Sherie Renee Scott drama while in RENT?- Page 2

[Becky]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 9:25pm

Blaxx, what kind of entitlement issues are you referring to on her end? I know the fans wanted her to have it (many thought it was what was going to happen), but to say *she* made someone's life miserable is a whole other insinuation. Letting it be known she wanted it and feeling entitled aren't always the same, and let's face it - who wouldn't have wanted it? It was an obvious "want" whether she stated it or not.

However, playing devil's advocate - you had an original cast member, who was good enough to understudy and fill in, who knew the role inside and out, and who was eventually placed in the role after all? Not sure why she wasn't an obvious choice to begin with either. She was absolutely fantastic in the role, people loved her, so it's not arrogant for her to think she would be a canidate to be moved up when Idina left.

Not to mention many casting changes have come from people moving up the ranks - Kristin, Gwen, Rodney, and Norbert are just the start of the list. It's not entitlement, it's what happens a LOT, and not a wrong thing to hope for.


Updated On: 8/12/12 at 09:25 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 10:35pm

I can't give specific details without compromising other people's privacy. Sure, maybe I shouldn't mention this at all, but if you were an active member of the Broadway community back then, you'd know how hostile she and others in the cast were with Sherie.

Sherie doesn't lie when she says people didn't want her to be there, some cast members were very speficic at letting her know how they felt. It wasn't her fault, she just got the job. The fact they felt so stronlgly about the piece doesn't mean you can go and attack a newbie like that.

But the truth is that her reputation didn't get better in Rocky Horror. Ask Alice Ripley...

[random person 112]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 10:43pm

Now your going to have have us asking about what she did to Alice Ripley, though frankly now that this much time has passed since the incident. I can't imagine they would mind you talking.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 10:48pm

More important is what she did to Janis Joplin.

[Becky]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 11:00pm

Sure Blaxx, you don't have to go into details. I don't know if it was a case of a close company's cliqish "behavior" supporting a castmate (which doesn't excuse being disrespectful to a new member) - but either way, they were all mostly twenty-something and human and may have been protective of their show/cast members. Not saying it was right or fair, but....

A friend was one of the first replacements for an early touring company, and faced some similar cliqish situations. She walked into a very tight group, and being accepted wasn't a given or easy. I think that just happens sometimes, which sucks.

Updated On: 8/12/12 at 11:00 PM

[BroadwayFan12]

Posted: 8/12/12 at 11:28pm

I love a good story involving Alice Ripley.

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/13/12 at 12:19am

She's just famous for her mean spirited and diva behavior, is all.

Yes, she (well, most of them) were young and had little professional experience. I also suppose the ReNt "boom" didn't help, and the way the felt things should have happened after the first cast members left didn't help their case. I also think that anyone else who was a replacement would have had a similar fate, Sherie just happened to be there too early for them to digest that a new Maureen didn't mean an intruder. If anything, they should've dealt with the decision makers.

I understand she was bearable to work with during Rocky Horror until Joan Jett left.

Oh well, we don't see her around Broadway anymore. Who knows if we ever will again.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/13/12 at 8:35am

"Blaxx, what kind of entitlement issues are you referring to on her end? I know the fans wanted her to have it (many thought it was what was going to happen), but to say *she* made someone's life miserable is a whole other insinuation. Letting it be known she wanted it and feeling entitled aren't always the same, and let's face it - who wouldn't have wanted it? It was an obvious "want" whether she stated it or not.

However, playing devil's advocate - you had an original cast member, who was good enough to understudy and fill in, who knew the role inside and out, and who was eventually placed in the role after all? Not sure why she wasn't an obvious choice to begin with either. She was absolutely fantastic in the role, people loved her, so it's not arrogant for her to think she would be a canidate to be moved up when Idina left.

Not to mention many casting changes have come from people moving up the ranks - Kristin, Gwen, Rodney, and Norbert are just the start of the list. It's not entitlement, it's what happens a LOT, and not a wrong thing to hope for."

It becomes an entitlement issue when you have absolutely no tact or respect for a fellow cast mate. Just because you're an understudy does not guarantee you will move up the ranks once the lead leaves the show. Even if it is something that happens a lot, keep in mind that it isn't necessarily uncommon for someone to be hired from the outside as well. This happens across many industries, not just theater. It's okay to feel disappointed, but to be bitter about it and actively take it out on the new hire (Sherie) is low class. Maybe something about Kristen's attitude is what kept her from being promoted at the time.

Updated On: 8/13/12 at 08:35 AM

[Skywalker3]

Posted: 8/13/12 at 8:51am

It's easier to work in a new lead then a new ensemble member + understudy!

[Becky]

Posted: 8/13/12 at 10:33am

Of course Millie, I believe we agree (I stated much of the same in my next post). Naturally understudies don't always move up, but it's not unreasonable to think you might. And I also said it wasn't right or fair the way Sherie was treated.

