find out why he called it 'Aida'".

Updated On: 7/25/23 at 08:14 AM

Madame Morrible and The Wizard in WICKED.

JoeW4 said: "To me, the more relevant/interesting examples are the ones like Phantom, where the role truly FEELS like a lead despite having a deceptively small amount of stage time. Or vice versa with supporting."

That’s mostly what I’m talking about: The actual role size. I mostly brought up award shows because those really make you think about it. I mean, nobody puts role sizes in the playbill. I think that a really interesting thing to look at is how some award shows and other groups consider certain roles to be vastly different in size from themselves. A good example is the aforementioned Trunchbull, which Bertie Carvel was nominated for or won both featured actor and leading actor awards in different shows. The Phantom is very bizarre because he doesn’t really fit any typical archetype for a lead, he’s kind of like Beetlejuice in the original movie. You walk away thinking about him and what he did, but he’s not really in it that much. He’s still what it’s named after, though.

mtcond said: “Edna in "Hairspray" is an unusual case. Since the role was conceived to be played by a cis-male, it became a Tony-winning Leading Actor role (Harvey Fierstein). If it had been played by a cis-woman, it would have been in the Supporting Actress category I think, since Tracy is clearly the female lead.”

I actually think that, with how huge the cast is in Hairspray and the way the story is presented, it’s likely that a woman in the role of Edna would still be considered a Leading Actress by the Tony committee, though that isn’t exactly what I meant by it being a leading role that doesn’t do much. I can’t help but wonder if it was written specifically with Harvey Fierstein doing it eight times a week in mind. I think Harvey Fierstein is an incredible performer and absolutely deserves every Tony award he’s ever won, but he definitely doesn’t have the vocal dexterity or stamina of many of his castmates, so if you told me that he was given a less demanding role for that reason I would believe you.

Mtcond said: “Mary in JCC is a leading role only because there are no other female principals in the show. Also agree about Judas. If "Gethsemane" wasn't in the score, the show would belong to Judas, imho.”

I disagree with this as well. Look at Falsettos, where Trina is often considered a supporting role by pretty much every source in the world, even the wrong sources are consistent with it. She is the only principal female character and is arguably the most important character other than Marvin to the story, she has four solos, in a show that has almost no solo songs, and her material is absurdly challenging (and probably was the most difficult mezzo role on Broadway before the renaissance of absurdly difficult roles that are basically just there to belt an E5 in every song). Anyways the main point is that Mary always being considered a lead is a bit odd. Also, I think that JCS is Judas’s show even with Gethsemane. Judas’s material is so striking and poignant and complex and interesting and he is one of my favorite roles ever in a musical. He’s a big part of why JCS r easily my favorite Lloyd Webber show. I really can’t think of another supporting role that’s quite like that.

“Marius is a tricky one. The primary plot belongs to Valjean and Javert, but once Javert (spoiler alert) jumps off a bridge and Valjean disappears, the last half hour rides on Marius' shoulders. If there is not a compelling singing actor in that role, it can be a long 30 minutes.”

I mean, Valjean is still kind of there for that thirty minute stretch. Not to mention Enjolras having way more material than Marius for the first half of act two and the latter half of act one. Valjean is basically the only character who is consistently present in the whole story. Javert is almost there, but, as you said, he kind of jumps off of a cliff. There are stretches in which Valjean is nigh irrelevant, but there really aren’t that many parts of the show where I would say it’s all about Marius. In fact, for the latter half of act one, I’m rather certain that Gavroche has more material than him. Also, I’ve seen some productions in which the Marius was just dreadful and the Javert and Valjean completely carried. I’m not sure what point I’m making with that, but basically Marius definitely isn’t a leading role even though he’s basically always considered one.

Guys and Dolls is a good example. Sky and Sarah are the leads. But some productions bump Nathan and Adelaide to lead status. The Jerry Zaks revival made them the heart of the show. Nathan has no solos but a lot of agency. Adelaide has three solos but no agency whatsoever. She has about as much bearing on the plot as Nicely Nicely.

Sondheim’s ensemble shows mix up the categories as well.

Follies begins with Sally, but pivots focus to Ben. Phyllis, meanwhile, gets the star turn.

Into the Woods first act is driven by the Bakers Wife and, to a lesser extent, the Witch. Act two pivots focus to Cinderella and the Baker.

A Little Night Music only gives Desiree a song and a patter verse.

BeingAlive44Ever said: "JoeW4 said: "To me, the more relevant/interesting examples are the ones like Phantom, where the role truly FEELS like a lead despite having a deceptively small amount of stage time. Or vice versa with supporting."

