Where have all the Broadway stars gone?- Page 2

[Baine]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 4:05pm

EponineAmneris--Thanks! I've actually been considering changing it because it's kinda old now...I just haven't had any free time to tinker around in Photoshop.....and now that I do, I don't know what I want! Haha! And I agree--Adam must come back. I was hoping that he would go from Workshop to Stage with "Tarzan" (even better if he were to play Tarzan himself, mm!). It's the only thing that would have made me want to see the show. Then again, he has the talent to do better, greater things.

Chloe--I wasn't sure if anyone else was in it or not. I kind of thought someone else had been there, but hadn't been sure. Wasn't there somewhere else that Adam and Anthony opened besides London where it WAS only them?...Then again, my memory might be playing tricks on me. Everything tends to blend together into a jumble after so much time has elapsed, you know? If we could surgically remove my memory and peer into it, it would probably look like a ball of tumbleweed blowing around on the prairie. ^.~

[LifeoftheParty227]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 4:22pm

Perhaps it's the nastalgia that makes the Broadway show and its performers memorable. It's common to look back and think the performances were absolutely amazing, and simply discard today's shows because they haven't really lived up to the past's hype. But yeah, I agree for the most part. Stars today seem to lack the zha zha zoom and passion that made the greats so great. However, it seem like an unlikely goal to create a profitable show for one star. Not because it cannot be done, but because if the show did succeed, the show won't have that spark without the leading star. Does that make sense? I'm just hypothesizing about the question, because it's a good one.

Perhaps we're in a Star slump right now and, with any hope for the future, we'll soon have more Gregory Hines and Jennifer Holidays on our hands.
Updated On: 6/20/06 at 04:22 PM

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 4:38pm

well said, val

[Another 100 People]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 4:47pm

Karen Ziemba has skills and is a lovely woman by all accounts but she has absolutely no charisma whatsoever. I want to like her but I've never found her to be memorable. She is a craftsman though, I give her that.

[ahimsa]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 5:46pm

I'd like to quote Ben Brantley from his May 21 '06 NYT article.

"A Living ghost walks on Broadway. ...Though its guises are many, it always exudes the same damp aura of unconvincing jollity, like that of a superannuated party girl who lost her confidence with her youth and has taken to wearing her daughter's trendy clothes. Such is the face of the American musical in the year 2006.

A dozen 'new' (and the word insists on quotation marks) musicals opened on Broadway during the last year. Yet no matter how loud their scores or colorful their costumes, few of these productions had robust existences of their own. Often inspired by movies , pop songbooks or best-selling novels, they are to their source material what the T-shirts and souvenir programs on sale in theater lobbies are to the shows within: disposable reminders of the real things.

The Broadway musical as an artificial aide-mémoire, a phenomenon that lets audiences experience the deeply familiar in newly diluted forms, has been incubating for more than a decade. ...These productions, which are rare in their lack of interpretive laziness, are too vibrant, too aggressively present tense to be dismissed as nostalgia. Cultural nostalgia is about comfort, not confrontation, and encourages consumers to relive an illusory time when things seemed simpler, lighter, more fun. The extraordinary element about the current crop of new musicals is they don't even really try to summon other worlds or eras or fantasy lands; what they do is point, with a huckster's wink and a host of bright shorthand references, to best sellers, hit movies and Top 40 songs that market surveys guarantee audiences already know and love."

To me, Ben's writing was quite insightful and I quote him here because, in my estimation, becoming a Broadway star means succeeding in a succession accomplished roles that do "summon other worlds, era or fantasies."

I'll never forget being a small child at my first broadway show, Follies, when Alexis Smith took the stage. I didn't know who she was, but from the love and appreciation that the audience emitted when she walked out on stage, I knew she must have been someone highly regarded. That's the memory that keeps me typing in here. But I digress.

Today, my goodness, the closest I've come to that same feeling was when Georgia Engel walked on at DC or when the butler from the Nanny was in La Cage. No disrespect intended, because I do adore both performers, but providing Niles and Georgette the same accolades as Ms. Smith or Ms. Rivera?

It's easy to say it's the dumbing down and Disneying of Broadway, but as Ben put it, the shows are becoming disposable reminders of what was once real, built on marketing hype with seats sold based upon a "I loved the era, didn't you?" mentality or a demand derived from appeasing children.

