Tamayra Gray/RENT/Last night- Page 5

[sweetdisaster]

Posted: 6/3/07 at 4:29pm

I didn't see the OBC, other than clips here and there, but I've seen and enjoyed other casts. Just because someone was the first doesn't automatically make them the best. Yes, I'm looking forward to Adam and Anthony coming back, but I wouldn't say that they're the only ones who can play a good Mark and Roger. The same goes for Idina as Maureen. There can be different interpretations of each character, but it doesn't make it better, just a matter of preference.

Back to the topic at hand, I'm excited to see Tamyra. I loved her when she was first on American Idol. It's good to hear that she sounded so good in the role, as I expected she would. I hope she grows into the role a little more acting wise before I see it mid-August.

[another_reprise]

Posted: 6/3/07 at 5:15pm

I got to see Jim in Urinetown last week and I thought he did a fantastic job, he definately stood out from the rest of the cast. He was kind of washed out a few times vocally by the ensemble, but overall it was a very good show. I'm glad I got to see it.
I wish I had the chance to see him in Rent though, he seemed like he would have been an amazing Mark.

[timrobb]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 4:46pm

he was amazing!

anybody see tamyra this weekend? how did she do??

[Ant254]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 1:16am

I Saw Tamyra Gray The Second Night She Performed. My Opinion Was That She Did A Great Job. She Really Was Into The Character. Her Voice Was Great. It Will Be Good To See How She Does In The Months To Come. But I Thought She Looked Like A Pro Up There. She Really Did A Great Job As Mimi.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 11:17am

"I didn't see the OBC, other than clips here and there, but I've seen and enjoyed other casts. Just because someone was the first doesn't automatically make them the best. Yes, I'm looking forward to Adam and Anthony coming back, but I wouldn't say that they're the only ones who can play a good Mark and Roger. The same goes for Idina as Maureen. There can be different interpretations of each character, but it doesn't make it better, just a matter of preference."

I don't think anyone was necessarily saying that. Will Chase was a far better Roger than Pascal (a lot seem to think Norbert Butz was, too, but I didn't see him), and I'd hope that at some point over the years somebody better than Rapp and Martin especially have come along. If those roles peaked there, that's a shame.


"Well, to everyone who saw Idina when she first did Rent 10 years ago, please tell me her Maureen was much different then it was in the movie and in Rent 10."
Idina's Maureen at Rent 10 was phoned in and pretentious, much like the rest of the cast that night (I'm sure the lack of preparation didn't help). I think the only two who were really present to tell the story that night were Rubin-Vega and Walker-Browne.
Her Maureen in the movie isn't bad (except for "Over the Moon"--which was sadly a lot like I've seen it recently. Entirely too self-aware of the absurdity that makes it funny); it's just that it seems like Maureen at 30. She's toned down, and the fact that they wrote a proposal into the script completely throws that character off.

[misschung]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 11:44am

I actually thought Anthony was pretty good at Rent 10, but I didnt see it live.

What proposal are you talking about?

[jewishboy]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 12:08pm

Well besides for her voice I agree with what you said about Menzel. It is forgiven for the concert because she gave the audience what they wanted, but the movie was sad. Where was all the grit Christopher Columbus? Even though she was playing the thirty year old Maureen in the movie, with a good and "rough" director she could have found the grit and edginess that her original Maureen had loads of.

And in the 10th concert I agree that Daphne and Fredi were excellent, but I also think that Jesse L. Martin and Wilson Jermaine Heredia were right along there with them. But, I didn't see this live so...
Updated On: 6/5/07 at 12:08 PM

[Ariella]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 12:44pm

The 10th anniversary concert is special for a lot of reasons, and it wasn't meant to be judged as a normal performance. As Becky pointed out, one couldn't have expected the performers to immersed in their characters as if they hadn't parted ways ten years ago.

As for the movie, the dynamics were incredibly different. The transition from stage to screen is never easy, and admittedly Columbus did little to maintain the edginess of the stage show. However, that edginess itself has been debatable of late, and I can't say what it would have taken to rekindle the old energy. The essence of Menzel's old Maureen there, and she was able to deliver Over the Moon with less self-awareness and conscious melodrama than a lot of Maureens I've seen lately. The lack of energy in the number bothered me more because she couldn't seem to summon enough enthusiasm.

