Why do people say they "got" an understudy?

[Pashacar]

Posted: 1/6/20 at 10:59am

I've always wondered about this small quirk of theatergoing vernacular.

Say an understudy goes on. Most people, when telling their friends afterwards, will say they "got" that understudy, or "had" that understudy. Very few will say they "saw" that understudy, even though that's how they'd describe most anything else from the evening. Why is this?

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/6/20 at 11:40am

That’s an interesting question. I appreciate questions like this because I also like to pick apart linguistic things like this. I had to think about this for several minutes, but I think I figured out a possible explanation: 

First, like most colloquialisms, I think it's largely unconscious, but I think one explanation for why that subconscious language might have come about is that in this context, "got" is a more passive verb than "see."

In some contexts, the verb "to get" could be used to mean "going out and getting something," to seek out and acquire something, which is active. But in this context it's more like passively "receiving" - we didn't seek out the understudy, but it was given to us. We "got" one. Similarly, on the flip side, the verb "to see" could also be passive in some contexts, but in the context of theatre, it feels more active. Because you're putting in the active effort to buy an expensive ticket, going to theatre, and making an evening of it (same reason you "see" a movie in theatres, but "watch" a movie at home).

So basically, going to "see" theatre, or even "seeing" a regularly-scheduled actor, is all part of the same active choice, over which the person has control** But "getting" an understudy is something that happens to you, and you don't control it, so it's more like something you passively "receive" (aka "get" or "have"

 

**(obviously you don't ACTUALLY control if you see the regularly-scheduled principals, but because they do most performances, and because people often go to shows specifically to see certain stars, it feels to the audience member as if it's a decision they are in control of) 

Updated On: 1/6/20 at 11:40 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/6/20 at 12:24pm

As you formulate it, the connotation is negative (in the nature of "I got [stuck with] the understudy". When a person rather than a job description is mentioned, I think folks say "I saw" so-and-so. Or, even more positively, "I got to see ... "

[Mark Waltz]

Posted: 1/6/20 at 1:27pm

Imagine in 1954 you come home and tell your family, "I got Shirley MacLaine instead of Carol Haney. Who is Shirley MacLaine?" A year later, you come home from seeing "The Trouble With Harry" in the movies and you say enthusiastically, "I remember when I got her as the understudy in "The Pajama Game". Boy did I get lucky!" I had that happen for me twice for "Wicked", once Eden Espinoza over Idina Menzel, and Laura Bell Bundy for Kristen Chenoweth. Boy did I get lucky! (I did see Idina w/Laura & Eden w/Kristen, so it was double luck I got!)

 

[Justin D]

Posted: 1/6/20 at 2:34pm

maybe its seen subconsciously as transnational, I paid to see so and so but got so and so instead, like I paid for a bottle of milk but got a coke.

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/6/20 at 2:39pm

Because that's what happens. You "get" one. You don't ask for one, you rarely intentionally seek out a performance on a day you know an understudy will be on. You buy your ticket in the hopes that you will see the advertised cast, but sometimes you "get" an understudy among them.

But as others have pointed out, the sentence construction doesn't imply a negative. I saw A Chorus Line in the 80's, and lucked into a performance that included Donna McKechnie in her return engagement as Cassie (pure luck: I was 16 and had no idea who she was until I read the Playbill, my mom who bought our tickets for the trip had zero knowledge of Broadway history and didn't choose the dates based on them, and I've learned in years since that though she was supposed to be back for a good number of performances, in fact she only made it to a small number of them). But maybe the real luck was that we got an understudy as Sheila in that performance, and she walked off with the show (granted, Sheilas tend to do that).