#101
Posted: 8/3/11 at 7:35pm
Okay, now that we've been through the racism, the voice etc, let's get back to my already stated WORST reason to cast anyone but Lea Michelle in the role. The public, unless the girl is stellar, is not going to accept anyone else in that role. I'm sorry, they announce a revival after many many years, its FIRST revival, at the very same time a stellar performer, whose star is ascending, who is perfect casting in so many ways, (I'm not talking about the people on these boards, I'm talking about the casual theatre goer) and then they don't cast her. A lot of the people who are casual theatre goers ARE "Glee" fans. They will assume (as they don't read the trades and websites like we do) that it must be starring that girl from "Glee". And it will be disappointing to that crowd when they find out its not her in the role. Not to you. But to the tourists and casual theatre-goers. This is not a great show. But it has some great songs that are only great if they are sung extraordinarily well. Pia Zadora and Debbie Gibson failed. And I'm guessing they might actually be better singers than Lauren (again, just guessing). I love Kritzer and Benanti. I would have felt the same way about their casting, but would have been a little more hopeful that they could surmount the casting expectation as they have extraordinary voices, and are wonderful stage comediennes and that the reviews and the buzz about their "Funny Girl" might bring in the tourists easier than Ambrose. Right now, Ambrose is still (I'm betting even to Sher) and unknown quantity Fanny-wise. But she will have to be uber-fantastic to make the show profitable. The ONLY actress of the moment to give a revival of "Funny Girl" instant national buzz is Lea Michelle (Lauren's casting didn't even make the EW.com headline list).
Updated On: 8/3/11 at 07:35 PM