Do you think Roles are more demanding?

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 4:30pm

Often on these boards when posters complain about actors missing shows or needing an alternate they throw out story of an actor from the golden era never missing a shows. Even when they had the flu or fever. I wonder, though if the reason why it seems like actors are calling out more often than previously is because the roles have become more demanding. I’m curious how Mary Martin would fair in a show like Wicked

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 4:34pm

Are you missing a "now" in your headline?

And as for people missing shows in the past, it was much harder to immediately broadcast when someone was out. You heard about it in conversation (or via the media if a writer happened to be there). Now you can hear it before, during, and after.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 5:31pm

You gotta be kidding me!

You want see large, challenging roles, just think (off the top of my head) about Rose in Gypsy (late 50s), Eve / Princess Barberra (sic), Passionella in The Apple Tree (mid-60s), Ella Peterson in Bells are Ringing (mid-50s), Coco (early 70s), Cyrano (late 70s, I think), Harold Hill (late 50s), Tevye (mid-60s), Fanny Brice (mid-60s), Peter Allen (2003), Mame (mid-60s), Evita (early 80s), Sweeney Todd (1979), Agnes and Michael in I Do! I Do (mid 60s) (although Martin and Preston did begin to play only 6 performances a week (mind you, 10 months after opening night), and their replacements for matinees were stars), Jean Val Jean (mid-80s).  I could go on and on, and these are just musicals.  There are a huge number of plays with massive, challenging roles for their leads (Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neil alone...).

I think there are a lot of people today who just don't see Broadway as their destination; rather, it is just a stop on the way to movies or a long running TV show.  I am probably being crotchety, but I am just tired of all the times that leads have missed performances I attended in the last decade, most recently in the case of Frozen, which I saw in the spring shortly after it opened; both leads were out, yet no one else in the entire cast was also out, so I am not guessing there was not a flu going through the cast (it was not flu season).  

I may be a cynic, but I left the theatre that night wondering whether they just were not in the mood that night; but also, luckily, I ended up not missing them a bit, because both understudies were up to the challenges of the roles (and the roles were so...characterless, that I would be shocked if ANYONE could have given a great performance).

PS -- there is NO role in Wicked that is as large and challenging as any of the roles above, although Elphaba may come close due to the vocal demands, if not size, of the role; and, to answer your question, Mary Martin would've been terrible in Wicked, not because the roles were too challenging for her, but because neither role was right for her.  She was never IMO bubbly (Glinda), or serious enough for Elphaba.  The few times I saw her, I got the impression that she was mainly playing herself, abetted by a warmth that drew the audience in and a pleasant, if unexceptional, voice.  But, the show would have gone on!

[JSquared2]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 5:42pm

Jarethan said: "You gotta be kidding me!

You want see large, challenging roles, just think (off the top of my head) about Rose in Gypsy (late 50s), Eve / Princess Barberra (sic), PassionellainThe Apple Tree (mid-60s), Ella Peterson in Bells are Ringing (mid-50s), Coco (early 70s), Cyrano (late 70s, I think), Harold Hill (late 50s), Tevye (mid-60s), Fanny Brice (mid-60s), Peter Allen (2003), Mame (mid-60s), Evita (early 80s), Sweeney Todd (1979), Agnes and Michaelin IDo! I Do (mid 60s) (although Martin andPreston did begin to play only6 performances a week (mind you, 10 months after opening night), and their replacements for matinees were stars), Jean Val Jean (mid-80s). I could go on and on, and these are just musicals. There are a huge number of plays with massive, challenging roles for their leads (Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neil alone...).

No one is saying that there weren't demanding roles in the past.  The point is that pre-internet, there is really no way of knowing for certain how many times the stars that played the roles you list above were out.  You can't rely on biographies or autobiographies, because memories fade and people remember things differently.  There were no computerized records, so unless you have the stage manager's bible with all of the daily reports, who knows how often Mary Martin was out for PETER PAN?  We know she had an alternate for I DO, I DO, we know that Patti LuPone did 6 shows a week in Evita, we know that Lansbury and Cariou missed shows of SWEENEY, etc. etc.