And oh Skywalker, you're so right. There are many a swings who left companies because they weren't going to be promoted (because training a new swing wasn't the better option). That unfortunate too

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/13/12 at 11:41am

I remember at the time that part of the story is that Kristin was TOLD that she would be the replacement and then they changed her mind. And I think she did something like not show up for a few performances or something dramatic like that.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 8/13/12 at 11:54am

"That's something I've hated about the evolution of Maureen after Idina, but we have Michael Greif to thank for that unfortunately. I've been told he directed early national tour Maureen's to go that route - and I can only assume he influenced Sherie as well."

The difference between Idina and Sherie was continued on in some weird directorial trend throughout the run, where all brunette Maureens were intense artists who took their performance very seriously, and all blonde Maureens were ditzy dumb blondes. So Idina, Kristen, Karmine, Yassmin, Eden, etc. played the role one way, and Sherie, Kendra, Nicolette, Annaleigh played a totally different Maureen.

I mean, maybe it's not that calculated, but it's just odd how back and forth it went based on the different actresses, versus the other roles in the show.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/13/12 at 11:54am

Just going into the business/decision making side of things, and speaking in generalities, the other issue with promoting from within is that sometimes an understudy will give a performance that is fine, for an understudy situation, but that doesn't mean that their performance is necessarily strong enough to carry the show full time. It's just like when a show moves up from a Fringe and/or NYMF type setting into a full commercial run. Just because somebody was the best you could get at that time it doesn't mean you should so loyal to that person that you shouldn't explore other options. You have to do what's best for the show on stage, which means personal loyalties sometimes have to be ignored.

[L100303]

Posted: 8/14/12 at 10:27am

I just think it is wrong Sherie is a class act she got it fare and square and is as talented as anyone

[Quiche2]

Posted: 8/14/12 at 10:35am

I believe you normally have 2 weeks to learn the show when you are a lead replacement, so I don't know what was up with that 5 days. Maybe it was different back in '97?

[MasterGracey]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 12:46pm

For what it's worth, Peter Marks of the Times loved Sherie...maybe Kristen was just pissed about not getting it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/15/theater/newcomers-who-brighten-broadway.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

"THE most electrifying moment on Broadway these days is being supplied not by any above-the-title player, but by a pair of unknowns.

Their names are Sherie Scott and Shelley Dickinson, a replacement and an understudy in the cast of 'Rent.' When they throw themselves body, heart and soul into 'Take Me or Leave Me,' the white-hot, Aretha-style love duet near the top of the second act, the force is nearly nuclear. The number has always been one of the show's most irresistible, but Ms. Scott and Ms. Dickinson, who as the musical's lesbian lovers are as perfectly matched as a pair of diamond-stud earrings, explore new depths in their characters' mutual attraction. In their wild, aching rendition, there can be no doubt that a love-hate relationship is nourished by heat.

The sublime work by Ms. Scott, who recently replaced the Tony-nominated Idina Menzel as the performance artist Maureen, and Ms. Dickinson, the understudy to Fredi Walker, who created the role of the uptight Harvard-trained lawyer Joanne, is instructive for audiences and performers alike: replacement actors in hit shows need not be disappointingly wan facsimiles of their well-received predecessors. They can transform a piece in profound and unanticipated ways."

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 1:45pm

I saw Idina, Sherie and Kristin, actually. Sherie was definitely a departure from the Maureen with which audiences were familiar, but I thought her take on Maureen worked quite well. I don't remember seeing her milk laughs at all, but her deadpan lack of awareness (the signature stamp that earned her popularity in Aida) brought an interesting new dimension to the character. Especially leading into Take Me or Leave Me, which became more matter-of-fact than vain. Kristin definitely had the chops for Maureen and her performance was almost a carbon copy of Idina, but it was pretty clear why she wasn't the first choice for a replacement from her first entrance (and especially during Happy New Year in the cat costume). Both Idina and Sherie appeared statuesque in height and physically matched for Joanne. Kristin was absolutely tiny and it was every bit as startling as Sherie's blonde hair, if not more so.

The bubble-headed schticky take on Maureen evolved some time after Kristin's departure and certainly wasn't limited to blondes as evidenced by the closing night performance with all the hammy schtick that was never in the number. But the last blonde Maureen I saw on Broadway (in 2005, I think) was just AWFUL. It was depressing to see Maureen played as an imbecilic clown. I definitely understood all the disdain towards Rent from those who never got to see the show as intended.

Incidentally, Over the Moon was heavily influenced by the performance art of Laurie Anderson, who is in fact, a blonde lesbian. That's not relevant to anything, but I just thought it was interesting.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 2:08pm

I saw Shelley Dickinson as Joanne once and I agree she was marvelous.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 2:30pm

I was just informed Laurie Anderson is not a lesbian. How is that possible? I could have SWORN she is and read about her relationship with some female model or something.