Monday, March 28, 2011
The rise of the understudy: A crisis on stage, starring a cast of total unknowns
The Independent: "Understudies, the dependable but largely invisible actors who provide a safety net for West End stars, are being catapulted out of the dressing room and into the spotlight, as growing numbers of stars are unable to keep up with rigorous performance timetables.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
This article, for me, put into words what I had perhaps understood but not been able to vocalize. It seems like the large problem with the outcry about understudies performing is the audience members coming to the shows without the traditional appreciation for the show being larger than the individual. I think it's understandable to be annoyed that the actor you came to see isn't on. But understanding that you came to see the show, and it's just bad luck, is important. Someone being sick isn't cause for outcry. Understudies are valuable artists too. The show must go on --and in that vein, isn't it nice that you at least got to see the show you planned your evening around?
Ok, to be honest I would not be super pleased if I paid a lot of money to see a show and then did not get the show I was sold. But I think that audiences are missing the bigger picture of the show. If you are just paying to see the famous person then you should be prepared in the event that that does not happen. As they say in the article the show really must go on and if this means that understudies have to go on I don't think that is such a bad thing. It puts new faces on stage and gives more opportunities to people who could be great. There is a reason that they were cast as an understudy.
While I realize that people might be willing to pay more money to see a show because of a big-name star, at the same time I have to consider the fact that the ticket is to see a production-not a star. It's not like buying a ticket to see Lady Gaga. It's buying a ticket to see a given show. While I would be disappointed, as Zoe said, if I didn't get to see the star I thought I was going to, I would still understand. The article said it perfectly. Actors are people, and things come up in their lives. They also need days off. In terms of the actual understudies, I'm glad that this article stresses the fact that these are not second-rate performers. Just because you don't see a celebrity in a show doesn't mean that the show is any less valuable or good. Who knows, the understudy you see one night may go on to be the next big name.
I think the most important part of this article is the part where the author said actors are not machines. This level of anger on the part of theatergoers conveys a very ugly attitude toward the art of theater. It shows that often patrons are not there to see a show but the star they heard about, but if that star is sick instead of being sympathetic or understanding they are angry. The understudies are not viewed as talented people either but as a second rate replacement. It just shows the state of the entertainment industry where celebrities lose their humanity to fame. I think this celebrity worship is both annoying and unfair to both the rest of the audience who came to see a show as my fellow students have pointed out, and to the actors themselves who are in the eyes of these fans not allowed to be human and get sick once and a while.
This is all indicative of the vicious circle that is the star system on Broadway. Producers want to bring in crowds, so they pull big names from TV and film, but then when the performers fall out of the show for whatever reason, the audience often is dissatisfied with the fact that they have a non-star. This then leads to more and more shows with big names in order to meet the desires of the public. Big shows get bigger, and understudies continue to lose public appreciation for their performances. There's no good way to solve this, and certainly discounting tickets because of putting the understudy in doesn't help, but the possibility that the star could drop (literally) before some performance is something that both performers and producers/management need to be aware of and try to safeguard against.
I hate this sigma people have put on understudies. Sometimes understudies are better than the person that was cast in the original role. But people don't give them a chance because they are titled as the "understudy".
However I can understand paying loads of money to see Daniel Radcliffe in "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" and then getting his understudy. Of course I would still want to see the show but I payed to see Harry Potter dance on stage. In these cases with big time stars maybe theaters should think about giving out refunds to people who care that much about a name instead of a show. But for people to get up in arms about understudies going on frustrates me. People get sick, tired, and sometimes they can't perform that the reality and drama of live theater we just have to deal with sometimes.
First, I would like to commend the actress that spoke up for the understudies, stating they were in no way second rate performers just because they did not hold the role full time. However, I do agree that theaters charge higher prices when they have celebrities which then puts a certain value and expectation on the ticket you purchased and possibly splurged on. As exemplified by the Opera that refunded it's members, the ticket price is based on the cast list in some form or another. However, you can't simply refund audiences every time an understudy goes on simply because that is insulting to the understudy. We've all been there when we bought a ticket to see a show simply because of a certain person in it. Any true theatergoer would be sad, but get over it and probably try again. Anyone else might as well just come back and wait for the stage door if all they care about is getting a glimpse of somebody in person.
This is absurd. Theaters have been using understudies for years. This has happened to me. I went to see Rent, and two understudies were on. Here's the thing: Understudies are meant to replicate the performance. So you still get the art of the original artist who developed the roll, just not them on stage. For non theatre goers who are attracted to starts, too bad for you. The articles states it best. They are people not machines. It is hard to sing like that 8 shows a week.
Let them complain.
Post a Comment