I hope Tamyra continues to get comfortable in the role, especially as the standards will be high with Pascal and Rapp in the mix.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 1:48pm

"I can't say what it would have taken to rekindle the old energy"

I'm guessing that if Spike Lee (the original intended director) had that cast he would have been able to rekindle the energy or create his own energy for the movie

[misschung]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 2:01pm

Well I think he definitely would have created his own energy, but who's to say if any film adaptation would really be reflective of the magic that happened/happens on stage with that production.

[Ariella]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 2:35pm

They're drastically different entities. At any rate, Lee proposed considerably more dramatic changes to the script than Columbus, and issues would have been raised at that, too.

[misschung]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 2:47pm

oh, really? That's interesting. I'd be curious to see how his version would turn out.

Yes, totally different entities and sometimes I wonder if any film version would be totally satisfactory to audiences, you know?

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 3:00pm

Misschung, I was just talking about the marriage proposal.

And about "rekindling" the old energy...I think that's the very pitfall that happened with Rent 10 and the movie. There's no such thing; you can't just get these 8 people together and suddenly the show is what it was ten years ago, nor can you say that because somebody in the cast now was not present during the off-broadway and early Broadway stages that they cannot capture the spirit of the show. The actors have to simultaneously be in touch with the dynamic amongst the ensemble at this very moment while remembering the social moment that the piece comes from and the particular message that was to be delivered as if it is just as relevant today as it was 10 years ago (personally, I think it IS just as relevant).

I think there's both the problem that people want to re-create what cannot be re-created because it's past, and people trying so hard to find something new that nothing is organic.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 6:21pm

I know it's hard to understand when all you have to go by is crappy YouTube videos, but Rent 10 was not about xeroxing an OBC performance from 10 years ago. It wasn't supposed to be perfect show where all the actors have memorized lines and are totally immersed in pre-Giuliani East Village culture to understand the motivation of the character. It was a celebration and the cast was all very successful at accomplishing that; it was very evident they were having fun and so was the audience. That's all that was important.

It's absolutely ridiculous to judge a celebratory anniversary concert by the same standards as an actual performance, like it was no different from any other show that they did 8 times a week 10 years ago. If that's the case, A Chorus Line's recording breaking show was atrocious! The nerve of them to perform Nothing in Japanese- Diana is Puerto Rican, that is soooo not in character- or have 3 Vals, 5 Cassies, 9 Pauls and 350 people dancing the finale. How dare they do anything different for a special occasion!

Maybe the actors aren't the ones that had the problems with Rent 10, or the people that wanted to fully and completely recreate the OBC magic. Maybe it's the people that are still bitter over a year later and think their ideas for what Rent 10 was "supposed" to be are more important than just celebrating the event.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 7:41pm

OrangeSkittles, you make a very good point and I agree with you. From the audience's reaction you can tell it was a very exhilarating evening.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 9:59pm

OH, orangeskittles, you slay me!


I personally don't like to see actors goofing around on a night of feeding their egos. That's just me.

Of course the audience ate it right up; that's how Rent's audiences are...they'll love anything (if the audiences each time I've seen it is any indication). Of course it was "special" for everyone who was there; nobody who was waiting ten years for that night and spent $500 or $1000 on it is going to let themselves remember anything else besides greatness. It was a night of goofing off and even when they had serious moments, it was pretentious showing off (Pascal's "One Song Glory" is coming to mind); if you like that, that's cool, but that's not Rent. That's celebrating egos. If you want to celebrate Larson's work and story, there's no better way to do it than tell the story.


EDIT: Haha, and now that I look back at the post you responded to, I see you twisted my words once again! I was not trying to say that Rent 10 or the movie was trying to "xerox" the show as it was ten years ago, but it certainly seemed as though they were performing under th assumption that merely because these individuals were gathered together, something authentic and magical was supposed to happen.

