Usual performer vs. understudy

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 3:56pm

Hi all,
I noticed a post earlier that pointed out that Matthew James Thomas was out of Pippin a week ago. Someone on the thread stated that his voice had sounded raspy the night before.
I have an opinion question: (this is not specifically just for Pippin, but in general)Would you rather see the usual performer, even if they are not feeling well or their voice is not in top form; or a great understudy who is in top voice? Personally, I have mixed feelings about this. It's exciting to see the usual star, but I also feel like it can distract from the show somewhat when it's clear they are not feeling well.

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 4:02pm

I think it depends on the performer and the role.

- If I'm going to see someone like Patti in Evita or Gypsy I'd rather see her a bit under the weather than her understudy.
- In a show like Wicked I'd rather see an understudy than a sick lead.
-Then in a show like Pippin I'd rather see Patina not very well, than her understudy because I'm not very fond of what I know of the understudy's work.

Those are just three of my own personal examples to show how circumstantial this can be.

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 4:07pm

I've seen plenty of sick leads and more often than not, please, just give me a healthy understudy. I'm rarely there for a star name anyway.

"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 4:09pm

I agree it depends. I've seen understudies unexpectedly and been completely wowed by their performances. Some of those people go on to be stars in their own right. However, like most people, I do have performers that I specifically love and if I go see a show specifically for them, I'd be disappointed to see them out. Luckily, living in NYC, I can usually make a return visit or past-date my tickets if it's really that big a deal, but I can't say if I traveled somewhere to see someone or came from out of town hoping to catch someone I loved that I wouldn't be disappointed if they were out.

"Get mad, then get over it." - Colin Powell

Updated On: 7/16/13 at 04:09 PM

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 4:10pm

I'd rather see the understudy unless the sick lead is a legendary performer (Bernadette Peters, Patti LuPone, etc.) or has a significant amount of positive word-of-mouth surroudning their performance(Patina/Andrea in Pippin, Billy Porter in Kinky Boots, etc.).

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 4:26pm

It depends on so much. The night I saw "Anything Goes" I was predictably dispirited when it was announced that Sutton Foster was out. Then the curtain went up and there was Tari Kelly. She gave a performance I will never forget and feel blessed to have seen.

That isn't always the case. It's like gambling.

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 4:28pm

Unless the person that is out is the reason for my going to see a show (and that is seldom the case) I would want the healthy understudy.

If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it? These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 4:32pm

I had a similar situation, henrikegerman.

I was visiting NY and I wanted to see Karen Olivo in WSS. I won the lottery and everything seemed perfect. Then I looked at the understudy board and saw that Natalie Cortez was on for Anita. This is when Natalie just joined the company. She was a swing before she became the standby or the alternate for Anita. I was devastated because I remember reading that Olivo's understudies weren't very good, but Cortez was new and there was no review of her. She was absolutely amazing and nailed Anita. I loved her! Then as we all know she went on to succeed Olivo, I really just saw the replacement Anita early.

Updated On: 7/16/13 at 04:32 PM

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 4:40pm

I agree with what most have said. It mostly depends on the quality of the understudy. Some were OK and some were so good, it made me wonder how the regular performer could possibly be any better in that role.

I saw South Pacific, Kelli O'Hara was out and her understudy was good but not great. On the other hand, I had the exact same experience as henrikegerman with Anything Goes, really disappointed when I arrived and heard Sutton was out, then saw Tari Kelly in the role and was absolutely blown away by her performance. It's a crime she is not being cast regularly in featured and leading roles on Broadway.

#10

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 5:13pm

Depends on the Person. Usually ( with a few exceptions) I don't care who is playing the role as long as they are playing it effectively.

So Lauren Bacall me, anything goes! *wink*

#11

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 5:35pm

My granddaughter and I made a return visit to THE FANTASTICKS this weekend and were extremely impressed with understudy Daniel Rowan's performance as MATT. We'd previously seen "star" Aaron Carter who acted the part well but had great difficulty singing the score.

"Long live God!" (GODSPELL)

#12

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 6:21pm

I echo what a lot of people above have said: Unless it's someone that I specifically came to the show to see, I'd much rather have the understudy than a sick lead.

"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible

#13

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 6:23pm

Definitely the understudy.

Even if it's a star name, I'd rather see the star at their best, not their worst.

#14

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 7:40pm

It depends on the demands of the role, and it also depends on how many times I've seen the show.

I saw the original CHICAGO many times, but was very disappointed when I went back and found Lenora Nemetz was on in place of Chita Rivera.

Was Nemetz "better"? Of course not. But she was a revelation in her own right and, in fact, I came away with a much deeper understanding of a show I had already seen many times.

I've never asked for a refund because a performer is out sick. I seriously doubt I ever will.

#15

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 8:50pm

I'll agree with the general consensus here, it just truly depends on whether your personal conviction to see the show is star-dependent or how the health of the lead is affected (or, true, how capable the understudy is.)

I saw NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT last year the week that Michael McGrath was out, and his understudy was just as good as I could imagine McGrath was. It was clear to me why it was a Tony-worthy role, (which is to the credit of the understudy for being as impressive) and having seen McGrath before in SPAMALOT years ago I can easily imagine why he won.

