NYTimes.com: The geese who fly east from Hollywood on an annual basis, looking for a little Broadway luster to boost their showbiz stock, aren’t laying as many golden eggs as they normally do this season. As Patrick Healy noted recently, the box office at the Richard Rodgers Theater, where Scarlett Johansson is starring in a revival of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” has not exactly been inundated since the show opened to middling reviews in January. Nor did Katie Holmes’s ballyhooed return to Broadway after a tumultuous few years as constant tabloid fodder do much for “Dead Accounts,” the Theresa Rebeck play that closed quickly in the fall after opening to sour reviews and sluggish ticket sales.
7 comments:
I wholeheartedly agree with the author of this article. It is unfortunate that the availability of a Hollywood star can be a driving factor in the decision to produce (or not produce) a play on Broadway. There are so many talented stage actors that could probably give a better performance than a Hollywood actress who has never set foot onstage in her life. As the author of the article pointed out, people are thankfully wising up to this fact, and not buying tickets to shows based solely on which star is in them.
It is disheartening to see that so many successful actors in film are so inept when it comes to live theater. While I can definitely see the draw of having a celebrity Hollywood actor star in a Broadway show, it is disappointing that many cannot give as riveting of a performance as a lesser known stage actor. I agree with this author in hoping that maybe one day soon directors and producers will realize that too. From an actor's perspective, it also makes me realize the differences between acting for stage and acting for film, and makes me appreciate even more the training that I am getting here at CMU - to be prepared to act on stage, for live audiences, and also for the camera.
I agree with points in the previous two comments. Producers's choices for upcoming shows should not be limited to whatever Hollywood star is ready to play the stage for awhile. It makes me think that people are starting to forget why theatre is done in the first place. There's a deeper meaning behind the art or the spectacle. It is not done just to raise money and sell out the box office. Also, it is sad to see thriving film actors whither when they hit the boards. I think an actor of true talent, a chameleon if you will, could seamlessly transition between stage and film.
It is always understandable why movie stars are chosen to play leads on broadway...ticket sales, but if you have a bad show and bad reviews, everyone looses in the end. All film actors are not trained for stage and if a production needs a movie star that can not do stage to drive it along it must not be that great of a show. As stated above an actor of true talent should be able to do both effortlessly and that is because they should be trained to do so. Stage and film are two completely different ball games, and although there are some actors like Phylicia Rashad who can do both flawlessly, it is not for everyone.
It's interesting to see how many film actors turn out to be a lot less successful on stage. I agree with people commenting on this that the this is due to the different training and skills required by each type of performance. But what is also interesting is that movie stars performing badly on Broadway stages isn't a stereotype yet; audiences still go to shows featuring a famous Hollywood actor, without expecting them to be a disappointment. It seems that despite the fact that this is a definite theme running here, but it's not yet a "standard" for film actors on stage to be a let down.
As other people have mentioned in their comments, this article brings up the interesting (and in my opinion, true) idea that acting for the screen and acting on the stage are two very different beasts, and require different talents and techniques. Judging by the examples that this article gives, it seems that older Hollywood stars seem to fare better with drawing audiences to the theatre, even if their reviews weren't stellar. This makes sense to me, since older people (who make a up a relatively large percent of theatre-goers), will recognize the name Tom Hanks, and be willing to pay money to see him, and may not recognize Emilia Clarke or Katie Holmes as much. Even if they do recognize the names, neither actress is known as an absolutely brilliant actress (regardless or whether they are or not), whereas Tom Hanks has won Oscars for his performances. Sure, Game of Thrones has a lot of fans, but many of them are young and either don't have money to pay for theatre tickets, or just don't think about going to the theatre.
I think the most upsetting thing to read about in this article is not the failure of these notable actors to draw a crowd, but their lack of ability to successful portray the roles in which they are cast. It's a shame to think that any A or B list celebrity can pretty much walk their way into a leading role on Broadway without the actual chops or motivation to do their parts justice. Not only is this a blow to audiences who want to see a good Broadway revival, and playwrights who want their work to be done tactfully, but it is a tremendous blow to all the actors with great training and no celebrity who would kill for those roles.
Post a Comment