Les Miz cast changes -- POST THEM HERE!- Page 4

[jsg03jd]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 9:26am

But isn't that what a producer is all about -- lots of money, clout and an overbearing ego, e.g., David Merrick?

At any rate, putting artistic merits aside, producing and putting on a Broadway show is first and foremost a business. There is an upside to CM's latest maneuvers because they could keep actors on their toes. No one's job is safe, in Broadway or anywhere else for that matter, and it may help them keep putting on their best performances rather than phoning them in.

[scrappy]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 11:23am

JSG- to address your first comment - yes, some producers are that way. there are also those, like Manny Azenberg, who prefer to let the people he pays good money to make the creative decisions, do their job.

and now to your second comment... with all respect, that is asinine. if you truly think that fear motivates people to do their best, you couldn't be more mistaken. especially in performing where confidence and a feeling of creative freedom is SO important. try standing up in front of over a thousand people trying to inhabit a character while having the fear of being fired in the back of your head. sounds like a recipe for a great performance.... probably not.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 11:46am

All this sounds very reminiscent to the goings-on with the original Broadway production.

[jsg03jd]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 11:59am

Scrappy, as to your comment that my point is "asinine," my response is: don't become an actor. If someone wants a job that provides for some semblance of stability and security, then a career in the performing arts isn't for that person. And contrary to what you say, it is very possible and conceivable that fear may be channeled into something positive and could very well result in an actor giving a performance to be remembered. Most if not all performers have stage fright and those who can deal with fear (imposed by a producer or otherwise) do go onstage and get the work, i.e., their performance, done and well to boot.

Also note that I didn't say a producer's spot checks on a show or that a performer's fear of termination "WILL" ensure that such performer's performances don't become stale. I merely said that they "MAY."

[scrappy]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 1:12pm

You said, "don't become an actor. If someone wants a job that provides for some semblance of stability and security, then a career in the performing arts isn't for that person."

Of course that is your response JSG. That is the stock response for this type of discussion. There should be security though even in the performing arts. Security doesn't mean a job guarantee, security means that communication is open between people to allow for creativity to flourish. Security means that you aren't worried about your job because you have been told what concerns the creative team (which usually does not include the producer) have and, if you are doing your job, have addressed those concerns.

As far as the fear thing, I absolutely disagree with you. You said, "Most if not all performers have stage fright" Can you cite your sources for this statement? Fear can be channeled into a positive, that is true. But, in my experiences, ruling by fear does not achieve beneficial results in a creative environment.

As for the "will" or "may" thing... semantics. Your assertions were clear. You think it's beneficial for there to be an air of uncertainty in the theatre. I would venture to guess you are not in the theatre yourself...

[Johnnytoc]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 1:15pm

After reading the rumblings of Megan getting Eopnine, only to have it taken away, only to get it again...I must say that's just ridiculous. Yes Mackintosh should want only the best for his shows (shouldn't all producers?) but if this is his way of trying to get a decent cast, he has serious issues. Good God!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 1:17pm

No one's job is safe, in Broadway or anywhere else for that matter, and it may help them keep putting on their best performances rather than phoning them in.

I don't think -- in this instance -- the problem was that anyone was phoning it in. Whatever it was, at least one of them was not a popular decision.

[Johnnytoc]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 1:20pm

It makes me wonder how they were cast in the first place; if Mackintosh didn't like them, why are they in the show to begin with?

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 1:24pm

That was my thought, Johnny. How does Bed Davis (for example) get through casting, rehearsals, costume fittings, and performance, only THEN to be deemed unacceptable. I'm not so quick to judge Cameron personally, but there is something definitely wrong with the process.

[jsg03jd]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 1:46pm

Scrappy, can YOU give ME a citation that lends support for your rather bold and preposterous proposition that "[t]here should be security though even in the performing arts. Security doesn't mean a job guarantee, security means that communication is open between people to allow for creativity to flourish. Security means that you aren't worried about your job because you have been told what concerns the creative team (which usually does not include the producer) have and, if you are doing your job, have addressed those concerns."

Where in the world do you get the notion that there is ANY sort of security by working in the performing arts? That's just unreasonable and illogical. Being an actor is one of the most unstable jobs, and I don't need a citation for that. Just look at all the talented people who should by all rights be "big" because of their talents but are not and instead are waiting tables or are hosts/hostesses at restaurants. And I'm not playing fast and loose with words, or "semantics" as you refer to it. You can't read my mind so don't even attempt to discern my intent with respect to the language I use in my posts or, as you say, "assertions." Simply put, there is a vast difference between WILL, which essentially implies a guarantee in the context of our discussion, and MAY, which does not.