Earlier this summer, I saw AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS off-Broadway with an understudy who was very obviously underprepared and it eventually became clear that this was his very first time performing the show for an audience. Other actors were visibly improving to cover for him and many of his lost lines (and excellently, I might add; I don't believe that original cast is still together as Bryce Ryness has gone on to FIRST DATE at least but that was a really charming ensemble) and at the end of the show the other four actors took a moment to applaud him after their bows. That was a case where clearly there must have been some sort of emergency, because he should never have had to go on under normal circumstances without (seemingly) any rehearsal at all.

It's hard to generalize because it is so variable on a case-by-case basis.

Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.

#16

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 10:11pm

Seen a bunch of understudies over the years, and haven't been disappointed in any of them.

When NEXT TO NORMAL came to town a few years ago I knew Alice Ripley had missed a lot of performances for vocal reasons, but was hoping she would feel well enough to perform when we went. Of course when we got there the insert in the Playbill announced Pearl Sun would be performing.

Gotta say, aside from Estelle Parsons in August: Osage County, Pearl gave one of the best performances I've seen in the twenty years I've been attending shows. She was gut wrenching, had a great voice and a huge stage presence for such a tiny woman.

So: big star that's not 100% or understudy? I'll take the understudy.

#17

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 10:56pm

I was fortunate enough to see both Alice Ripley on Broadway (and on tour) as well as Pearl Sun, and yes she was fantastic in the role. Before I saw her, I couldn't imagine anyone besides Alice playing the role, but Pearl really did an amazing job too.

#18

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 11:23pm

Last December I went to see Max von Essen as Che on a Monday night because I knew Ricky Martin didn't work Mondays. When I went to the box office to get my ticket the guy said, "Ricky Martin doesn't perform on Monday." I said, "I know. That's why I want to see the show tonight." Needless to say, Max was incredible.

Nice is different than good.

#19

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/16/13 at 11:57pm

I tend to always have at least one understudy, but I have never been disappointed.

I have been disappointed by some leads. For example, I wish I could have seen anyone besides the last Glinda I saw in Wicked. She was quite horrible.

#20

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/17/13 at 2:00am

I love understudy performances, by and large. They have an energy to them that normal performances don't, and usually that's a good thing. They don't get enough Love: I saw Adam Chandler Berrett's U/S Jason Ralph in Peter and the Starcatcher. He was wonderful and is now playing the role off Broadway. Other great understudies I've seen include Willis White (for Jose Llana in Spellling Bee), Patrick Wetzel (on as Leo Bloom for Don Stephenson in the national tour of The Producers), Julie Connors (on for Sherie Renee Scott in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels) and Jeannette Bayardelle on for Sascha Allen in Hair. I also caught Barrett Foa's first performance as Princeton/Rod in Avenue Q and, if it counts, Taye Diggs subbing for Norbert Leo Butz in Wicked (I guess this is more of a temporary replacement, but he was on an understudy slip in the playbill.) The only time I can recall feeling like I was missing something was when I saw John Cullum's understudy in Urinetown (Hunter Foster was also out the day I saw it, but his understudy was wonderful.)

#21

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/17/13 at 3:38am

The Wicked example is a good one - I couldn't care less.

But no way was I missing Alice Ripley in NEXT TO NORMAL on the tour, having already missed her on Broadway. I bought tickets for 4/8 performances in Charlotte and was lucky enough to catch her for two of them.

I usually book to see two performance of shows (e.g. Mazzie!N2N, Bernadette!Night Music) to ensure I'm not going to miss the star for at least one.

Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.

Updated On: 7/17/13 at 03:38 AM

#22

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/17/13 at 7:39am

Normally my first reaction is disappointment. Usually the roles are covered exceptionally well. I have been lucky enough to see Megan Hilty when she was a standby in Wicked, saw Corey Cott before he took over for Jeremy Jordan in Newsies, and Patti Karr when she was standby for Michele Lee in Seeasw. Oh yeah- was also there Liza'a first night as Verdon's 'standby' in Chicago. Was NOT upset!

One that irritated me was Michael Urie in How to succeed. The first time Isaw it he was out, but I really wanted to see his take on the role. I went back, asked if he was in that evening's performance (the Hirschfeld box office said "nobody has called out yet") and of course, he was out again. I wouldn't have been angry (performers can get sick at the last minute) but then 2 days later happened to look at his twitter and realized he had been in LA for 3 days that week for "upfronts" for his new TV show. So obviously they knew he would be out and just blew off my question.

oh well. Normally I am not going to see just the name, so a really good understudy can be a treat.

Updated On: 7/17/13 at 07:39 AM

#23

Usual performer vs. understudy

Posted: 7/17/13 at 7:44am

Mmmm box office seem to lie at times. I asked if Elaine Stritch was going to be in NIGHT MUSIC and they said she has never missed a show, when she was out the week before. Maybe they don't all have this knowledge but I doubt it.

Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.

Updated On: 7/17/13 at 07:44 AM

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $95

Tickets From $77

Tickets From $159