Nathan Lane: Snubbed For Four Consecutive Years- Page 2

[homeimp]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 12:07am

I saw Butley and thought Nathan's performance was very good. I was especially impressed by his English accent. I am surprised he could do that. I am back from NYC where I sat beside David Alvarez' mother at Billy Elliot while David performed, talked to Eamon Foley at Everyday Rapture, and sat at a restaurant at the next table to Matthew Gumley and Adam Riegler who were there with their moms. Matthew and Adam told me about The Addams Family which they will be appearing in. Want to hear about it? I really liked your messages.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 12:16am

I thought he did well in Butley, but let's face it, the material has not aged all that well.

"I can't wait to see the stage effects of Gomez and the toy train wreck sequence--I hope they will have that on stage, that would be hilarious and a sure crowd-pleaser."

What part of "it's based on the comic strip" is simply not getting through to nomdeplume?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 12:47am

Lane is a friggin' Theatre genius.
Does he bring something of himself to most roles?
Yes, and so did most brilliant Actors:
Helen Hayes, Lunt and Fontanne, Bankhead,
Robards, Mostel, Merman, on and on.
Is he perfect in every show, well, no,
but the play, the direction, cast and every aspect also play a part.
Who else can go from Farce to Musical to Simon to Mamet to Beckett?
if you saw him and castmates from Godot on Charlie Rose you would see his intelligence and how he inspires other actors.
He is one of a very small few who can actually get Producers to put up.
And at this point in his career getting Beckett's Godot on Broadway is more fullfilling than any award or nomination.

[fgreene1938]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 7:52am

Love him, like him or loath him, Nathan Lane is a journeyman theater performer and his dedication to stage acting is admirable. I just don't think he has much range in terms of giving award winning performances. I've seen him in The Producers, The Frogs and Butley (in Boston) and you basically get what you've already seen with him (he did try some different things in Butley but still couldn't resist the old Lane shtick). Still, he gets shows produced and seems to draw in audiences. More power to him for that.

[ken8631]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 8:09am

Have seen Nathan in almost everything he's been in - thought maybe his best was in Trumbo (excluding "The Producers, which he was perfect for).

I do, however agree that Raul would make a great Gomez.....

[SingingCats]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 11:06am

Nathan Lane is immensely talented and absolutely hilarious, but I've never seen him on stage when he was actually portraying a persona other than his own. Yet again, that's probably a part of his appeal: he's consistently and predictably funny.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 12:38pm

As someone who has spent most of my life in and around theater, I have come to believe that there are actors whose physical appearance and mannerisms are so recognizable that they become part of their stage persona and therefore many audience members believe they 'play the same character' when in fact, they are simply using their body, voice and face to the best of their ability. Some people are born with less distinctive physical features and can more easily disappear into a character. There is also the love/hate factor of very strong performers like LuPone, Patinkin, Lane and others. You either love them or you hate them. Having seen most of Lane's work I can say that, for example, in Butley, his performance was heart wrenching and he balanced the humor and pathos quite well. He is not Alan Bates and for that he was criticized but anyone who paid attention to the final scene saw a complete emotional picture portrayed by Lane without words.

Of course, like any performer, his work is not for everyone. His work in Dedication was wonderful and Love! Valor! Compassion! was powerful and moving. Most audiences know him for his musical and comedic roles and therefore expect him to do that kind of work. While he certainly is successful in that venue, some of his best work has been in plays. He is wonderful in Godot and he and Irwin and the rest of the cast bring gravity to a play that is often misunderstood and make it accessible to all.

As for his being snubbed this year...it has been a great year for plays and there were a lot of performances that were ignored. As a theater pro, you take the recognition and the snubs in stride and you do it for the work. Listen to an indepth interview with the man and you will know that he has an impressive knowledge of the work, the history of theater and the the process.

Having said that, I agree that you either love his work or you dislike him intensely and, as Estragon says in Godot there is 'nothing to be done'.

[flahooley2]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 11:22am

He's won two Tonys, five Drama Desk awards, four Outer Critics Circle awards, two Obies, the Lucille Lortel award, the Olivier award in London, two Emmys, a Screen Actors Guild award, and a People's Choice award. Sounds like a pretty good track record to me.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 11:44am

When Lane is on, he's absolutely terrific. When he's off, he's just going through the motions.

I saw his marvelous performance in LOVE! VALOR! COMPASSION! and was surprised he wasn't nominated. The role is a bit of a cliche, but he really made it work. I was very taken with his work in WAITING FOR GODOT, but did feel that he went a little too often for the easiest laughs.

His performance in BUTLEY was a nonstop avalanche of self-pity. It isn't that Lane wasn't Alan Bates that was the problem: it was that Lane's take on the role was so boring. His little tearful breakdown at the very end was embarassing.

And I'll never forget or forgive his behavior at a Wednesday Matinee performance of THE FROGS. The theatre was virtually empty (this was during the occupation of NYC by the Republican Fourth Reich's convention) and Lane was so busy checking out the empty seats that he was forgetting that there were other people on that stage that he was supposed to be interacting with. He just walked through the performance, clearly not giving a damn about those of us who had shown up.

The second half of the show was completed by an understudy due to an "injury" that he supposedly suffered backstage and that I've never really believed in. Surely it would have had to be life-threatening to prevent him from phoning in Act Two the way he phoned in Act One.

Updated On: 6/17/09 at 11:44 AM

[SamIAm]

Posted: 6/21/09 at 2:10pm

Roscoe, perhaps you did not hear about Lane's injury in the Frogs which caused him to miss half of one performance and one more show (the only absences in the run). He fell through the trap door and severely injured his leg. Sorry you 'didn't believe' he hurt himself.

As for his performance in the Frogs, all of his co-workers in this show and in many other shows have repeated publicly how giving he is as a performer and how often he will hand the stage to them to get the laugh or to have their moment. Furthermore, if you stand on a stage, you know that the performer cannot see the audience beyond the first couple of rows so it would be hard for him to focus on the empty seats.

I do not know your opinion of the man, but I think I can guess that you do not like him. Which is fine...you are entitled to your opinion but please get your facts straight rather than spreading erroneous rumors. Lane was injured during the performance and did require medical attention. Give the guy a break. He is a trooper and if you have followed his career, you know he has missed VERY few performances overall in his career, except when he has been badly hurt or injured.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 6/21/09 at 4:15pm

Well said, SamIAM and others

Please be sure to read SamIAm's last post, Roscoe.