Why don’t actors share roles on Broadway?

It was done on JAGGED LITTLE PILL, after Elizabeth Stanley returned from maternity leave. She and Heidi Blickinstaff each did 4 shows a week. Which is not that different from having a permanent alternate, or doing what SWEENEY did in the interim between Groban and Tveit.

With an above-the-title star performer it could create box office and marketing headaches. It's more complicated than just listing who performs when on the website and Telecharge.

It also only works if a performer is, for 8 shows a week, making at least double the Equity minimum, since the base salary wouldn't change.

If someone successfully cracked it, it might be done more.

Updated On: 2/28/24 at 07:33 PM

I think this already happens for any number of reasons.

Donna Murphy did one show a week for much of Bette Midler's Hello, Dolly! run to give her a breather. Same with Julie Benko doing Thursday performances instead of Lea Michele on Funny Girl.

Patina Miller and Montego Glover alternated as the Witch in the recent production of Into The Woods. This might have been about other acting commitments, not sure.

Kid actors alternate on on roles so they're not legally over worked.

The Phantom of the Opera used two actresses for Christine each week, I believe because of how vocally demanding the role is.

Then there is Philip Seymour Hoffman and John C. Reilly who performed in True West every night, but switched which role they were playing.

Laura Linney and Cynthia Nixon alternated the two leading roles in the recent revival of the Little Foxes

Which would get the Tony eligibility? That question automatically makes it not a true 50/50 split.

The8re phan said: "Laura Linney and Cynthia Nixon alternated the two leading roles in the recent revival of the Little Foxes"

Oddly enough, Linney was nominated for a Best Actress Tony Award and Nixon for Best Featured Actress.

I do think that had this been a thing in the early days of the industry, we might have a better infrastructure in place for this regarding things like compensation/awards eligibility etc., but so many Broadway shows have been built on a singular star vehicle in a "must-see" performance, and I think that's just how we conceive of it now. And I think it can be a bit of a "flex" to say that you're doing 8 shows a week, particularly in a difficult role. It's a bit of an accomplishment to be on Broadway for that reason alone.

With all due respect to the healthcare profession, I think there's also not as much personal stake in which provider you see. Obviously, people have preferences and can schedule specifically who they want to see, but if it's an emergency they'll probably take whoever is available. For a Broadway show, if people are spending $200 for a show, it would really depend on the pairing of how actors are splitting roles--if one actor is much more popular than the other, it creates a lopsided supply and demand curve, to the point where it would probably just make more sense to have a lead/alternate schedule anyway.

Of course, there could also theoretically be a pair of actors where there would be "equal" demand for each and it could possibly generate more ticket sales if people want to see both, but given that the main audience for Broadway shows is tourists, I think it would be unlikely for them to see the same show twice unless both actors were VERY compelling. And if it's a matter of generating ticket sales, then that wouldn't be all that different from just having replacement actors later in the run to try to get repeat viewers.

Also as a matter of rehearsal, I think it could be tough to try to mount a new production and rehearse two leads at a time. Understudies usually aren't even rehearsed that much until the show is on its feet, and depending on the show, a lot of the choices that the leading actor makes can really inform how the character is written or the tone of the show, so what do you do when there's two conflicting interpretations? And there's also the question of who to push for marketing and things like TV show appearances.

The types of shows I can see this working for are maybe shows that have already had an initial run with a singular actor and down to replacement casting (like if they had done a 50/50 split for Sweeney between Aaron Tveit and someone else), or maybe celebrity casting with a notable Broadway actor as the secondary actor (you could have your celebrity to generate tickets amongst the non-theater crowd and a big theater star for tickets among the theater crowd, though striking the right balance might still be tricky), or something like Six where the show is built more on ensemble and less on individual stars (and they also have a fairly dedicated fanbase with a lot of people who want to see every iteration of the role).

It is purely economics. Assuming an actor equally splitting a role would make 1/2 of the salary is one consideration for the actor. Having different actors requiring multiple costumes and rehearsal schedules would be a major economic consideration for the producer.

As a side note, you might be interested in looking up the South Korean scene, which casts 2-3 people in each lead role as a matter of course, at least in musicals. (I think Japan sometimes does this as well.) This blog post highlights some of the problems with that approach: https://musicalholic21.wordpress.com/2023/04/23/article_trans-overlap-appearance-problem/. Reading between the lines, one can see some potential benefits as well. For example, double/triple-casting is apparently so universal over there that a star can potentially star part-time in two shows at once, because both shows are already dealing in multiple part-time stars. That would theoretically solve the salary challenge for that person, while a different star might just do a 'half week' in a single role if that would work better for them. However I'll admit that that's an optimistic view, while this article points out how it can play out in reality, for example, "Many actors who play the lead role [...] can [only] earn enough income through overlapping appearances, so they appear in several works, and this often causes them to be criticized by the audience for poor physical condition."

Edit: It's also interesting to see how the marketing for multiple stars in the same roles is handled. For example, this promo video for 'Death Note': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz0SQtGuX-Q.

Updated On: 2/29/24 at 03:35 PM

On its face, I don’t think double casting a role and divvying up performances between the actors each week is a bad idea. And there is some precedence here that I’m surprised hasn’t been mentioned yet: Billy Elliott and Matilda basically did what is being suggested, only with kids.

The main problem of course is that the industry is built on the assumption principal actors will play all or most of the performances in a week. So yeah there would need to be discussions on how to contract it, pay it, how it gets covered, and so on. But I don’t think it’s insurmountable.

I think it’s something better suited to long running shows, though. New productions rely a lot on having must-see performances, and producers will likely see having multiple performers handling a role as something confusing to audiences. Actors themselves will likely be unwilling to cede the spotlight when they’re taking on a role in a new show.


But long running hits- why not? Why not have two actresses playing Elphaba or something, and splitting the performance schedule? Most ticket buyers won’t care or notice.

I recall when Ferryman was on Broadway, they hired 4 six-month old babies but only 1 performed each evening. Each performance had 2 babies backstage and each baby can perform at most 4x a week. Each baby was paid around $1000/week, which is not bad.

Effie White is a role that should have two actresses in the part. Maybe one day a revival producer will realize that.

I think that, while it is mostly because of billing and economics, as many people have said, a big part of it is cultural. I know, personally, that, as an aspiring Broadway performer with a background in opera, I hear people doing things with their voices in community and lower level professional theatre productions with me and scoff, thinking "they'd never make it through eight shows a week." In my mind, it's somehow a right of passage, almost like you aren't "worthy" unless you can do eight shows a week. It's a horrible outlook, but I think that a lot of people implicitly think that. Of course, for all I know I'd die if I had to do eight shows a week. I'll update you on that when I make my Broadway debut.