That’s mostly what I’m talking about: The actual role size. I mostly brought up award shows because those really make you think about it. I mean, nobody puts role sizes in the playbill. I think that a really interesting thing to look at is how some award shows and other groups consider certain roles to be vastly different in size from themselves. A good example is the aforementioned Trunchbull, which Bertie Carvel was nominated for or won both featured actor and leading actor awards in different shows. The Phantom is very bizarre because he doesn’t really fit any typical archetype for a lead, he’s kind of like Beetlejuice in the original movie. You walk away thinking about him and what he did, but he’s not really in it that much. He’s still what it’s named after, though.

mtcond said: “Edna in "Hairspray" is an unusual case. Since the role was conceived to be played by a cis-male, it became a Tony-winning Leading Actor role (Harvey Fierstein). If it had been played by a cis-woman, it would have been in the Supporting Actress category I think, since Tracy is clearly the female lead.”

I actually think that, with how huge the cast is in Hairspray and the way the story is presented, it’s likely that a woman in the role of Edna would still be considered a Leading Actress by the Tony committee, though that isn’t exactly what I meant by it being a leading role that doesn’t do much. I can’t help but wonder if it was written specifically with Harvey Fierstein doing it eight times a week in mind. I think Harvey Fierstein is an incredible performer and absolutely deserves every Tony award he’s ever won, but he definitely doesn’t have the vocal dexterity or stamina of many of his castmates, so if you told me that he was given a less demanding role for that reason I would believe you.

Mtcond said: “Mary in JCC is a leading role only because there are no other female principals in the show. Also agree about Judas. If "Gethsemane" wasn't in the score, the show would belong to Judas, imho.”

I disagree with this as well. Look at Falsettos, where Trina is often considered a supporting role by pretty much every source in the world, even the wrong sources are consistent with it. She is the only principal female character and is arguably the most important character other than Marvin to the story, she has four solos, in a show that has almost no solo songs, and her material is absurdly challenging (and probably was the most difficult mezzo role on Broadway before the renaissance of absurdly difficult roles that are basically just there to belt an E5 in every song). Anyways the main point is that Mary always being considered a lead is a bit odd. Also, I think that JCS is Judas’s show even with Gethsemane. Judas’s material is so striking and poignant and complex and interesting and he is one of my favorite roles ever in a musical. He’s a big part of why JCS r easily my favorite Lloyd Webber show. I really can’t think of another supporting role that’s quite like that.

“Marius is a tricky one. The primary plot belongs to Valjean and Javert, but once Javert (spoiler alert) jumps off a bridge and Valjean disappears, the last half hour rides on Marius' shoulders. If there is not a compelling singing actor in that role, it can be a long 30 minutes.”

I mean, Valjean is still kind of there for that thirty minute stretch. Not to mention Enjolras having way more material than Marius for the first half of act two and the latter half of act one. Valjean is basically the only character who is consistently present in the whole story. Javert is almost there, but, as you said, he kind of jumps off of a cliff. There are stretches in which Valjean is nigh irrelevant, but there really aren’t that many parts of the show where I would say it’s all about Marius. In fact, for the latter half of act one, I’m rather certain that Gavroche has more material than him. Also, I’ve seen some productions in which the Marius was just dreadful and the Javert and Valjean completely carried. I’m not sure what point I’m making with that, but basically Marius definitely isn’t a leading role even though he’s basically always considered one.


Valjean is the lead in Les Miserables. I mean he doesn’t leave the stage for pretty much all of act 1. In act 2, there’s a lot of important plot points that call be considered a catalyst of his actions. He wouldn’t have gone to the barricade if it wasn’t for Eponine giving him the letter from Marius. He was the one who asked to take care of Javert after it was discovered he was a spy and instead of killing him, released him and set him free. And, he got him away from the barricade after the fight was over so he could be work Cosette. My point in all this is that while it’s easy to focus on other characters in act two, even as far as singing material goes, I just feel that it’s important to realize that Valjean is the main lead through out the show regardless of singing material he has in act 2.

Also, if memory serves, initially the only two “leads” in this show were officially the actors playing both Valjean and Javert. Now that could have changed over the years. But, a lot of the side character appear in the ensemble before their character enters the story. For example, the actress who plays Eponine is one of the hookers in in Lovely Ladies.

Nick in Funny Girl is a lead but it's a real nothingburger of a role.

