Those "Bummer" Moments When They Announce An Understudy... — Page 5

"but you make it sound like they are SACRIFICING to have that job. They aren't. They also don't have it all dumped in their lap all at once. They learn it gradually -- one part at a time."

I think in essence this post makes my point that they ARE sacrificing. There is a stigma that goes along with being a U/S, or Cover, or Standby that is unwarranted. Sometimes the difference between one person being cast over the other is hair color, or a height difference, or arm length or something else arbitrary. Not talent level. (This post confirms my theory as most posters have positive things to say about the U/S they saw...) So the person that got the role is only the role because they were an inch taller. So in theory, back when Lea Michelle was starting on Spring Awakening, (hypothetically) they COULD have gone with her due to her eye color (over her U/S). And yet the u/s has to deal with the fact that people dont want to see her. And that she is not being seen on a daily basis. And that if you ask someone who Lea Michelle is (Pre Glee) then theyd say she's the girl from Spring Awakening. But if you ask someone what her U/S name was, chances are they wouldn't know. Notoriety and name are EVERYTHING for an actor. There are a billion people with talent, but does anyone know your name? Yes, it is a fantastic job. Yes, it pays the bills. Yes, that is the contract they signed on for. Is there a cost versus gain decision to be made here...YES. You gain a good job, money, a respectable credit. You sacrifice the opportunity to perform daily (which is the point of your work), the notoriety, the reviews, the things that go along with being the role and building your brand (your name). Every job has pros and cons.


" They also don't have it all dumped in their lap all at once. They learn it gradually -- one part at a time."


Not the case unfortunately. U/S and swings start the exact time that everyone else does (and sometimes later...a tactic producers have implemented to save money in these rough times). And they have to be ready to go on the day the show starts, IN ANY ROLE THEY COVER. And due to the uncertainty of live theatre, they could have to jump in without a put-in rehearsal. I challenge anyone to tell me that learning one role takes the same dedication/devotion to learning 3 or 4. The math doesnt add up. Call it what you like (dedication, devotion, determination) what it boils down to is more work. And yes dramamama i do think you work harder/ are more dedicated. Because while Mathy Mcmath teacher is done grading papers and having dinner with the family, youre at rehearsal. I think it takes more to do more.

P.S. Im glad youre so passionate/dedicated.

I can only chuckle at this. Let me ask you something. Which do you think is easier: Replacing an actor who can play one role well. Or replacing an actor who can play 4 roles well? It actually takes 4 times the devotion! You keep 4 sets of blocking, lines, songs, harmonies, cutoffs, bows, partnerings, and chemistries etc separate and let me know how much devotion it takes.

And that was my point that went soaring over your head. It's not more devotion, it's split attention. If someone has to keep 4 different tracks straight, that means they have less opportunity to hone their portrayal of each character. A swing covering 4 roles is not going to give the same kind of layered portrayal as a lead or their standby, which is why swings only go on for leads in dire circumstances.

Swings are not more talented because they can learn 4 parts. It's two very different types of talent. And when I see a portrayal of Mama Rose, I want to see someone who is focused on giving a completely developed emotional arch to that one role, not someone who can know the words and hit the marks for 4 roles.

---

So in other words, the more roles you have, the more dedicated an actor you are. Quantity trumps quality. And leads party while understudies work.

Is that pretty much your point?

"So in other words, the more roles you have, the more dedicated an actor you are. Quantity trumps quality. And leads party while understudies work."

I'm not dealing in absolutes... and im pretty sure i never said "leads party while understudies work," or that "Quantity trumps quality." I do however believe that quantity does NOT negate quality. My point is that "bummer moments" suck for people who work very hard to keep our favorite shows running. Go understudies/swings/covers.

And again this a debate no fighting or arguing on this end. Just so im not misunderstood.

" and im pretty sure i never said "leads party while understudies work," or that "Quantity trumps quality." "

That would be why Reg said "...in other words..."



But you did say this:

"It means while people are out partying you are rehearsing, working, and making sure that everytime you go on, someone is spurred to come on here and says how "surprised they were at how good a job you did." "

Which is pretty much, in other words, what Reg said.

Updated On: 5/4/10 at 02:47 PM

I'm pretty sure you did say "It means while people are out partying you are rehearsing, working . . ."

Have I misunderstood?

Have you met Hamlet, Reg? He can be a bit of a handful.

I always loved Jim Borstelmann in The Producers (a show which, btw, I didn't care for), and I loved it when he went on for Roger DeBris or Franz Liebkind. I also liked him as DeBris' choreographer, his usual role. Borstelmann was fantastic in all three roles, and when Brad Oscar left, he was bumped up to the Liebkind role, and the show was re-reviewed with him in that role, and he was very well received. Very shortly after that, though, he went back to his old role and tracks. Why? Because he was too valuable to the show in that capacity. So, while I feel our fellow poster jules is a little hyperbolically sensitive to this situation, there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

A little one.

It's almost an inarguable point.

There's really no reasoning with Hamlet, unless the wind is northerly.

If you re-read jules' posts, Phyl, there isn't an awful lot of working theatrical knowledge there. I totally buy jules as investment banker - who has a relative who is an understudy/standby/swing.

Good point, ghosty!

Oh, pish, jules, if you think that's personal then you're gonna be in for a BIG surprise if you stick around. Besides, you're the one who made the point that this thread made you join - it's highly suspect a layman would have such strong feelings about the subject that they'd just HAVE to join to post their two cents.

Updated On: 5/4/10 at 03:54 PM

Just because you have more to do does not mean you do each thing to a lesser degree

That's exactly what it means. What you're saying is just illogical. Ask any mother who just had a second child, whether she spends as much time with her firstborn as she did before. Of course not, she has to split her focus between the two of them now.

Or to continue with dramamama's example, a drama teacher who does nothing but run the after school rehearsals is going to be more focused on the school musical than the teacher who has 5 English classes during the school day AND has to run rehearsals. It doesn't make her worse, she just doesn't have the luxury of the undivided attention.

Multi-tasking always makes you less efficient at each task, and multi-tasking roles isn't magically any different.

---

Edit due to comment::: Then I guess I saw Blake the third time I saw it...whoever I saw go on for John was really good though!!

You saw Gerard Canonico, who ended up as Moritz on Broadway after Blake Bashoff left to do the tour. Gallagher's other understudy was Brian Charles Johnson but as far as I know, he never went on when Gallagher was still there. Interestingly enough, both Canonico and Johnson are with Gallagher now in "American Idiot."

Brian Charles went on as Moritz once (possible twice) while Gallagher was still in Spring Awakening. I saw Brian as Moritz on his final day with the Broadway company, he was superb.

---

Updated On: 5/5/10 at 05:32 AM