Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Acting Dog Gets Canned For Disobedience
Business Insider: A corgi has been sacked from the West End play The Audience for refusing to obey the command of Dame Helen Mirren, playing the Queen.
It is the hit West End show that is delighting critics and the public alike.
Via Jezebel
It seems that animals are truly winning the hearts of theatre-goers, and it is easy to see why: they're new, they're interesting, and they're just so cute. It's awe-inducing to see them so well-behaved and happy throughout each performance. But it's amazing that producers and other people behind the curtain are just as fond of their furry friends. Don't animals require a lot of upkeep? These corgis are being spoiled to pieces, how does that factor into the budget of the show? But there is definitely one perk of having animals in the show - actors can't be replaced with new people in twenty minute rehearsals nearly as easily as dogs can.
Isn't there a saying that'd like "don't work with children or animals"? Either way, I love every show that has a live animal in it, especially dogs. I did Pippin, but we used a pug named Stella. Of course, Stella didn't do much, but still, she was the star of the show (she got a standing ovation every night). It must be hard to work with animals on stage, but by god they do make the show.
I think it's great to try and add in the use of animals to a production. It really makes it feel more realistic for the audience. I saw Anything Goes a year ago and they had used stuffed animals for the animals in the show and it all just didn't work too well for me. However, when dealing with animals, the need of "understudies" is definitely necessary. I'm glad to hear that their replacement worked well for the show instead of having it become a flop. I hope that more theaters try to incorporate real animals in their shows so that they don't make their show unrealistic for the audience.
This just goes to show that you really cant teach and old dog new tricks, in this case the younger dog (by two years- which lets be honest is A LOT in dog years, that would be like choosing robert dinero over ryan Reynolds for an action movie!) won out.
I was so happy to see the smiling face of an adorable corgie looking back at me after reading the title of the article and openeing it up! honestly if a dog is gonna mis behave it should be a corgi especially when dealing with characters like the queen. just look at what shes done for corgies images! the used to be wild majestic creaturesnow there just mundane boreing safe dogs that follow the queen around.
It make sense to me, if the actor is not performing then you must let them go. So I see no reason why this should not be the same case for dogs, horses, and anything. I do find it interesting that the article talked about Lizzy being jealous or conflicted with her co-star and not being able to perform. As a result of that jealousy Lizzy decided to not do as she was supposed to and got canned. Just entertains me that the dog was supposedly jealous of her younger co-star. Animals surprise me and are just ridiculous. I am also curious about the treatment of the animals vs the treatment of his own children. REALLY? I realize that the animals are your living hood but to be treated better then your children. There are most definitely some priorities that are mixed up there. So well let just see what happens.
I feel like every time I see an animal in a show, you just add a whole other thick layer of complication to the production. I wonder what it was that Lizzy was so against that she wouldn't perform. And dogs are notoriously easy to train compared to other animals, I can't even imagine what goes into training a circus or animal-heavy show. But I also think that a lot of credit should be given to a show for including animals and deciding to work with that rather large undertaking, and do it (hopefully) flawlessly every night.
Sounds about right. A dog in a show is a charcater just like any of the human actors and should therefore act accordingly and appropriately, consistently too. The buissness of animal training has actually always fascinated me, and in a way this shouldnt be seen as a failure on the dog's part but rather the trainers for not delivering on their contract for a reliable working animal.
7 comments:
It seems that animals are truly winning the hearts of theatre-goers, and it is easy to see why: they're new, they're interesting, and they're just so cute. It's awe-inducing to see them so well-behaved and happy throughout each performance. But it's amazing that producers and other people behind the curtain are just as fond of their furry friends. Don't animals require a lot of upkeep? These corgis are being spoiled to pieces, how does that factor into the budget of the show? But there is definitely one perk of having animals in the show - actors can't be replaced with new people in twenty minute rehearsals nearly as easily as dogs can.
Isn't there a saying that'd like "don't work with children or animals"? Either way, I love every show that has a live animal in it, especially dogs. I did Pippin, but we used a pug named Stella. Of course, Stella didn't do much, but still, she was the star of the show (she got a standing ovation every night). It must be hard to work with animals on stage, but by god they do make the show.
I think it's great to try and add in the use of animals to a production. It really makes it feel more realistic for the audience. I saw Anything Goes a year ago and they had used stuffed animals for the animals in the show and it all just didn't work too well for me. However, when dealing with animals, the need of "understudies" is definitely necessary. I'm glad to hear that their replacement worked well for the show instead of having it become a flop. I hope that more theaters try to incorporate real animals in their shows so that they don't make their show unrealistic for the audience.
This just goes to show that you really cant teach and old dog new tricks, in this case the younger dog (by two years- which lets be honest is A LOT in dog years, that would be like choosing robert dinero over ryan Reynolds for an action movie!) won out.
I was so happy to see the smiling face of an adorable corgie looking back at me after reading the title of the article and openeing it up! honestly if a dog is gonna mis behave it should be a corgi especially when dealing with characters like the queen. just look at what shes done for corgies images! the used to be wild majestic creaturesnow there just mundane boreing safe dogs that follow the queen around.
POWER TO THE PUPPIES. DOGGIE UNION.
It make sense to me, if the actor is not performing then you must let them go. So I see no reason why this should not be the same case for dogs, horses, and anything. I do find it interesting that the article talked about Lizzy being jealous or conflicted with her co-star and not being able to perform. As a result of that jealousy Lizzy decided to not do as she was supposed to and got canned. Just entertains me that the dog was supposedly jealous of her younger co-star. Animals surprise me and are just ridiculous. I am also curious about the treatment of the animals vs the treatment of his own children. REALLY? I realize that the animals are your living hood but to be treated better then your children. There are most definitely some priorities that are mixed up there. So well let just see what happens.
I feel like every time I see an animal in a show, you just add a whole other thick layer of complication to the production. I wonder what it was that Lizzy was so against that she wouldn't perform. And dogs are notoriously easy to train compared to other animals, I can't even imagine what goes into training a circus or animal-heavy show. But I also think that a lot of credit should be given to a show for including animals and deciding to work with that rather large undertaking, and do it (hopefully) flawlessly every night.
Sounds about right. A dog in a show is a charcater just like any of the human actors and should therefore act accordingly and appropriately, consistently too. The buissness of animal training has actually always fascinated me, and in a way this shouldnt be seen as a failure on the dog's part but rather the trainers for not delivering on their contract for a reliable working animal.
Post a Comment