What makes a good/great musical theatre performer?- Page 2

[DofB5]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 9:28am

As far as having an off night. Let's put it this way--do YOU ever have an "off" day at work? Let's face it, this is the way these people make their living so they are bound to have a bad day just as we do. Ever have a day where no matter what you do everything seems to go wrong? Why would you think that it would be any different for them? They're human. Thank goodness.

I think I've said it before that part of the charm of live theater is that no two show are going to be EXACTLY alike.

Billy as far as good looks go, you have to admit that being good looking does help. What I guess I didn't say was that my idea of a handsome man or lovely lady may be very different from yours. I'm not saying that looks alone can generate a fan base but it seems to pull more people in than not. Speaking for myself, I can't think of any "ugly" performers but also confess I like some better than others because of their looks.

D

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 10:58am

Actually, Odd, offbeat looks are often of great help to a Broadway performer. Pretty features don't project as well as odd, strong ones. The greatest Broadway stars (certainly musical stars) - Merman, Martin, Raitt, Waters, Channing, Preston, Lillie, Lahr, Durante, Lane, Streisand, Jolson, Lawrence (etc.) have always been a little unconventional looking.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 11:44am

Talent plus TECHNIQUE to begin with. A personality ( the charisma factor) is a real element. Chemistry is a more unique "flavour" more important when casting a show & seeing how the "flavours" mix. And while yes a performer should be allowed to grow & stretch you still have to play to your strengths OTHERWISE we should not have condemed Ms Mellie for her ( albeit lousy) turn on the stage! Pretty people are nice to look @ but unless you are mirror breaking in looks a lot can be done with make up lighting staging and a more "unique" look helps to seperate you from the generalized herd. Just my thoughts!

Posted: 9/14/03 at 11:49am

Master.. do not forget about the unique and striking face of LA LuPone

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 2:38pm

I know they don't have the final say.... I work in this business. i also know that what a casting director recomends/has to say can weigh heavily with the creative team. I also know that "better safe than sorry" is a common opinion/point of view taken. I know of several actors who play the same role five different times in five different shows with five different directors.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 3:30pm

There's so much I want to say but I don't have the time to *defend* every sentence. However, I feel that I can safely add this bit. B'way is the one place(and I've said this ad nauseum before) where the leads are often, FAR from conventionally beautiful. It's one of the big reason's B'way *stars* don't/can't make the transition to the big screen.

Let's face it, Marrin Mazzie, Sutton Foster, as much as I like both of them, are not raving beauties. Even Jane Krakowski is always referred to(when on film/T.V.) as "quirky" or as having "off-beat looks". It is ONLY on Bway, that she is cosidered "beautiful". Before anyone get's their panties in a bunch, I'm paying *kudos* to the B'way community for thinking "outside the box", at least, on this ONE issue. I'll stay mum about all the other points, touched upon.

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 4:13pm

Gawd, I can't believe all the responses to the question. So who decides who is great??? The ticket going public right??? So in the past when there was no internet, no tv, how did people get to know performers like Ethel Merman. Radio, right??? Wouldn't it be "great" if we could have a weekly Radio show from the West End and Broadway that would showcase all these unusually talented people that most people don't know. I have to dig to find anything that plays show music on the radio. My digital cable tv has show tunes. That is a good thing I guess.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 4:21pm

Also, for me, it isn't a matter of name value. It is a matter of me connecting with that performer and being held in the palm of their hand and in awe of what they do.. case in point.. Shoshana Bean.

[superperson]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 8:43pm

I don't believe at all that technical ability is worthless. The great, legendary performers all have the X-factor. But they've also worked all their lives at mastering techical ability. It's wonderful to have natural talent, but you can't do anything without hard work and training. That said, I believe it's possible to be a Broadway performer and make a living without the X-factor. You just won't be a star, but you will be a solid, respected performer, one who people realized have made it by themselves because of their hard work and passion.

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/14/03 at 9:44pm

I love the X-factor. I believe that is the missing ingredient. All great stars have it and it is different in all of them. But they do have it. Something that draws you. Love them or hate them your are drawn to them.

[Poodle]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 9:43am

Such an interesting and thought provoking topic.

Society now often confuses celebrity with ability; good looks with good performance; popularity instead of originality. A true star is able to make us BELIEVE....whatever. Take for example Judi Dench possibly the greatest British actress. She's not conventionally good looking, tiny in stature and no great singer...but she can turn even a musical role into something wonderfully believable. Even manages to convinces us in James Bond films that she is the boss... when she's knee high to a grasshopper!

Great performers have a chameleon quality...they can manipulate an audience making it blind to the obvious and accept the improbable. They lift the script from the page and give it wings. And they surprise us. Or at least that's how it should be.

Unfortunately, greatness is often measured by fame and image. Producers bring film stars to the West End stage because they are popular. I'd say much of it is more like merchandising than performance. You take a brand name and sell it. But that isn't necessarily Art. It's the PR hype people who are great at their jobs, not necessarily the performers.

Then you have performers with a great talent who simply do the same songs or the same type of roles and never come up with anything truly original. Greatness isn't just about hitting the right notes or looking good on stage. It's about creativity and being innovative. Not simply covering other peoples work that has gone before. Many stars tread this safe route and rely on their fans. But I think it stops them far short of the "truly great" bracket.

I'd like to see more opportunity for new work and less revivals, pop tribute shows or stage versions of films. If we're to spot the new stars of the future, great performers also need great work to play.

