The Caliber/Amount of Acting in Broadway Musicals

[FOCI]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 2:22pm

There is something that has always sort of bothered me It is a little jumbled even in my head so I will try to express it articulately.
Here goes: In many musicals I have seen I think the acting is pretty crappy and it always seems to me that the casting directors care mainly about one's ability to sing. Obviously, I understand people have to be able to sing because it is a musical . But since singing is what matters most why are the people in musicals referred to as actors instead of singers?-yes, I realize they are taking on a role but it just seems like so many of them are really more of singers than acotrs. And many of them can't really act very well but might have fabulous voices.
Shouldn't they be referred to as I don't know not just "Broadway Actors" in the same vein as the people down the street doing Shakespeare? Does this make sense to anyone?

Posted: 8/24/04 at 2:25pm

That is a very interesting point. But, I have seen many Broadway performers with great acting skills aka Sutton Foster, (sorry guys) Idina Menzel, Tom Hewitt, and many more!

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 2:26pm

And plenty can't do either one. There are also the actors who can't sing but can pull off a lead in a musical because they are such GREAT actors.

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 2:26pm

Not necessarily. Because many actors CAN do both. Musicals and straight plays. And acting is required in musicals as well. Perhaps it's the productions you've seen that aren't up to snuff?

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 2:28pm

I'd opt more for examples like Kevin Kline, Michelle Pawk, John Lithgow, etc...

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 2:33pm

There are some actors who have always done musical theater, and are seen as "only" musical theater performers, when in fact they are truly gifted actors as well. It's sad that they are so typed that they aren't given a chance to go beyond people's expectations.

[lildogs]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 2:56pm

You are dead on, FOCI. In my VERY LIMITED experience as a non-eq nobody, casting people and directors seem only interested in voices rather than actors. I think the idea is that they (the director) can coax a performance out of a singer, but you can't coax a singer out of a good actor. Odd, because by and large, the BIG Broadway stars are not especially great singers or have unique voices that have an appeal. I speak of Nathan Lane, Channing, Martin, Merman, Verdon, Lansbury....you get the idea...of course, we will always have Audra, who is the Eighth WOnder of the World as far as I'm concerned. It really is unfortunate more people won't take a chance on a so-so singer who can act circles around a great voice.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 3:12pm

I disagree- I think the trend over time has been moving towards acting and away from singing. Look at Michael Hayden, for example- a so-so singer taking on one of the most challenging parts in musical theater because the production emphasized the text and acting. Or Hugh Jackman- he's a very good singer, but not great- his acting definitely comes first.

Maybe I'm wrong, and it's just the "pop" (as opposed to legit) sound and lack of training of many singers that's making them sound a bit weak compared to the old days. But there's always the Victor Garbers of the world to keep things balanced. :)

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 3:14pm

a person CAN sing legit AND pop....



a good actor with an okay voice is much preferred to a a greats inger who is like a block of wood...

[FOCI]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 3:15pm

"and plenty can't do either one" - Agree completely

"a good actor with an okay voice is much preferred to a a greats singer who is like a block of wood..."- preferrerd by whom? Casting direcotrs? audience? you?

Updated On: 8/24/04 at 03:15 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 3:17pm

But I must say I haven't ever seen a great actor really pull off a lead in a musical, could I get some examples please?

*gawks*

Well, that depends on what you think of the acting skills of Victor Garber, Bernadette Peters, Angela Lansbury, and Tonya Pinkins, for a start.

Let's take Lansbury, a perfect example. She's a musical theater legend, originating roles from Mrs. Lovett in Sweeney Todd to the title character in Mame. Her portrayal of Rose in Gypsy is also the stuff of legend- many prefer her to Merman. And though the film world never embraced her talents the way theater did, she did amazing work in films like The Manchurian Candidate. (The original, of course.) She's a consummate actress and musical theater leading lady. There's your example. Updated On: 8/24/04 at 03:17 PM

[FOCI]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 3:19pm

I edited the message just before you posted that Plum, because I re-thought and decided actually I have.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 3:26pm

I'm glad. Because otherwise I'd be throwing out about 50 cast album recommendations to ease your deprivation. :)

[FOCI]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 3:27pm

:)

[NuggetMonkeys]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 3:31pm

George Hearn is one of the greatest musical actors of the past handful of decades.
-d.b.j-

[NBRISBY]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 3:32pm

I MUST also mention Heather Headley...who is, IMHO, the most amnazing actor I have EVER seen on stage/tv/film. She can sing, yes...but her acting is what makes her memorable.

[CrowdMeWithLove]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 4:20pm

I personally think it has more to do with the show than the actors, in a lot of cases. Take Assassins, for example. There is no way you could pull off that show if you can't act. It's just impossible. However, there are certain shows -- 4nd Street, to name one -- that are pure spectacle and rely heavily on dancing and singing. You could put someone brilliant as a campy character and you'd have no idea if they could act -- and possibly, you would think that they couldn't. Obviously in some cases, talent transcends the book...but for the most part, it's based on the material your given to work with.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 4:32pm

Yes, Garber can sing and act but the entertainment industry does pigeon hole people. People outside of NYC don't even KNOW that Garber can sing. All they know is that he did Titanic and is doing Alias (both wonderful examples of his acting skills).

Ah for the days when an actor (other than a 'classical' Shakespearean actor) was always expected to be able to do both and throw in a little dancing or fencing or horse back riding on the side.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 4:35pm

"But I must say I haven't ever seen a great actor really pull off a lead in a musical, could I get some examples please?"

Tyne Daly in GYPSY. Won a Tony. Can't sing her way out of a paper bag. Won a Tony.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 4:41pm

Sorry if someone mentioned this, but Havrey Frestein (very talented man) love him, wonderful actor, can't sing a note.

One other thought, there are all these talented wonderful muscial theater actors/singers that are better at both than anyone in the film industry and yet they are given MUCH less credit. Thats just a crime.

[NBRISBY]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 4:45pm

Amen, Eponine.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 4:48pm

It's all in the distribution.

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 4:49pm

John Lithgow
Carol Channing

2 great examples

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 4:59pm

I know I'm probably going to be killed for this, but I'd rather see a bad actor in a musical than a bad singer. A bad singer is painful to my ears while with bad actors, while annoying, aren't all that bad. They don't sound like nails on a chalkboard when they open their mouth, unless they're really pathetic at doing accents.
Also, I've seen a lot of acting talent on Broadway. Sutton Foster, Hunter Foster, Hugh Jackman and Idina Menzel are all great.

[NBRISBY]

Posted: 8/24/04 at 5:12pm

I will neither take a bad actor, NOR a bad singer. There are just too many talented people that need work, and I won't support a show unless the leads do their jobs better than other people.

Can't stand seeing someone who can't act, and can't stand listening to JOhn Lithgow-type singing anymore, either.