Given that, we have more Broadway Darlings du Jour than we do Bonafide Legends in the Making. And I don't see how that will change in the near future, and perhaps its not meant to.

Updated On: 6/20/06 at 05:46 PM

[JustABroadwaybaby2]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 8:19pm

"Yes, Victoria Clark, Kelli O'Hara, Audra McDonald, Kristin Chenoweth and Sutton Foster all sound like they just came off of American Idol." - God, i hope that was sarcasm!
Well, anyway, I think that current Broadway stars are just...different from the older stars. Not less talented, hell no.
They judt have different belty stuff, different operatic sounds, and of course, different music to work with. Of course blame isn't to be laid entirely on either half, the writing or the people!
I agree. We don't have new musicals that are as good as A Chorus Line, or Gypsy, or Follies,or Cabaret, or Chicago, or Annie, Get Your Gun, or anything relatively like that. We have different stuff, which is what I like about what Drowsy has to convey to us.
If the theater is taking us into a different place, so be it.
I mean, look at Jersey Boys winning best msucial, and look who presented it: Julie Andrews. From two different palces, but theater, nonetheless.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 8:31pm

"I mean, look at Jersey Boys winning best msucial, and look who presented it: Julie Andrews. From two different palces, but theater, nonetheless."

*claps* WELL said, JustABroadwaybaby2

Times, they are a changin' and so is The GREAT White Way. It will always be great and unique and home to the most versitile, talented, hardworking people in the entertainment business.

I try to- and most often DO- find a good point to every show and/or performer. I am a Broadway person who has had much time on both sides of the stage, meaning on stage AND in a red velvet seat- and I know how hard it is. None of them get up there to fail or do poorly.

Oh- add Kelli O'Hara to the list of New Broadway Stars if you please

Updated On: 6/20/06 at 08:31 PM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 9:39pm

The way i see it everybody knows who Ethel Merman, Carol Burnett, Julie Andrew, and Angela Lansbury are, but the most of the new broadway stars are not know outside of the theatre world.

Ask most people on the street ( outside of new york city ) who these people are Victoria Clark, Kelli O'Hara, Audra McDonald, Kristin Chenoweth and Sutton Foster and most people would not be able to tell you.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 9:48pm

Two of the reasons that larger-than-life personas have disappeared from our stages are the electronic media and technology.
Television not only encourages passivity and laziness in our culture but reduces life's passions and complexities to disposable sound bytes and one-liners sandwiched in between commercials for pet food, cars and tampons. It certainly does not offer a philosophy of man's place in the universe (other than in front of a TV) comparable to the Greeks or Elizabethans! Television's death-grip on our culture has permeated the theater in both substance and style (Avenue Q, for example) and the result is a loss of stories and characters of out-sized emotions, depth and passion, the very stuff of theater. It's also our society's misfortune that we now tend to suspiciously view excessive human behavior as strictly pathological, a reductivist attitude that would diminish the cosmic, existential struggles of such characters as Oedipus, Othello, and Hamlet to mere neurosis.

In addition, the technological intrusion of amplification in our theaters robs the actor of one of his/her most precious assets, vocal production and projection, and the sheer physical energy and stamina required to do so. Hence, the performances become less vibrant, present, and theatrical in register and scope.

It's no surprise then that we suffer a lack of charismatic personalities on our stages since we no longer have a theatrical environment that fosters or sustains them.
In short, theater is looking and sounding more and more like TV every day (with product placement soon to defile our stages). It's enough to make the theater gods weep.



Marcus Lycus
Rome, Italy

[mathewbrock]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 1:54am

My goodness, these are GREAT points. Keep the opinions comin'! I love to hear what people think on this topic. What about originality of the voice? Anyone think actors aren't allowed to have as much "personality" with their roles like they used to? Is it the way theatre is being written? Is it an effort to be cast more? (i.e. rid yourself of all your quirks, so you can be cast across the board...) When do you think pop culture will find its way to Broadway? Or are they two separate roads now, never to meet again? Can you imagine a Rob Thomas musical? I think that could have its chances... Keep it up! Intelligent discussion thrills me.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:07am

We have some great talent.

