Understudy fetishism?- Page 2

[wonkit]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 3:29pm

SeanMartin - as to your earlier post that a Wednesday matinee audience "shouldn't" care if an understudy was on, what makes you think Wednesday matinee audiences are less discerning than others? I happen to go to a lot of Wednesday matinees because of my work schedule, and I don't consider myself chopped liver because I am not at a Saturday night performance.
Updated On: 8/11/11 at 03:29 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 3:43pm

Didn't Jay also turn down the Hair tour? (I thought he was marvelous as Claude, btw.)

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 4:41pm

No one is questioning that Jay is a talented performer. I saw him in several productions when he was at NYU (most notably, the title role of FLOYD COLLINS, which he played sensationally), and I think he'll be a star for sure someday. I guess in some circles, he already is. But, again, his job right now is to be on tap to jump into the show at a moment's notice and not to expect anything more.

As for him turning down the tours of HAIR and CATCH ME: I have no idea if that's true or not, but if it is, I'd have to wonder why he'd make such decisions. Aside from the recognition of playing a leading role, I'm sure the raise in salary could really help out a 23-year-old working actor.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 4:47pm

It was pretty crazy how mad the N2N fans were that Mazzie didn't "let" Phillips go on as Diana one last time. Philips got to go on MANY times when Ripley was there.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 4:48pm

And didn't Ripley also "call out" to let Sarah Berry perform Diana opposite her husband?

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 4:57pm

Yup!

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 5:02pm

I guess the fans came to expect such things with Alice.

[binau]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 5:08pm

That's just awful...the Tony Award winning star calling in 'sick' to let an understudy perform.

[mikem]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 6:30pm

I disagree strongly that the audience won't care if the lead performer is being played by an understudy, particularly the original cast lead performer whom they may have seen on TV or in another show. If you asked 100 audience members, "Would you prefer to see the regular lead performer, or do you not care if it's an understudy," I bet 80 - 90% of them would say that they would rather see the regular lead.

It would be nice to Jay if Aaron called out, but I don't think the audience would be neutral about it, and Aaron's primary responsibility is to the audience and the producers, not to Jay.

[staunchcharacter]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 6:47pm

Carol Channing never missed a performance and nobody is criticizing her for that. He's an understudy. He goes on when he's needed.

[provocation]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 7:19pm

I don't think anyone would be upset if he went on--he's gorgeous and has an incredible voice. If he does get to go on, the patrons better give him a chance because they are seeing a star in the making.

Did I mention he has an amazing body, too?

[BroadwayFan12]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 8:24pm

If I remember correctly, Ripley didn't call out specifically to let Sarah Uriarte Berry go on. It just happened to work out. Updated On: 8/12/11 at 08:24 PM

[trentsketch]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 8:24pm

The only time I thought an understudy deserved to go on was a high school production of The Crucible I worked on. The director told the understudy for Elisabeth Proctor that she would get to do the last matinee before it closed. As in, told her for weeks she would get to do one show. The actual lead refused to step down and the understudy was told by the director he never said that she would absolutely go on. He did, many times. It was a crappy thing to do.

In professional circumstances, I see no obligation to let the understudy perform. If the cast actor can do every show for however long, they should be able to without issue. There's no rudeness or entitlement; it's their role. If they're not sick and don't have a scheduling conflict, they shouldn't have to step down for a day just to be fair. If they are scheduled to not be there and then suddenly refuse to step down, that's actually rude. Aaron doing every performance is to be commended, not condemned.

[littlebutterfly10]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 8:45pm

As someone who was fortunate enough to see Jay go on as Claude last year, I'd be there in a second if I heard news of him going on before the end of Catch Me's run. However, I also think it would be incredible for Aaron to be able to say that he performed such a demanding role for the entirety of the show's run, and unless something happens that requires him to miss a performance, I can't see him giving up such an admirable achievement.

Going forward, I think it'd be interesting to get inside the head of an actor who was offered a job as Aaron's understudy, based on his exceptional attendance record between N2N and CMIYC. Not saying that said actor would/could be choosy about such things - it is a job, after all - but knowing that you'd be understudying someone who very rarely calls out would require a certain mentality, I'd think.

[BroadwayGuy12]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 8:47pm

I think the understudy thing really just comes from the need to be "the BEST FAN EVER". It's the equivalent to someone who collects action figures or coins or stamps or whatever- they need to have everything, every possible variation, every mistake in printing or production. "Your collection isn't complete without the rare misprint R2-D2 from 1995..."
"You aren't a real fan if you haven't seen so-and-so go on..."

I think this is an excellent point. Fans, especially the younger ones of shows like NEXT TO NORMAL and WICKED, place heavy emphasis on understudies in order to feel that they are the most knowledgable person about their favorite show. It seems to me that they want to see understudies perform simply so that they themselves can get more attention, and convince more people (usually online, in message boards like this) that they are the ultimate [insert show here] fan.

[mikem]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 8:58pm

I also think that some of these fans forget that the average audience member is only going to see the show once. If you've seen the show five times (or 50 times), I can see why you might want to mix it up a bit, but for many audience members, this would not only be the only time they are seeing this particular show, it may be the only Broadway show they see the whole year. Very few of the fans who are angry at Aaron would be pleased if the only performance they went to was one where he and Norbert were out. (Assuming they are fans of the show rather than of Jay specifically)

An aside: do most high school productions have understudies? I would think that the runs are so short that very few understudies would actually go on.