Updated On: 6/5/07 at 09:59 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 10:29pm

jewishboy, it really was an amazing experience. The cliché "the energy in the room was electric" is the best way I can describe it; it's rare that you're in an audience where everyone is that excited to be there. That's why it's so absurd to me that someone would claim that the actors weren't "into it" or whatever. In addition, there were so many moments and exchanges between them onstage that aren't evident through secondhand viewings. They were up there having a great time with their longtime friends and colleagues and celebrating the experience they began together. I can't imagine Jonathan Larson would have wanted it any other way, especially since I talked with some of his friends and family later that night and they said the same thing.

BroadwayGirl, had you seen it live, you'd be just as convinced it was the greatest performance ever, so you can stop with the holier-than-thou bullsh*t.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 10:31pm

DP

Updated On: 6/5/07 at 10:31 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 10:31pm

How adorably naive of you to make such an assumption. You're cute.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 10:35pm

How pathetic that a Tisch theatre student honestly believes there's no difference between a live performance and a bootlegged video. So apparently you wouldn't mind being judged by those same standards yourself. Remind me to have a friend record your debut on her camera phone, and I'll post my critique, alright?

Updated On: 6/5/07 at 10:35 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 10:42pm

I don't think it's fair to do that at all. However, I don't think that the goofing around and obnoxious screams from the tweens at the occassionally pretentious jokes magically appeared on the (damn near professional quality) DVD I have of it.

Now, I'm not so ridiculous that I think the line flubs, missed cues, etc were absolute BLASPHEMY or anything, but the total sense of "we're entitled to **** around up here because they'll love it anyway" you get from much of the cast I think I could have done without. It's not so much that the audience enjoyed it...so be it; it's that professional actors whose job and supposed passion is storytelling would be more concerned about celebrating their egos and the amount of fame, attention, and successful careers they got from being in the show than celebrating the show itself.

I guess you could say it's just not my thing.
Updated On: 6/5/07 at 10:42 PM

[sweetdisaster]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 11:02pm

I don't think anyone was necessarily saying that. Will Chase was a far better Roger than Pascal (a lot seem to think Norbert Butz was, too, but I didn't see him), and I'd hope that at some point over the years somebody better than Rapp and Martin especially have come along. If those roles peaked there, that's a shame.


I wasn't saying that people said that, just commenting on people who were judging a performace based on seeing an actor on Youtube vs. live. I was trying to make the same point you made in your post if I didn't say it well enough. I agree, I've seen Chase, and though haven't seen Pascal in the role, I love Will's Roger.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 6/5/07 at 11:47pm

BroadwayGirl107, I think the sole reason the cast came back to do it was to celebrate Jonathan Larson. Whether that means to play the musical strictly to the book is one thing, but to say it was pretentious for Adam Pascal to "show off" during One Song Glory is wrong because he made that song more thrilling than anyone I have every heard do it while in character. And all the exchanges between the cast really showed how much of a friendly relationship the cast all had and just added to the celebratory atmosphere of the evening. And besides the main message of Rent is No Day But Today and there was really no other time that would have allowed those types of interactions we got to see unless it was a celebratory evening.

[Craww]

Posted: 6/6/07 at 12:19am

but the total sense of "we're entitled to **** around up here because they'll love it anyway"

Were they supposed to follow a flub with a stony faced shame and seriousness, or were they supposed to continue on with a theme of good humor? I've seen the show in the same manner you have. I didn't feel the actors turned in shameful performances. Even the stolid and separate seeming Taye and Idina, or the silliness of Adam or Jesse. Even Daphne and her vocal issues. It just seems a little convenient that you felt the only ones there to tell the story were the two actors left out of the movie that you despised.

Being able to say "here is when I didn't like Idina" and state it with such vehemence just seems like perception manipulation. Using the movie and Rent10 as scapegoats for your attempts to project a more balanced perspective and seem less biased. I'm sure that's not a conscious decision, but that's how it's always struck me from your posts.

[MotorTink]

Posted: 6/6/07 at 12:30am

Sooooooo, how bout that weather???????


:) Come on kids. We have plenty of time to take the claws out once Adam and Anthony are actually back ON the stage, no need to waste efforts now!