I believe the problem lies in the fact that the U.S. government does not provide appropriate subsidies to the arts, including theatre, that helps nuture and develop our talent in a more protected environment. The last figure I remember (several years old) was that in Europe the governments were spending like $18.00 per year per capita (citizen) compared to 50 cents a head in the U.S.

The National Endowment for the Arts was gutted by right-wingers who felt threatened by art some time ago. Think how much more theatre could be developed if there were 36 times as much federal funding. Grants to artists to study, take artistic sabbaticals, pay for dance, acting and singing lessons, or to write new works without having to worry about where the rent money is coming from. Updated On: 6/21/06 at 02:07 AM

[Over_the_Moon]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:20am

Sort of related question- Would a truly unique actor be held back by being cast as a replacement rather than creating a role?

[LostLeander]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:28am

I think Ashley Brown and Eden Espinosa are the anti-Broadway Stars.

Perfect voices, zero charisma.

Well, I actually can't say that about Ashley Brown; I'll have to wait for Mary Poppins for judgment.

But Eden Espinosa is an it girl of now, and I can't imagine her being remembered. Certainly not for replacing Idina, or starring in that Oh so praised Brooklyn. Girl can sing. She can't do much else though.

Linda Eder is not a star and she has an INCREDIBLE instrument. Zero charisma. What Broadway is heading for these days is that girl who can belt High Zs to the rafters 8 times a week, and what gets sacrificed is personality, individuality, and ultimately star power.

Barbra Streisand was the last STAR of it's kind. She conquered Broadway (well.. kind of) movies and music and everyone knows who she is.

But, as previously noted, the worlds of film, music, and theatre have become horribly divided, especially film and theatre, which is a shame. Victoria Clark is a STAR and gives a remkarkably brilliant performance, but no one outside of New York cares, really. To be a star nowadays in the sense of Minelli, Merman, etc, I think you have to be a pop star, cross over into movies, and THEN do Broadway. You must be SUPER talented though.

Gleason, Prince, Lane, Chenoweth, etc etc etc etc have ALL tried to break into TV, but CAN'T. They're super talented, but no one knows who they are.

Neither Hollywood nor the music industry are giving these ultra talented people a chance.

Please, someone let Audra loose on a fierce movie role and tell me she won't be famous. I mean, she did get an Emmy nod for being the NURSE (!) in Wit.

Still wishful thinking though.

Sigh, I'm tired.

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 11:10am

I know that becoming a Broadway star is a VERY admirable goal in an of itself and it demeans stage performers to imply that Broadway is a mere stepping stone to the more widely seen and definitely more lucrative mediums of television and movies.

But sometimes, I wonder if the jealous guarding of Broadway talent by the most hardcore theater fans, doesn't sometimes end up hindering people's careers in other mediums AND in theater.

I mean, the Brits go back and forth between stage, screen and television all the time and people actually think of that as a GOOD thing. But based on the attitudes of theater fans who post on these boards, American theater actors are supposed to want to do theater and nothing else.


Sometimes it feels like this is 1912 when many hoity-toity stage stars thought that doing movies was prostituting their art and was waaay beneath them?!!! The nose-in-the-air attitude is certainly the same.

But tell me, did Christine Baranski, Harriet Harris and David Hyde Pierce become less talented because they took that filthy lucre from TV?

You'd think so based on all the complaining you hear when people leave to do TV (How dare they!) or return from TV ( Who do those people think they are?).

Forget the fact that these actors frequently bring new audiences with them when they return to stage work (which benefits the theatrical community at large). The fact that they left in the first place makes people feel that these performers should be punished because after all, any real artist should want to do stage work ONLY.

This is such a self-defeating attitude because a fluidity between the major entertainment mediums of recording artists, TV actors, screen actors and stage actors actually benefits more people than it hurts.

But people want to hold on to the high school-like cliquishness of being fans of performers who are so obsure, they are known ONLY to fellow theatergeeks. It's the same type of attitude that you see in fans of underground music who don't want their favorite bands to get big because they won't have them all to themselves any longer.

Why are people so afraid of seeing their favorites in any other medium? Do they fear they will fall on their faces? Or worse, that they will do mediocre work?

