MICHAEL RIEDEL : LOST LACHANZE She's got Donna Murphy syndrome — Page 5

"The only issue I had was Jennifer W. She couldn't sing it even after everything was lowered".

Both actresses that played Eileen were Jennifer W's, hehe, but since you saw the show with Murphy, it had to be Westfeldt. Although this thread is not about WT, i have to say that i saw the show with both casts, Murphy once and Shields 5 times, obviously i preferred Shields. Jennifer Westfeldt was great for the fact it was her Bway debut, anyways, they didn't lower the score for her.
Jennifer Westfeldt is a soprano and hit every single note. I prefer Jennifer Hope Wills'voice and look both, because i find her to be a lot prettier and that fits this particular role. But Westfeldt hit all the notes.

---

Updated On: 8/4/06 at 03:14 PM

amen to the post above me.

people are allowed to have their own opinions.

I am surprised that more mention has not been made about Ms. Ramirez and her string of missing performances. I think she took over for Donna and now LaChanze is taking over for her.

I do find it funny that in this day and age of amplification and technology actors have vocal problems. Performers from the old days didn't have half the stuff ew have today and got thru just fine. So what's the problem?
I do think that too many performers depend on the microphone and don't sing out to their ability and have witnessed this on stage in a couple of shows where the woman playing Dorothy Brock (just an example) was singing and crossed right in front of me with Billy and I couldn't hear a word she was saying because she was singing so soft and letting the mic do the work.

It was highly rumored during Gypsy that if there was nobody special in the audience, Merman pulled her performance level way down.

Does anyone have any info on Broadway vs West End performers? I'm interested to know if British performers have the same attendance problems. Michael Ball? Elaine Paige? Julia McKenzie?

---

Maybe she wants to give her voice a rest some days, which is a good idea to do.

Ummmm she was on vacation. LOL are you serious? Of course. I'm sure Riedel's source didn't know that

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/101280.html

i hear that the real story is that lachanze has been hitting the base pipe again. did watching whitney teach you nothing, girl?

---

Lachanze played on show on July 20 in the evening. She was not on vacation. Riedel has the real story. Why are all the sob-sisters and excuse makers trying to defend the poor defenseless LaChanze. PLEASE.
Lost in La, La Land LaChanze

Going back to LaChanze, I agree that the problem isn't just that she's not in, it's that no one will tell you beforehand she's not in and you can't get a refund if she doesn't show up. I went to the box office, and they basically said "no refunds, and you won't know until the last minute whether LaChanze will be in." I am not sure I want to play LaChanze roulette at $110 a ticket, nor do I particularly want to wait 5 hours for rush tickets if she's not in. I would guess that LaChanze generally lets folks know by a certain time whether she will be in. If the producers would either just let us know what that time is, or let us get a refund if she's not there, it would definitely help.

---

Thanks.

It is called being responsible for the success you have and the integrity you have for contributing to a show.

On the other hand if Karen Morrow were LaC's understudy I would not mind. :)

---

Reidel might be a jerk who likes to attack broadway actresses (while letting off most of their male counterparts who engage in the same behavior), but he's right about LaChanze. She is notorious for her absences in every show she's been in. Members even made snide comments about LaChanze's Tony acceptance speech where she talked about the eight performances a week. If she is constantly getting sick, perhaps she should stick to a less demanding side of the business.

I know the board is littered with these types of posts, but I couldn't resist putting in my two cents (for what it's worth). First of all, I'm a high school teacher. If I missed two or three days of work each week, I wouldn't have my job for long. I also think my job is demanding. I deal with almost 100 teenagers everday and have found that this week my voice is shot. But I didn't miss work. Why must we always skirt the real issue? If performing is your "job" then you need to do whatever you need to do to make sure that you're at work as much as possible. When I go to see a show, I pay good money. I want the LaChanzes and Donna Murphys of the world to be on. Tell my why performing in a show is any more difficult than working in a factory, working as a teacher, or working as an administrative assistant? I know we all must take a day off every now and again. It just seems like certain performers do it way too much.

Updated On: 8/4/06 at 08:07 PM

I am saddened someone who plays a role 2x a week won a Tony.
Patti still deserves that award.

As Kelli O'Hara still deserves Sara Ramirez's award from 05. Another diva who didn't show up for work often.

Since when does having a better attendance record mean the person is better than the role? If that were the case ALOT of undeserving people would be winning Tony's left and right. *gags*

---

And, for those who say how demanding the role is, if you take the part and sign the contract is because you will do as the contract says, not because the role's difficulty gives you the right to miss a single show because of it...how demanding or challenging a role is should have NOTHING to do with missing performances.

---