When Cabaret originally opened, 5 other people came after the emcee in the curtain call. I remember feeling sorry for Lotte Lenya because the deafening applause and bravos that Joel Grey received - no silly screaming in those days - were dramatically reduced for the rest of the cast, but she was the next to come out. Grey won a supporting Tony and Cumming lead…of course, Cumming did have more stage business than Grey.

I will go to my death feeling that Donna MacKechnie should not have even been nominated for lead performance, let alone won. The fact that she beat Verdon and Rivera, not to mention, Christine Andreas for MFL, was absurd. She should have won for supporting, although that would mean that Kelly Bishop would not have won…and she was great.

Dorothy Loudon May have won the Tony over Andrea MacArdle, but hers was definitely a much smaller role…she should have won in the supporting category.

Natalia Makarova won a well-deserved Tony, but in the wrong category. Lara Teeter, in the lead role of the On Your Toes revival, was nominated for supporting and she won in the lead. Part of the reason…I remember that the competition was really bad, but don’t remember who…must have been a bad season…at least for leading actresses.

then, of course, there is The Kind and I. Definitely a supporting role when it originally opened, it eventually became seen as the lead role, presumably because Yul Brynner became a famous movie star and was so associated with the role. Yet Anna is the lead performance.

I did not see the revival of 42nd Street, so I don’t know if they fattened the role of Helen, for which Christine Enersole won a lead Tony. The role of Peggy was clearly the biggest role, but Wanda Richert was nominated for supporting in the original production. She lost to Marilyn Cooper’s tiny role in the lousy Woman of the Year. Of course, Cooper have one of the all-time great cameo performances, but I remember feeling sorry for Richert, not only did she only get nominated in supporting, but she lost. In that case, at least, Tammy Grimes was not even nominated…but Ebersole won…was the role beefed up or was it a terrible season for lead actresses in a musical?

poisonivy2 said: "Nick in Funny Girl is a lead but it's a real nothingburger of a role."

True, I saw it last weekend (Benko's great btw) and I was like "Why did Ramin Karimloo sign up for this?"

JoeW4 said: "2 common threads that a lot of us are touching on here:

(1) Many stories center around one character, but we're seeing them through the perspective of another character. The latter character is effectively the protagonist because we're seeing the story through their eyes, but the former person is the one we often walk away remembering the most. Because they are extraordinary in some way, which is why the protagonist was focused on them in the first place. Norma Desmond, The Phantom, Willy Wonka, Sally Bowles, Jesus, Hamilton, etc."


That is a very, very good analysis, I must say. Although I don’t think Hamilton fits into that category, really. He doesn’t get a full length solo, but when you look at how much material he has, he really does more than anybody else in the entire show by virtue of just how many extremely long songs he basically gets half of. I think Hamilton and Jesus are meant to be similar roles, but the difference is that Jesus is little bits and pieces where you get to hear his soaring and incredible songs (although I kind of like Judas’s material way better) and Hamilton is kind of just literally always in the show, to the point that sometimes you really want it to be about somebody else. Another example of a lead role in a very similar vein to Hamilton is Valjean, actually. Mostly in that he has a ton of the show and yet it kind of feels like we’re viewing this story from his enemy’s perspective. It’s like the illusion of a Judas/Jesus dynamic in which the protagonist is actually still the protagonist.

JoeW4 said: "(2) we also have a trend (moreso in musical theatre than in other mediums) of automatically designating a male and female lead, wherever humanly possible. Even when, by most metrics, one of them could very easily be categorized as supporting. Nick Arnstein is a great example of this. We see him as a leading role primarily because he's "the male lead," he's the romantic interest playing "opposite" Fanny. Eliza in Hamilton is kind of in that category too, though she has the advantage of having the show end on her, which makes her feel more like a lead.

Obviously there are plenty of cases where the male and female leads genuinely are co-leads, I'm just pointing out a separate, concurrent trend."


