tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2590298764935407455.post5063887347593149312..comments2023-10-06T09:31:03.993-04:00Comments on The Empty Blog: Some stirred-up 'gossip' from midtown to JerseyKenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13171477778929808055noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2590298764935407455.post-24603043102857186202009-07-14T07:50:12.749-04:002009-07-14T07:50:12.749-04:00To the main point of the article regarding casting...To the main point of the article regarding casting- it is a very strong point, and one that any theater actor in NYC is familiar with. The politics in casting is immense, and it is often difficult to actually break into Broadway unless you are already established. This is what makes young roles especially tricky, as most of those vieing for the spot are yet to make their Broadway debut. The part often goes to someone who was in the chorus of a short-lived musical, simply because they have a Broadway credit, despite their actual talent and audition.<br /><br />That being said, I would not be as quick to judge this decision made by the producers of Spring Awakening. As one who is a fan of Parrish's acting (Weeds is brilliant), I will admit that I was curious when I saw he was in Spring Awakening. He is certainly a strong choice to play Melchior. Having not seen him in the production, I don't know if I would have felt he'd lived up to my expectations or not, but there is, at the very least, reason to believe that he would give a strong performance.<br /><br />As to casting the understudy, this is a more common practice in small shows. For example, in Next to Normal, the part of Gabe was recently taken over by the understudy. However, it should be noted that this replacement had only been the understudy for two characters (Gabe and Henry.) Your friend's brother, G, was understudying significantly more parts. It is easy to see that it would be much easier for producers to cast a replacement in one role than a replacement in seven roles. Understudies are valued commodities- they are cast with the idea in mind that they could conceivably play more than one role in the show. This is not something that can necessarily be said for the (for lack of a better word)main actors in a production. Add on top of this the fact that, were they to find a new understudy, the entire show would have to be retaught, as that understudy would need to learn what to do in numerous roles. By recasting just one role, the director does not have to go through the pains of reteaching so many scenes, and can settle for just reteaching the part of Melchior. With the commercial promise, as well as the acting potential that Parrish brought, I feel that the choice to cast him as Melchior rather than G was actually a somewhat smart one on the half of the producers. It is simply a shame that it has to be that smart choice.MilesPurintonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2590298764935407455.post-25644134810191628982009-06-30T09:16:29.051-04:002009-06-30T09:16:29.051-04:00I agree.
Though Broadway is still, begrudgingly, ...I agree.<br /><br />Though Broadway is still, begrudgingly, the standard for success in American theater. It's somehow not *real* until there's a Broadway production. <br /><br />Luckily, this isn't as true anymore. Neil LaBute had his Broadway premiere THIS YEAR with "Reasons to be Pretty". This forerunner of American playwriting has had his other works passed up. "Mercy Seat" and "The Shape of Things" have never been produced on Broadway! <br /><br />Could that be the reason why he wrote the article "How American Theater Lost It"? (Ask Wendy for a copy -- it's good!)Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13171477778929808055noreply@blogger.com