[defygravity24]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 10:45pm

I saw Jessica Phillips 3 times and Alice Ripley only once. And I saw Meghan Fahy twice. does that make me the ultimate next to normal fan?

[Kad]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 11:45pm

I think it is safe to say that for the average theatre-goer, finding a slip of paper in your Playbill saying the lead is out will be a bit of a bummer.

Although part of me thinks it is certainly a nice gesture for the lead to "let" the understudy go on, most of me thinks, "Do your job. This isn't about your relationship with the understudy." Performers should really only call out when it is necessary. The comparisons to other jobs that have been made are apt. And that is what performing in a show is- a job.

[MeggilyWeggily08]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 8:22am

"I also think that some of these fans forget that the average audience member is only going to see the show once. If you've seen the show five times (or 50 times), I can see why you might want to mix it up a bit, but for many audience members, this would not only be the only time they are seeing this particular show, it may be the only Broadway show they see the whole year."

Exactly. I see a lot of shows more than once, and I always enjoy returning to new cast members or understudies, just because it's interesting to see how different people play the roles. Even in shows like Priscilla, that I'm not a super fan of (I just wanted to make sure I could catch it again before it closed), it was cool to see Bryan go on for Nick. The more familiar with the show you are, the more the differences from show to show, and in role interpretations become obvious. People who have seen Catch Me If You Can twenty times will probably be dying to see some new takes on the roles at that point, but the people who have seen it that many times are the minority. Most of these people have never seen the show before, so everyone's performance will be fresh and new to them.

It's perfectly fair to the audience to have either the regular performer or understudy going on. There are no guarantees about who is going on in Catch Me If You Can when you buy a ticket. Would fans of Jay and of CMIYC probably enjoy getting to see him go on? Yeah. As someone who has seen Aaron play Frank a few times, would it be fun to see Jay or Brandon, or someone else play the role? Sure. Is it unfair to Jay or to fans of the show that he might not get to go on? Absolutely not. A possibility of never going on - that is exactly what Jay and all understudies sign up for.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 8:41am

I can't speak for all HS programs, but most do not use understudies. I only cast understudies for one of our mainstage productions. This is for a play we take into competition (I know, that sounds odd -- but it's an intense experience.) I do it mainly for one reason:

We rehearse during cold and flu season, using understudies keeps those rehearsals from becoming useless if someone is home sick. Those understudies also help out as Asst. Directors, of sorts. They run lines, they create improvs, they help develop character choices. We work hard to make sure they know they are an important part of the cast -- even if they never get to perform.

[crewdude]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 9:16am

Ever seen The Far Side cartoon where the Stage Manager is in front of the curtain telling the audience - "At tonight's performance the character you've never heard of before, usually played by an actor you've never heard of before, will be played by a different actor you've never heard of before."


Doesn't matter who either actor is. The audience expects to see the actual cast that is hired to do the show. If these "fans" of the show are "fans" they'd get it.

So this Aaron guy decides to not do the show at 7:55 one night and this other guy goes on. Are you telling me ALL these "fans" are going to be in the house to experience this understudy do his job and go on at a moment's notice? Or are they going to sitting at home on their computer typing up posts about "Who would be the best Gypsy ever?"

[Chrranke]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 9:44am

I was an understudy for Javert in Les Miz back in 2006/7. I did not have in my contract that I would go on for sure and I never got to go on. I am fine with that even though I sure wish I would have since its a dream role.

The one thing that wasn't okay was that the actor playing the role often would feel like he was beginning to get sick and asking me if I was ready just in case (I was!) and then playing the performances. That made me enjoy the job I was doing on stage less, since I was always thinking what would happen tomorrow. I was playing good parts after all (the Bishop and Grantaire and many others)

I wouldn't have dared to ask him to give me a performance. It wouldnt be the way to do it.

If I were to understudy again I would have it in my contract that you get a certain amounnt of performances. I know they do that in London and I thought that was also don on Broadway but I guess not...
Updated On: 8/12/11 at 09:44 AM

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 10:18am

If I were to understudy again I would have it in my contract that you get a certain amounnt of performances. I know they do that in London and I thought that was also don on Broadway but I guess not...

I don't believe that's common practice on Broadway. Several of my close friends/former colleagues have understudied major roles and not one of them has ever signed a contract that said, from the get-go, that you are entitled to a certain number of performances.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 10:24am

mikem, it depends on the school. I've had the good fortune to work for some amazing high school theater programs. What happened with The Crucible was a girl who never auditioned for a show was given that role over someone the director really trusted. The idea was to have a back-up in case it didn't work out. The girl who was cast did an excellent job but became very full of herself very quickly. The one performance off was supposed to humble her but it backfired when the director wouldn't stand by his word.

But yeah, I've seen understudies for high school productions of Aida (in case the leads blow their voices out), Anything Goes (for tap-related injuries), and things with a high degree of difficulty. It's normally an ensemble member the director trusts to fill in if anything goes wrong. They normally sub during rehearsal conflicts and maybe do a dress rehearsal or two.

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 8/12/11 at 10:46am

If Aaron can perform, he should perform. Being an understudy does not give you the right to go on. That's part of the job description. This is Broadway. Not high school. There shouldn't be an understudy show just for fairness sake.

If Catch Me If You Can had run longer, there's no doubt that at some point Aaron would've gotten sick from doing such a demanding role and Jay would get his chance.

Unfortunately that's not the case when shows close quickly. There are tons of understudies in tons of flops that never get to go on. Why should this be any different?