I think there are a lot of places this idea originates from. I mean, first off, something I’ve heard a lot is that there are no great stories without a romantic plot. This isn’t entirely true, yet I kind of struggle to think of a great story without some kind of romantic pairing. Eliza is such a bizarre role. I have no doubt that, both vocally and acting-wise, it’s an incredibly challenging role. It’s also a soprano role playing opposite of the protagonist, which is exactly what a traditional leading lady in an opera is. She even has the only actual solo in the entire show, with every other instance of a full length solo song having some sort of ensemble involvement if nothing else. Now, these aren’t necessarily lead qualities. King George would be a lead if they were. It’s a very challenging role. It’s a tenor role in a show with no other tenor roles, which most leads in operas are tenors… He even gets three solos! I mean, one of them has ensemble bits at the end, two of them aren’t full length, but still. Obviously, though, King George isn’t a lead, because he’s not in very much of the show. He’s only on stage for about nine minutes. Would it surprise you to learn Eliza is barely onstage for a little over three times that amount? I mean, she sometimes is also just standing there, often in the dark or something, but that only brings it up to maybe forty minutes. Unless I just counted horribly wrong. She does a lot more than Angelica, but Eliza hardly has anything resembling dance, she doesn’t really sing much, she’s not in that much of the show, but… The plot is kind of about her in a lot of ways. But I totally agree that it’s weird to assume that every show has a male and a female lead. Wicked has two female leads, Les Mis has two male leads (or three depending on who you ask), pretty much everything by William Finn has one male lead and no other lead, Matilda and Hairspray both have a female lead and another female role that is generally considered a lead and also generally played by a man, pretty much anything is possible as far as gender goes for leading parts.

Mtcond said: “Mary in JCC is a leading role only because there are no other female principals in the show. Also agree about Judas. If "Gethsemane" wasn't in the score, the show would belong to Judas, imho.”

I disagree with this as well. Look at Falsettos, where Trina is often considered a supporting role by pretty much every source in the world, even the wrong sources are consistent with it. She is the only principal female character and is arguably the most important character other than Marvin to the story, she has four solos, in a show that has almost no solo songs, and her material is absurdly challenging (and probably was the most difficult mezzo role on Broadway before the renaissance of absurdly difficult roles that are basically just there to belt an E5 in every song). Anyways the main point is that Mary always being considered a lead is a bit odd. Also, I think that JCS is Judas’s show even with Gethsemane. Judas’s material is so striking and poignant and complex and interesting and he is one of my favorite roles ever in a musical. He’s a big part of why JCS r easily my favorite Lloyd Webber show. I really can’t think of another supporting role that’s quite like that.

“Marius is a tricky one. The primary plot belongs to Valjean and Javert, but once Javert (spoiler alert) jumps off a bridge and Valjean disappears, the last half hour rides on Marius' shoulders. If there is not a compelling singing actor in that role, it can be a long 30 minutes.”

I mean, Valjean is still kind of there for that thirty minute stretch. Not to mention Enjolras having way more material than Marius for the first half of act two and the latter half of act one. Valjean is basically the only character who is consistently present in the whole story. Javert is almost there, but, as you said, he kind of jumps off of a cliff. There are stretches in which Valjean is nigh irrelevant, but there really aren’t that many parts of the show where I would say it’s all about Marius. In fact, for the latter half of act one, I’m rather certain that Gavroche has more material than him. Also, I’ve seen some productions in which the Marius was just dreadful and the Javert and Valjean completely carried. I’m not sure what point I’m making with that, but basically Marius definitely isn’t a leading role even though he’s basically always considered one.

Valjean is the lead in Les Miserables. I mean he doesn’t leave the stage for pretty much all of act 1. In act 2, there’s a lot of important plot points that call be considered a catalyst of his actions. He wouldn’t have gone to the barricade if it wasn’t for Eponine giving him the letter from Marius. He was the one who asked to take care of Javert after it was discovered he was a spy and instead of killing him, released him and set him free. And, he got him away from the barricade after the fight was over so he could be work Cosette. My point in all this is that while it’s easy to focus on other characters in act two, even as far as singing material goes, I just feel that it’s important to realize that Valjean is the main lead through out the show regardless of singing material he has in act 2.

Also, if memory serves, initially the only two “leads” in this show were officially the actors playing both Valjean and Javert. Now that could have changed over the years. But, a lot of the side character appear in the ensemble before their character enters the story. For example, the actress who plays Eponine is one of the hookers in in Lovely Ladies."

Completely agree with you--Valjean is undoubtedly the lead of the show, closely followed by Javert. My only point re: Marius is that once "Empty Chairs" happens, Marius is the common thread in every scene till the end of the show, which I think is unusual. You can get away with an "okay" Marius for act one, but you need a strong presence in this role in act two. In that way it's deceptively important--definitely not a leading role, but pivotal as a supporting one.

The Trina point above is valid. She's normally not considered a leading role, but she has a lot of important and challenging material.

IDK how they will be ruled when it comes to Tony season. But, when it comes to advertising, Ninoy and Ferdinand in Here Lies Love are definitely being pushed as leads despite being decidedly supporting characters. Each has a few songs compared to Imelda's 15+ and they both also disappear for large portions of the show (and I definitely noticed their absences). Their parts aren't THAT much bigger than Estrella!