A Question for all the Old-Timers (Golden Age Broadway)- Page 2

[philcrosby]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 6:06pm

JoeKv99, according to the idbd, Merman beats Peters, though admittedly not by much. But of course all but one of Merman's Broadway credits are starring roles, and that is not the case with Peters.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 6:11pm

Is that true about Bernadette?

How Sad...she's just so....untalented.

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 6:18pm

When it comes to triple threats..

Broadway will NEVER see another dancer like Gwen Verdon. Plain and simple.

I'm not an old timer, but I'm sure they would agree with that.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 7:58pm

>> How Sad...she's just so....untalented.

... which of course completely explains why she keeps getting cast.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 8:06pm

Every generation believes that one of the stars of a past generation will never be seen the likes of again.

But they will.

Gregory Hines.

Never be another like him.

Yes there will.

He came to stardom in a generation that said "there'll never be another Fred Astaire."

And there was. There was Gregory Hines

I really, truly believe that, somewhere out there in Omaha or Sacramento of Cedar Rapids, or, yes Allentown, there's some kid in some dance studio or rehearsal hall, practicing in front of a mirror tonight who, in my lifetime will blow the roof off a theatre and I'll mutter "they'll never see his/her likes again."

I couldn't live if I didn't have hope......

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 8:31pm

Gregory Hines was an amazing performer, and at one point, a teacher of mine, but he was no Fred Astaire. Not to say Hines wasn't as good as Astaire, but they were two totally different kinds of dancers.

You can't compare them.

Posted: 1/1/07 at 9:35pm

Sorry Phil you are correct-- Merman 16, Peters 15. I would hazard a guess that she might land two more shows before Merman does, however.

It's a shame there's so much loathing for her. While I've seen her "walk through" a show, when she's good, she's very very good.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 9:44pm

It's also worth mentioning that every show that Merman starred in was a hit (they at least recouped), while all but one or two of Peters shows flopped (including a couple that opened and closed in the same night, another that only ran 4 performances, and a couple of others that only ran a few weeks).

Posted: 1/1/07 at 10:07pm

You are correct Margo-- I was going to add that Merman was the one performer I could think of who could turn a flop into a hit by virtue of her appearance. I hav eno desire to diminish her talents-- she was and is, the greatest ever I think.

I would have loved to see her on stage!

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:03am

Fenchurch, you are right that Hines was no Astaire. What I meant was that great talents (and we agree they were both that) do still pop up to surprize and simply slay us.. In fact, we could say "Into every generation, a Slayer is born. One girl, in all the world..." oooops, sorry, wrong fixation.

[gonnapassmealaw]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 1:35am

I believe that this has to do with a number of things: the time, the material, and distance.

We are now in a completely different era where most things are digital. We can send these posts to each other all over the world in seconds, and all of our communication as a community is through a computer, not in person. Whereas twenty years ago, any Broadway related chatter would have to be done in person, we are now rerouted to a completely impersonal and distant form of communication and expression. Sure, no problem for us theatre lovers, but what about those who aren't so keen on a jazz-square? They have a hard time grasping and connecting with the concept of actors and actresses, in the same room--emoting with them. With the cinema screen and iPod comes a virtual and electronic distance which allows the story to be told, but also for the audience to be completely comfortable. Theatre, once one of the most revered and respected art forms, forces the audience (along with the actors) to go on a journey together--one which may be very uncomfortable. Because of the distance we now have with electronic modes of communication, young people have a harder time grasping it, and their strange and obsessive notion of celebrity in cinema and music diminish the work of theatre actors.

Also, material isn't being composed as it was in those days, and the music, now, lacks some of the crossover appeal as it did then. Cole Porter was a distinguished artist both in and out of the theatre community, so when he wrote a song for a musical the audience would make it a number one hit. The amount of Broadway material today is grossly scant compared to what was being done then. Sure there are young composers writing good material, like young Michigan boys Pasek and Paul and Jeff Blumenkratz, but no producer is willing to shell out the millions of dollars to produce a show that might be a hit. The stakes are too high. And the prices. (That's another story.)