[LuPita2]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 5:45pm

No, roles on Broadway have always been incredibly demanding.  But, with the gradual (slow) acceptance of actually being able to talk about mental health, I think more performers are more honest and practice self care than the past generations.  Roles did not change, humans did. 

[Great Dame]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 5:50pm

A few things exist now that didn't before. Social media and self promotion. Actors are doing a lot of their own brand-building through social media. Also, unions. The union has been fighting for actor's rights, so just because something happened a certain way in 1970, doesn't mean it was right. Sick days, vacations, maternity leave, etc. these are all things people in the industry and fans alike have wanted. So now that they are starting to be a regular component of good company benefits, we should celebrate the progress. Actors are people and employees. They have deserved these things all along, they are just now getting them.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 5:51pm

LuPita2 said: "No, roles on Broadway have always been incredibly demanding. But, with the gradual (slow)acceptance of actually being able to talk about mental health, I think more performers are more honest and practice self care than the past generations. Roles did not change, humans did."

 

Huhh??

[LuPita2]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 5:53pm

What exactly stumped you?  I gave a very clear answer. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 6:05pm

While I think the arguments above are true, I think there is also something to be said for the prevalence of crazy-high sustained belting in today's music. There seems to be a mentality among composers that "if we don't make all the men belt As and all the women belt Fs, no one will cheer for them at the end of the song, nobody will be impressed!" And sure enough, belting seems to be enough to get someone nominated for a Tony.

There are plenty of roles from older musicals that are difficult to sing, but in my experience (having actually played a couple of the more difficult ones - though not necessarily very well), they are difficult in a very different way. They require stamina, smart musicianship, and very good acting to pull off (again, not saying I hit all those checkmarks). But nowadays, roles are written to be screlted, which can wear down the voice very quickly, especially among young musical theatre actors who do not have as much technical experience. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 6:58pm

I also think that people (not just performers) take more sick day/personal days/mental health days.   The younger people that teach in my building take every day they earn. I, on the other hand, have over 200 sick days accrued -- even after 2 maternity leaves using almost 100 days.

My mum took a lot of sick days, but she suffered from severe migraines, and sometimes was in bed for 2 to 3 days when she had one.  The opposite side of that?  I don't think my dad EVER took a sick day except when he had surgery.   

I'm not saying either one is "better", only that EVERYONE takes sick days differently now.

[AADA81]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 9:09pm

In the days when being a professional on Broadway could be someone's bread-and-butter calling out unless absolutely necessary was unheard of.  Now, Broadway is either a stop-towards, a stop-while-doing, or a stop-before-winding-down.....but everyone has other fish to fry if they're well known.  It's not the same make-or-break it used to be for performers by and large.  What's also changed with that is the professional discipline for eight shows a week.  It's daunting and different from the disciplines of television and film and many don't have that and are overwhelmed by it, I think.

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 12/10/18 at 9:44pm

I also think that we get caught up with the nostalgia of certain performers who seemed to have supernaturally strong constitutions. Like Ethel Merman, or Carol Channing. But if you read Julie Andrews' memoir you'll see that both she and Rex Harrison struggled with the 8 shows a week demand, and at one point both were in vocal tatters but the rule was one lead had to be there for the other to call out. She's also quite open in saying that the way she pushed her voice in MFL caused permanent vocal damage. Patti Lupone will say the same about Evita.

Today I think fans focus on the negative. There are a number of B'way performers who have excellent attendance. Everyone is talking about the shows Betty Buckley is missing on tour. No one ever mentions the attendance records of Bette Midler, Bernadette Peters, or Donna Murphy. People are melting down over the Frozen ladies, but no one mentions Katrina Lenk's perfect (???) attendance. No one ever gave props to the amazing Glenda Jackson who never missed a show of Three Tall Women, or the overall great attendance of the Angels in America cast. Jake Gyllenhaal and Annaleigh Ashford also had great attendance in SITPWG.

So really, I think attendance is about the same. Fans are just whinier. 

