"Matt's obviously bored with the part, but hey, it's a paycheck, he's got a nice voice, and when he's "on", he's really on."
"After so many years as Mark, his performance isn't always what it should be, which is unfortunate because he's a talented guy. If you happen to catch him on a good night (and really, there still are many), he's a very enjoyable Mark."
"When he is good, he is really good. But I have seen him rush through the dialogue and throw in a lot of "mattisms" that aren't really appropriate for the character."
So how do you explain this to someone who pays full price for a ticket and cannot afford to try and come back to catch him on a "good night"? It's unfair to the audience, the producers and the rest of the cast who work hard to try and have a good night every performance. I don't have anything against Matt personally and I did see obvious talent, but it was infuriating when I took my boyfriend who lives in Spain and Rent was the one show he had always wanted to see and is let down by several cast members (not just Matt) who phoned in their performances. Though I will admit, there were three or four cast members who were excellent as well. Regardless, that was his first experience watching the show and it left him never wanting to see it again. That is the kind of influence these actors have when or if they decide the show is "just a paycheck". Every night, there are audience members seeing the show for the first time. It is the actor's JOB (i.e. paycheck) to perform it as if it were the first performance. The audience does not care if the actor is bored or having a bad night or tired of performing the role and they shouldn't. But then, it is also the producer's job to ensure that the show is in good shape. Because I had seen it before when the actors actually protrayed the characters as they were originally intended, it was sickened by what I saw was allowed to occur on stage last summer. It was inexcusable.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
