Why do performers of today have no STAR quality?

They have talent sure (in abundance), but where's that special something, that magic X that says 'star!'?

Is Bernadette the last one?

Maybe you're just not seeing it. Because I sure am in some of them.

MFL, I daresay that Ms. McGovern has been a genuine star for 30+ years.

---

I think the word 'star' has been diluted. Marilyn Monroe was a star. Audrey Hepburn was a star. Maureen McGovern is clearly talented, but star? No. Not in my eyes. Talent does not equal 'star'.

However, before you pounce - I respect all of your opinions!

Updated On: 8/24/05 at 08:12 PM

As a STAR performer...who takes SUPPORTING roles.

But please don't misunderstand me, I do like her enormously - she charmed me no end in Little Women, and she has a beautiful voice.

There aren't many lead roles on Broadway for a woman her age, now, are there? Taking a supporting role on Broadway doesn't make her any less a star. And she sure made it into a star turn, in my book, and in most of the reviewers' and audience members' books as well. That is the mark of a star.

---

Updated On: 8/24/05 at 08:22 PM

Sutton Foster, Kristin Chenoweth, Audra McDonald

Billy Porter, Michael Arden, Matthew Morrison

---

Interesting Question. I think "Star" quality has as much to do with the public relations industry working overtime as it has to do with anything else.
Theatre needs great actors, people who are talented and dedicated to their craft, people who can move us, scare us, make us smile. In the Theatre the show or play must be the star. If a show can only run because its star is in, it really is a show about worshipping a performer rather than anything the authors have to say. A recent example is "Boy From Oz."

If you are hungry for worshipping other human beings stick with movies and television. If you want a soul enriching experience go see a great play, done well, with a talented cast.

---

Now hold on. Are we talking about people who have star QUALITY, or that ARE stars? You're right in saying that people don't make the huge deal about Broadway stars the way they used to, but people still flock in droves to see Bernadette Peters, Nathan Lane, Christina Applegate, Hugh Jackman, John Lithgow and Patti LuPone. And then you've got the folks to will BE stars big enough to sell an entire show soon like Kristin and Audra and Sutton.

There are a lot more people that have star QUALITY than there are that are actual STARS. People don't always get what they deserve.

---

All of those people lived in an age when the movie studios were run by publicity machines.

And Merman was a force on Broadway - because shows were written for her talent. That doesn't happen anymore. Sometimes it does, but it doesn't seem to really work out so well anymore...it's just not done like it used to be.

---

"How can you compare her to Marilyn Monroe, Ethel Merman, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn etc.?"


How can you compare Marilyn MOnroe to Bette Davis?

Monroe was a "media icon"

Bette Davis was a STAR (as was Hepburn and Merman)!

---

I think Hugh Jackman has immense star quality, but also has the fortunes of being a star.

---

And Merman was a force on Broadway - because shows were written for her talent. That doesn't happen anymore. Sometimes it does, but it doesn't seem to really work out so well anymore...it's just not done like it used to be.

I agree with this statement. Shows are simply not being written as well as they were in the past and do not showcase the talent as they did years ago. That, and the fact that Broadway has become like an assmebly line of shows that open and close within 6 mos. to a year. This leaves little room for "stars" to become legendary as in the past.

In my opinion, Producers, DRS, Boy From Oz and maybe Spamalot are good examples of well written shows that proved to be a springboard to those who star(ed)in them. And Broderick, Jackman, Lithgow, Curry, Hyde-Pierce were already well established names in the industry.

Broadway is swallowed up by other forms of entertainment that is preferred by the general audiences. It simply does not have the impact it did in the past. And less people are willing to put out $100 for shows that may not like. That's why so many Idinas, Kristins, etc. etc are moving on. But that doesn't mean people will remember them 5 years from now.

There's no simple answer to this. It a combination of many factors that have changes over time.

---