[theaterlyfe19]

Posted: 12/12/18 at 5:39am

Honestly, I don’t think any role that someone has to perform 8x a week is easy. Whether it’s a role that is notorious for being challenging, to a role that might only be on stage for a number or two- performance is never easy. People also have to take into account that while someone might not be onstage during a show, there are also standbys, who don’t usuallg appear onstage unless the person they’re standing by for calls out. There are swings, who have to know many different roles and sometimes have a few hours to prepare to go on for an actor who’s out. The year a role is performed doesn’t matter- performance takes so much out of a performer. Maybe it’s their first time in a lead role in a huge show. Maybe it’s their first time in a show. It’s NEVER easy. You can say all you want about “well if they couldn’t handle the role they shouldn’t have taken it on” or “there should be an alternate” all you want, but these actors have worked so, so hard to get to where they are. It could be their dream role (Laura Benanti In MFL) but it could also be a difficult role. It could just plain take a lot out of someone each show (Evan Hansen is the first example that comes to mind in recent years). I’m not saying you should give them a free pass, because excessive call outs could show a lack of interest in the role, but the majority of the time-all of the time, the actors want to be there. You never, ever know what’s going on behind the scenes. Social media has made it easier for actors to be vocal about why they call out-it has also made it easier for unsupportive people to attack them. The roles haven’t changed; people’s ability to call out a performer has. And boy do they abuse that. Next time you want to make some snide remark about someone calling out of a show, 

[Lot666]

Posted: 12/12/18 at 9:02am

The role of Christine Daae is one of the most demanding on Broadway, and has been performed eight times per week by many leading ladies for more than 30 years now. The character appears in all but three scenes: the brief prologue, "Notes/Prima Donna", and the "All I Ask of You" reprise performed solo by the Phantom from the angel.

[BeNice]

Posted: 12/12/18 at 9:55am

I think it’s a complex answer but another contributor is in 2013 if a performer missed more than something like 5 or so days of work in a month then their pay would be docked, so you had to “recover” within a certain time in order to keep your full pay. Now they are not allowed to take away some of your wages if you are sick and need more time to recover which would encourage more time off knowing there is no financial penalty.

Updated On: 12/12/18 at 09:55 AM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 12/12/18 at 1:11pm

BeNice said: "I think it’s a complex answer but another contributor is in 2013 NYC changed it’s sick leave policy. If a worker (in this case a Bway performer) missed more than 5 or so days of work in a month (if they got the flu, for example,) their pay would be docked, so you had to “recover” within a certain time in order to keep your full pay. Now they are not allowed to take away some of your wages if you are sick and need more time to recover which would encourage more time off knowing there is no financial penalty."

 

Sorry, I think you're confusing multiple issues. "NYC" does not have a sick day policy.  Government workers likely have set policies based on which particular union they are in (if any).  Each Broadway union has its own collective bargaining agreement with the Broadway League which spells out that union's "sick day" policy.  The City of New York doesn't get a say in that agreement.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/12/18 at 1:56pm

Lot666... come on. There almost always been an alternate Christine, with few exceptions.

[Lot666]

Posted: 12/12/18 at 2:08pm

LizzieCurry said: "Lot666... come on. There almost always been an alternate Christine, with few exceptions."

You're absolutely right; I should've written six rather than eight shows per week. Nonetheless, it's a very demanding role, both in terms of vocal performance and stage time.

[SweetLips22]

Posted: 12/12/18 at 2:47pm

Interesting read after a very shakey start[subject wording].

Roles are how they are written and the audition process is there to discover any weakness from a performer.

These screechy big note endings are all the rage--imagine Mary Martin trying to do it.

Forgot now which thread I'm in--anyhow, I never go to a show or movie because of who is in it. My friend goes one better, he turns up at a movie complex and whatever is about to start when he arrives then that is the movie he sees.

Apart from 2 a day shows there are 20 hours on other days to rest the voice.

Why should you perform if you are really sick--Doctors certificate? It's a J.O.B.that ends each shift with applause.

God what a ramble, hope the mods step in and delete, save me doing it.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 12/12/18 at 2:53pm

SweetLips22 said: "Apart from 2 a day shows there are 20 hours on other days to rest the voice.

Sure there are, as long as you then subtract the hours spent rehearsing, auditioning, taking voice lessons, teaching, doing readings, working your survival job(s), and (perhaps just maybe) living your "private" life.