You sound very emotional about this issue and that's fine. I respect that. I assume from your post that you work in the theatre and that you're probably ranting. No, I'm not in the theatre professionally myself, but I have friends who are. And I feel bad when they lose jobs, sometimes because they get fired for XYZ reasons like a crazy producer, but they go on and pick themselves up and audition for the next job and I cheer them on when the next gig happens. But they love showbusiness (emphasis on business) and they remain dedicated to their profession or calling, fear or no fear. That's just reality.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 1:48pm

get through casting, rehearsals, costume fittings, and performance, only THEN to be deemed unacceptable

Exactly. This is quite different from the 1996 firings, which stemmed from people being there too long (and seemingly lax casting). Ben Davis replaced a high-profile performer in a high-profile production and hadn't even been there two months.

[scrappy]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:04pm

jsg, you are an attorney!:) instead of answering my question, you questioned me!

i am emotional about this only because i have been a part of wonderful experiences that produced wonderful work based on the security the actors felt. i have also been a part of productions where the opposite happened.

i am not inferring that the ideal situation always happens, merely that the work is served BEST when it does. that fear is the antithesis of creativity and that a producer should produce and allow CD's to cast and directors to direct.

as for the instability... i think the instability lies in where your next job is going to come from, not from worrying about the job you already have. it is assumed that once you have made it through the casting process, the rehearsal process, and opening that you are pretty safe unless you act irresponsibly or have been told that the work is not up to snuff and improvements need to be made.

finally, i am just debating here. absolutely nothing personal, obviously i don't know you but i enjoy the differing viewpoints.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:26pm

I couldn't be more confused. Is Megan the new Eponine or not?

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:39pm

The poster from the board who claimed Megan McGinnis had her promotion revoked is now saying she'll be taking the roll full time after all:

"So, Cam Mac has changed his mind yet again!! and he gave the part to Megan. My guess is that he doesn't like her, but can't find someone he likes better. At the present moment, Megan is extremely sick and has lost her voice somewhat, so she is still performing the ensemble track. She should be bumped up soon."

I don't know what to believe.

McGinnis being promoted is beyond me to begin with. She has a nice soprano, but it doesn't suit "On My Own" at all. Her belting is non existent, and when she attempts to go for the big notes, she just sounds loud and flat.

They'd be better off hiring someone new. There are bound to be hundreds girls in New York who could belt that song out and give it justice. Why not find one of them?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:41pm

He did have one. A great one. But, lost her because he offered her the cover.

Anyway, Megan is much more suited for Cosette in every way.

[theminutepast]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:44pm

I thought part of why Mandy was let go was because she had been sick for an extended period of time. I haven't been on BWW much lately, so maybe that was misinformation.

Also, am I the only one who thinks JOJ is one of the best Valjeans? I've never heard anyone criticize him until now. I would give anything to see him in the role.

I've kind of given up on Les Mis ever regaining its greatness. All this junk casting and paring down of the orchestra has made it increidbly stale. I still love Les Mis, but it's so disappointing to see it in its current state.
Updated On: 6/20/07 at 02:44 PM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:46pm

rath, who turned down the role after being offered the cover?

[Shawk]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:48pm

JOJ is excellent. However, based on when I saw him in November of last year, I think that he may get bored and start showing off a bit, which just didn't ring true to the character for me.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:52pm

It seems to me the whole point of a revival would be to keep it as fresh as possible -- especially in light of the 1996 firings. Throwing in people like Robert Hunt, John Owen Jones, etc., who have played those roles hundreds of times already, hardly seems "fresh." At least the original revival cast was all new faces.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:53pm

somethingwicked, a friend of mine. It's not my place to say who, but Cameron reportedly thought she was fabulous and everyone there was very excited about her, but then she was only offered the cover.

[Shawk]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:54pm

Well, Adam Jacobs and Ali Ewoldt were straight from the tour, and various of the ensemble had been in the tour as well (Robert Hunt, Dan Bogart, James Chip Leonard, etc.).

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:55pm

Oh yeah...forgot about them. OOPS!

[Shawk]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 3:06pm

It ain't Les Miz without recycling!

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 3:07pm

That's true, but it's time to change that, dammit! This country is full of talented people. Either they're not auditioning, or Cameron's not looking hard enough.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 3:10pm

Disregarding some of the more, ahem, unpopular changes that happened this week, though, there's been a noticeable lack of recycling in the revival. Lucia Spina, Jeremy Hayes, and Mike Evariste are all new, and a significant chunk of the revival cast (Keenan-Bolger, Gemignani, Lewis, Lazar, etc...) was entirely Les Miz newbies.

Updated On: 6/20/07 at 03:10 PM