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 10:03am

Poodle, I agree with you somewhat. But in the end a performer has to be able to perform what is out there. They really are not responsible for the glutch of revivals, etc., or lack of new work. I like to think that some revivals are important. A new generation gets to see Kiss Me Kate for instance. I think there is also a spot for the likes of Lion King, Beauty and The Beast, and Chitty because they bring younger minds into the theatre. I loved Frog and Toad and so did the kidz in the audience. But I guess it could not draw a big enough audience. Then as has been mentioned before performers get typecast very easily. That is sad. Then again when they do something new sometimes they get brutalized because they went outside the box. I think greatness can be measured by success, but also by taking risks and succeeding with those also. Just a thought

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 11:12am

This is quite an interesting thread. And for the most part, I agree with a lot of what has been said. I definitely agree that a performer has to have some kind of charisma, and presence and it must be magnetic. When that person walks on stage all eyes should be on him/her, and the audience should be in the palm of their hands.

Talent is also a big factor too, but that is also very relative. Who someone might consider as talented, may not neccesarily be talented to someone else. But if that person is still able to put on a good show, and somehow entertain while doing so, that's another matter. For a quick example - Marissa Jaret Winokur. I love her - but I have had friends who didn't think she was worth all the hoopla being made about her in Hairspray. Did their opinions really detract from their enjoyment of her contribution to the show overall? Not really.

As for "chemistry" with other cast memebers.....I don't know if that can really be taken into account when determining "star capability". As a performer/actor, I have done shows where everyone was spot "on" most/every night, or where a few cast members always seemed to either not be with, or be on the same level as the cast performance wise, or just seemed to outshine them. And, it wasn't because they were hamming up, it was because the other memebers of the cast just weren't there. So chemistry is, in my opinion a moot point. It's great if you have it with the cast, but that is something that is not always going to be achieved.

As for looks - I find that to be a moot point as well. However, if a certain role requires one to be a looker, then that is different and is an important factor. But if not, if you can convincingly play a part, and your looks don't detract from your performance, who cares what you look like?

Just my humble opinion.

Cheers,
The Balladeer

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 2:38pm

Where does professionalism come into the equation. Is is important?? Does it mean anything???? Does it exist anymore???

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 2:38pm

Where does professionalism come into the equation. Is is important?? Does it mean anything???? Does it exist anymore???

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 2:38pm

Where does professionalism come into the equation. Is is important?? Does it mean anything???? Does it exist anymore???

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 2:40pm

Sorry, I oopsed on the computer at work

[rlbgbc]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 2:57pm

Sharon:

It's been my experience that professionalism ONLY matters to the people that the star works with/for. As far as the audience goes, as long as they deliver onstage, who cares what they're like to work with?

I remember Joel Grey denying the cast of the 87 revival of CABARET a cast party -- or perhaps it was Christmas. He decided that they didn't deserve it...and so there wasn't one. And the awful truth is: you can pull stuff like that,and get away with it,if you're the star. Sucks, don't it?

[Zola LaPlaya]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 3:18pm

I have always said -- a great performer should be able to do the part naked and still be believable.

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 3:18pm

Professionalism does fit in, in the sense that an actor playing/acting in a huge venue such as Broadway, has an obligation to present the best performance all the time, or should try to for the most part. Some performers, such as Laura Benanti, who have been rumoured to miss a lot of performances in various shows she has performed in, can be seen to some as a lack of professionalism. Some things cannot be helped due to illness, deaths, etc. Which I feel is the case with Ms. Benanti.

However, some actors miss performances just for the hell of it, or for frivoulous reasons, or they just give lackluster performances, which the audiences eventually pick up on. They result in being fired, or replaced. THAT's unprofessionalism.

Just my humble opinion.

Cheers,
The Balladeer

[robbiej]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 3:22pm

Rlb,

It's my favorite Christmas special

'The MC Who Stole Christmas'

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 3:49pm

I always thought of profesionalism as kind of an all-encompassing term. You show up, know your lines, know the music, know your cues, deliver a good performance. Am I wrong in that belief??? Being nasty to the people you work with is probably not a good thought, though. They may not get mad but get even. But do we overlook, the self-indulgence, the rudeness, the self absorption, if the "great one" constatly delivers??? What happens to those that are for the most part "nice"???? Do they exist in the musical theatre world??? Can they become "great"????

[rlbgbc]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 3:52pm

From all reports, Mary Martin was pretty good to work with. Almost saccharin. Yet, even those that were put off by her "saccharinity" always said she was a pro -- almost to a fault.

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 4:05pm

Sharon,

You know, again, being "nice" is relative. You are certain to find that things you "heard" from people who "supposedly" worked with a particular actor have their own alterior motives. For example, I have heard many things about Brian Stokes Mitchell, such as "He's so nice, and a fantastic person to work with" to "He's such a bastard backstage....he's a really rude and egotistical person, who is very nasty to his fellow castmates". And I am serious about that. You have to take these things with a grain of salt. Personally, when I met him, he was one of the nicest, and kindest people I have ever met at the stage door, and taking the time to somewhat get to know all of the people waiting to meet him. I say all this to say that people can start rumours about performers for their own personal revenge, knowing that rumors spead quickly, especially negative, and juicy ones....or people can fabricate stories that will make their favorite performer look like an angel - you just have to try and figure out for yourself which ones seem to be true, and which ones seem like utter garbage.

Cheers,
The Balladeer

[sharon1]

Posted: 9/15/03 at 4:43pm

I guess all I am trying to do is find an end to my question. But there is probably not an end. Right???? There is so much that goes into being great in musical theatre. Maybe that is why there are so few "great" ones and a lot of really good ones. Ya think??? We all have our favorites, past and present. Not everyone will agree on how great they are. Right?? But maybe we will all know and appreciate it when we see it. Or not?????