With the popularity of the electronic age, most needs are met simply by staying home and enjoying a movie there. This overload of media diminishes the electricity of theatre, because it cheapens that art form into a spectacle of turntables, light, and smoke. Most people would rather stay home, and enjoy these shows in the comfort of their pajamas and lazyboy.

It's sad, really.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 2:13pm

I am shocked that people like Ebersole and Stokes are being mentioned as Broadway stars of today, yet not one person has mentioned Audra McDonald as a part of this illustrious group.

With the exception of one ("Henry IV,") Audra has been nominated for a Tony for every single Broadway show she has ever appeared in, which is something even alot of the legends of thte Golden Age cannot say. McDonald has won four out of the five Tony's she has been nominated for (putting her in a group that includes Gwen Verdon and Zero Mostel,) and won three of those four before the age of thirty. I consider that pretty damn impressive.

What's always impressed me about Audra is how she won two of her Tony's for plays and two for musicals, another thing I don't think alot of legendary performers have done either. Someone who can act as well as they can sing is rare today, and someone who chooses to pursue projects in both venues is even harder to find, let alone someone whose recieved award recognition in both aspects of theater.

While she hasn't had the type of mainstream success that would elevate her to being a well known performer in the mainstream public eye (something she obviously isn't,) within the Broadway community, I would say she is just as much a "current" legend as a Patti Lupone or a Bernadette Peters.

Updated On: 1/2/07 at 02:13 PM

[mattonstage]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 3:15pm

Although not a musical star, I believe Cherry Jones is a true Broadway Star. Although in a number of movies, theater seems to be her home.
I'd also like to mention Jerry Orbach, who, if I'm not mistaken, holds a record for the most time spent on a New York stage.

[Mutts]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 1:18am

I can't believe Merman appeared in only 16 Broadway shows. Peters is really only at 13 since I don't think the 1 day reunion concerts of Sunday and Woods should count, but if you don't count Merman's replacement turn in Dolly and the show where it seems she was replaced during previews, that would be 14 shows she opened.

If that's true that all of Merman's shows recouped, I don't know that that indicates anything about Peters or Merman other than that they worked in vastly different economic enviroments, since 10 of Merman's 14 shows ran for about a year or less and 6 of those for less than 8 months. I was thinking that they may be the only two stars to headline big budget Broadway musicals in 5 different decades, but Chita Rivera can claim 6 decades I suppose.

[Mutts]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 1:19am

double post Updated On: 1/4/07 at 01:19 AM

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 10:28am

Some of the so-called "new legends" don't have much of a track record: Sutton, Kristin and the Creels, Siebers and Tartaglias have very few Broadway credits on which to hang legend status--even Cheno has only 6 shows to her credit--including the one she's currently in--I prefer to wait another 10-15 years and see which ones are still working.

I would put Ebersole into the category although she has just recently entered "diva" pantheon status. She's been on Bway for decades and is just now receiving the adulation she's due.

[Danielm]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 3:56pm

I think it's difficult to compare the talents of the Golden age to the talents of the current age because the entire industry is different. If a Merman or Channing came along now they would most likely not be cast because producers, directors, etc... will not hire such idiosyncratic talents. With a few exceptions (Mary Testa, Lea Delaria, Debra Monk) even the comic rolls (female) now are cast with "pretty" people. You don't see character types like you used to. It's not quite as bad in the theatre as it is on television and movies but the more distinctive women do not get cast.

[D2]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 4:18pm

Roles. Comic or otherwise, the word is role(s).

A roll is something to eat with dinner. Or move, as in "roll over." Or something you get from too many rolls eaten with dinner and not enough on the gym floor.

[Danielm]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 4:24pm

Thanks D2--now everyone can ignore what I said because of my mispelling.

[D2]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 4:27pm

You're welcome. And BTW: your point is an excellent one, sorry I didn't acknowledge that.