Understudy fetishism?- Page 3

[Kad]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 10:50am

I think it's also fun to point that these people who think it's selfish of Aaron Tveit or Marin Mazzie not to "let" the understudy go on probably don't care if the understudies in a show that isn't "cool" go on.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 10:53am

^ Exactly. Do you think they'd care if Nina Arianda's understudy went on?

And I want to make it clear that it's them, the crazy/obsessive fans, that I'm questioning here, not the understudies themselves. I doubt that Jay (or Jessica Phillips or any other professional) would ever demand to be put on just so they can say the performed the role.

[MeggilyWeggily08]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 11:16am

But, with some fans, it's all about "their" show and them. It's not about the theatre community, what's in the contracts, or the professionalism these actors should and do hold. It's about them wanting to see someone that someone else hasn't, so they can say they can. That's not to say that they don't genuinely admire the understudy, or didn't enjoy seeing them, or any of that, but unfortunately, it's the truth. I've heard it out of some people's mouths. Some people.

To add something positive to the mix, I would like to say that understudies, swings, and standbys really are the superheroes of Broadway. I admire some of them more than the regular actors, and although like with all professional performers there are good and bad, I don't think I've ever really disliked an understudy. More often than not, if it's a show I've seen before (or return to later), I've ended up enjoying an understudy I saw more than the full time actor.

[Harpz2006]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 3:01pm

I think a huge contributor to the "fetishism" is the fact that some of these understudies are incredibly interactive and friendly with their fans. Jay Johnson tweets regularly with fans, replies to facebook messages, etc. saying he hopes to go on soon, so the fans communicating with him start to become invested in that. He retweeted a girl's twitter post "Dear Aaron Tveit, I will give you ANYTHING, even my first born, even my toe, if you will PLEASE CALL OUT AND LET JAY GO ON. xoxo, Sad Girl" so I think he encourages/is amused by the fetishism, haha. Alex Ellis let fans see a glimpse of her life in her documentary series about performing in CMIYC, and communicates frequently with fans as well as posted her audio from her Brenda performance. Aaron Tveit, meanwhile, keeps fan interactions minimal and doesn't communicate with them online. I wonder if the closeness fans feel to a performer makes them root for them to go on (obsessively).

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 4:33pm

This is a FASCINATING thread, and I've loved reading posters' intelligent opinions on the topic.

For me, it's simple. Some of the time, I happen to be a much larger admirer of the work of someone who happens to be cast as the understudy, than I am of the person who happens to be cast in the role.

I imagine that if I were sitting here having this conversation in 1970, I'd be hoping that Larry Kert got a chance to go on as Bobby in Company, because I'd be more interested in seeing his performance than seeing Dean Jones'.

And if I was living in 1972, I'd be hoping to get a chance to see BOTH Jill Clayburgh, AND her understudy, Ann Reinking, in the role of Catherine in Pippin. (Love them both.)

And, though I do like Stockard Channing, I would have been much more excited to see Mary Testa as Angel in The Rink, had I been in the theatre world around 1984.

If there is a chance that one of two actors may play a role, and one of them I have REALLY enjoyed in 5 previous projects, and one of them I have moderately liked in 5 previous projects, of COURSE I would hope to see the first in a given show.

There's something to be said for being open-minded, and hypothetically, if I had walked into the Alvin and seen Dean Jones, I bet I would've really admired his performance. But that doesn't change the fact that my preference would've been to see Larry Kert.

Updated On: 8/12/11 at 04:33 PM

[shrekster224]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 9:16pm

So, does anyone have a video of Jay performing at JFK today?

[Dramatic Coloratura]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 9:58pm

^ Amen! I'd be interested to see Jay's take on the character, and also Joe Cassidy's Don't Break the Rules.

[littlegreen2]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 3:09am

I've never been disappointed with an understudy slip in my Playbill. When I saw Anything Goes, I found it unfortunate that I wouldn't be seeing Colin Donnell, but his understudy was SO GOOD so I got over it. As someone said earlier, the only time I would be disappointed is if I bought expensive tickets to a show that I only wanted to see for a particular actor (which I've only done once, with Billy Elliot for Emily Skinner).

Would it be a nice gesture for Aaron Tveit to give Jay a show? Of course it would be. I'm sure Jay would love to go on and there is obviously a huge group of people who would support him. But it's not Aaron's responsibility and no one should look at him differently because he didn't miss a single show. In fact, it should be commended.

I am active in the next to normal fan community and there are many fans who want to see understudies just to rake in numbers and experiences. It's a shame, because they don't really appreciate the performance - you could ask them what they thought and they have nothing to say about it. I waited months for the chance to see Pearl Sun as Diana, because I heard phenomenal things about her portrayal (and she was going on a couple of times a week). When I was finally able to be in her audience, I absorbed every second of it, and felt so grateful for that experience.

Some understudies only go on once or twice, so I see the experience as a very special thing.

Updated On: 8/13/11 at 03:09 AM

[philly03]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 3:19am

Sometimes I see the "necessity" for it... Such as Jayne Patterson going on as Jane Eyre in that same musical. She was with the production for years, and had her role completely diminished (as Jane's mother in the world premiere) (then changed characters to Helen Burns).

Or perhaps someone like Rebecca Spencer who originated the role of Emma (aka Lisa) in the world premiere of Jekyll & HYDE, who understudied the roles of Emma (aka Lisa) and Lucy on Broadway to come full circle with a role.

But someone who just joins a Broadway production and has no real connection to a piece I don't see why they "have" to perform. Obviously Aaron Tveit was picked for a reason and not Jay. Aaron is what the writers & producers wanted, and I'd rather see that.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 5:35am

Philly,
Obviously I can not speak to the reasons behind O'Brien and Mitchell and why they cast one person over another, but just to extend the point from your post and how you'd rather see who you believe the authors intended to play the role, your logic dictates that you'd find any replacements over the course of a run to be "less than". I simply can NOT agree with that. It also, by extension, would make anyone originating a role in a revival to be "less than" simply because they weren't the originating actor in the original production... and who is to say that Jack, Jerry, et al do not and would not prefer Jay?
Aaron has been with the show through a lot of development. You make it sound as though they saw both of them at the same time and 'chose Aaron for a reason' when perhaps Jay was otherwise engaged with jobs, Aaron was signed and sealed through the development process and signed to star on Broadway before Jay was ever seen the creatives.
Perhaps they saw his audition and preferred him to Aaron - who already signed - and therefore decided to cast him as stand-by with the intent that he assume the role on Aaron's departure? Who is to say? That exact scenario has happened before and will happen again.
Perhaps they preferred Jay, but felt that Aaron was more appropriate to open the show because he had previous experience developing and opening a musical on Broadway - just as what happened when Stephanie Block first began developing the role of Elphaba in Wicked, only to replaced by Idina Menzel and then be hired as her understudy, eventually assuming the role.

PURELY playing devils advocate here.

[MeggilyWeggily08]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 7:53am

"But it's not Aaron's responsibility and no one should look at him differently because he didn't miss a single show. In fact, it should be commended."

Exactly. Some *fans* of Catch Me, and last year N2N, and with all shows that this goes on with are too busy complaining that an understudy "deserves" to go on, and all that jazz, that they don't even realize that the understudy hasn't gone on because of the professionalism, dedication, and commitment of the full time actor. That is something to be complimented, not bitched about on twitter. I would love to see Jay go on, I think he would be wonderful, but the role is in good hands with Aaron, and I, personally have no feelings towards him besides admiration in terms of him calling out.