Guess what? No matter how much artistic integrity an artist might have, 99.99 percent want to be big stars in more than one medium and have their work seen and appreciated by as many people as possible. So THEY are willing to take that chance even if their theatergeek fans aren't.

But theater snobbery hurts their efforts.

Why are theater people so highfalutin? Why do they seem to WANT to keep the legitimate stage marginalized?

Heck, even Jessica Tandy didn't think she was too good for films.

And I don't agree that trying to sell theater to the masses means that you MUST compormise artistically.





Updated On: 6/21/06 at 11:10 AM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 12:55pm

To perform on the stage takes a lot more training than to act in TV or film. It takes years to train a voice for the stage, and if you are a triple threat, years to learn dance and singing and the kind of acting required for the stage. Generally actors who act with a more flat naturalism on TV and in film (both of which are mic'd) don't have this training and bomb onstage.

And, a certain few actors have tremendous "stage presence."

The reason why the Brits can bop around from stage to TV to film is, for every famous one I can think of, because they were first trained to be lyrical actors for the stage. And their training was much more subsidized by their government.

Theatre fans are not capable of "jealously guarding" their acting talent. The talent goes where it likes. What is hard for fans is knowing that certain talent is out there and would be wonderful on the stage, but it has had to go to television or movies for the better pay that even commercial theaters cannot offer. The fans want to experience the electric stage presence of this talent onstage which gives greater dimension to the show, and if it isn't there, they know what is missing and are sad for the lack of it. Updated On: 6/21/06 at 12:55 PM

[Katecab99]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 4:17pm

I truly believe that someday both Sutton Foster and Kelli O'Hara will reign as our generation's big Broadway stars. They both have magnificent careers ahead of them on the stage.
Updated On: 6/21/06 at 04:17 PM

Posted: 6/21/06 at 4:49pm

"In 1997, producers tried to create a new triple threat sensation in Karen Ziemba via STEEL PIER. WHile Ziemba was quite good in the show, the show was mediocre and flopped."

In my opinion it was Ziemba that was mediocre, not the show. She seemed very out of place in that show. That show deserved what this thread is all about, a forceful talent.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 5:01pm

The biggest problem is Hollywood. We STEAL every single star that Broadway creates. We offer Broadway stars salaries that equal in a month what they would make in a year, in a hit show. We offer the chance to be loved not by 1200 people a night, but MILLIONS. Victoria Clark, Kelli O'Hara, Audra McDonald, Kristin Chenoweth and Sutton Foster will all be lured out to Hollywood. And so few come back. It's sad.

Someone mentioned Britain. There, actors do go from stage to TV to screen. Mainly because the three are all done in the London vicinity and it's easy to do several medicas at once. In addition, film pays not much more than stage over there. TV as well.

Blame Holywood.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 6:43pm

I think theatre fans are dissapointed when an actor goes off to screen because there's little chance they'll come back because our entertainment industry is so ridiculous.

Posted: 6/21/06 at 6:45pm

"...loooong tiiiiime paaaassssiiing..."

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 6:47pm

"Someone mentioned Britain. There, actors do go from stage to TV to screen. Mainly because the three are all done in the London vicinity and it's easy to do several medicas at once. In addition, film pays not much more than stage over there. TV as well."

None of them pay very well - in fact, Broadway salaries far exceed West End salaries as a general rule.

As far as STEEL PIER, I saw it three times. No single actor was to blame. It was out of their hands. I found Ziemba, Monk and Chenoweth to all be outstanding in their respective roles.

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 06:47 PM

[harris007]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 9:00pm

"the Brits go back and forth between stage, screen and television all the time and people actually think of that as a GOOD thing. But based on the attitudes of theater fans who post on these boards, American theater actors are supposed to want to do theater and nothing else"



yes but the movies they do back up their talent, not stupid comedies or teen movies.

[DG]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 9:24pm

Enchanted Hunter - Great post - thanks.

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 9:29pm

I know I'm showing up late to the game, but I'd like to jump on the Charlotte D'Amboise bandwagon. Can someone somewhere please do whatever necessary to make this woman a star of the first order? Everyone pays their dues, but this woman deserves a refund check.


And mathewbrock, great topic!

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 10:11pm

Very well said, EnchantedHunter.