|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 6:44:02 GMT
Alternate Effie will be Ruth Brown, according to Baz on twitter. She was apparently was on The Voice. Performing Wed eve, as we all know! And there's a 3rd Effie, Karen Mav (who apparently was on The X Factor), who will "share Effie duties" on Wednesday evenings when Amber Riley is off in the afternoon and, I assume, Ruth Brown will take her place. Not sure when those dates are, but obviously no one is allowed to play this role twice in one day!!! From what I've heard, Amber is only missing Wednesday evenings? If this is the case, will these alternates do like every other week as playing Effie? Seems weird to have two alternates, maybe they couldn't pick? |
|
19,657 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 13, 2016 7:15:43 GMT
Alternate Effie will be Ruth Brown, according to Baz on twitter. She was apparently was on The Voice. Performing Wed eve, as we all know! I hope she's ben practising! |
|
19,657 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 13, 2016 7:18:53 GMT
And there's a 3rd Effie, Karen Mav (who apparently was on The X Factor), who will "share Effie duties" on Wednesday evenings when Amber Riley is off in the afternoon and, I assume, Ruth Brown will take her place. Not sure when those dates are, but obviously no one is allowed to play this role twice in one day!!! Hmmmm.... |
|
4,177 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on May 13, 2016 7:53:04 GMT
I watched the voice. Ruth Brown had the makings of a stunning voice but it was so inconsistent and lacked so much control it was unbelievable. She had the ability to sound amazing and the ability to sound like a car crash, sometimes within the same song. I can only believe over the last few years it's really grown. She was an incredibly nervous person as well so this seems a big step for her.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on May 13, 2016 8:41:07 GMT
So two different Effies other than Amber on Wednesday? SIGN ME UP!!! This is alternate nirvana we are witnessing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 8:43:29 GMT
Seems odd to have two alternates covering one role one performance per week. Are they just going to do everyother Wednesday and take it in turns
|
|
19,657 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 13, 2016 8:44:01 GMT
I watched the voice. Ruth Brown had the makings of a stunning voice but it was so inconsistent and lacked so much control it was unbelievable. She had the ability to sound amazing and the ability to sound like a car crash, sometimes within the same song. I can only believe over the last few years it's really grown. She was an incredibly nervous person as well so this seems a big step for her. Indeed. From those clips they both sound like people trying to imitate great singers. No real substance underneath it. Fur coat, no knickers. |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on May 13, 2016 8:59:12 GMT
I wonder if this means Amber will do both Saturday shows?
Burly, while these two girls don't sound perfect, it's clear that they are rookies. I think given enough training, coaching and rehearsal period, they have what it takes to do really well.
Besides, I honestly don't think anyone could be worse than Joelle Moses-another X-Factor alumni come alternate-in The Bodyguard. And yet, people were still okay with her in this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 9:08:07 GMT
She should be. They are making it very clear she is only off Wednesday evenings
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 9:23:27 GMT
Bring back the legends who could do 8 shows a week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 9:49:37 GMT
Bring back the legends who could do 8 shows a week. It is such a demanding role though, the songs Effie has to sing are extreme! Will the alternates only do one show a fortnight then? |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on May 13, 2016 9:49:51 GMT
Bring back the legends who could do 8 shows a week. Why don't you go to to work seven days a week and get worked to death? I find it impossibly arrogant for people to demand from performers to adhere to performing standards that are extremely challenging and that they are being very transparent about. The life of a performer "back then" was by far less competitive than it is right now. Performers are normally auditioning, workshopping shows or various work just to ensure that they have something lined up in the future so they can earn an income. That is in addition to a continuous brush-up rehearsal schedule every week. Most performers in shows don't just show up an hour before a show every single day and work for four hours a day. And just for your information, Effie has always had a standby. In the original company Lillias White was Jennifer Holliday's standby and went on many times. I also want to add that alternating/standby policies is a good way to increase the pool of employment. This policy has given two virtually unknown girls a paycheck and stable employment. There are thousands of performers out there who are unemployed, and the only way for the industry to accommodate is by hiring more people, and this is definitely a good and healthy way to make vacancies available. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 13, 2016 10:50:50 GMT
I see where you're coming from ali973, but musical theatre performers are trained to perform 8 shows week (at least I was!), that is the job. You train your voice to make it safe to use 8 shows a week. You train your body to give just the right amount of energy required for a show, dancing, singing, acting etc, yet reserve that crucial amount needed to get you through a week of shows. Yes the standards are extremely challenging, but really, that's the bare minimum that should be expected of any trained actor, and only the best make it (most of the time), because it IS so challenging. The ensemble of a show work just as hard as the lead, and are demanded and expected to adhere to 8 shows a week, and for the most part, they do. And they make it look easy. Really, the same should be expected of a leading performer. I will always refer to Imelda. She did it. She'd probably still be doing it if the show was running. Those who can't suggest that maybe they haven't been trained well enough - or maybe haven't trained at all (bar extenuating circumstances). Either that, or producers are being overly cautious.
As for turning up to the theatre, normal call time is hour and a half before curtain up, unless, like you say, there are rehearsals. But once you're into your run, they won't usually be so often. So sometimes, yes, we do turn up to work an hour (and a half) before a show and work for 4 hours - or double if it's a 2-show day.
Hope I haven't spoken out of turn, for all I know you could also be a performer ali973! But that's just my opinion/experience from a performers side.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on May 13, 2016 10:56:36 GMT
theatremadness, most performers DO perform 8 shows a week. But not all roles are beasts like Effie.
It's very clear that performers do get burned out, if anything we have live examples happening right now with Glenn Close and Sheridan Smith. Even saint Imelda missed a few shows during her run in Gypsy.
I'm just saying that performers aren't less adequate or capable if they opt to do six shows a week rather than eight. In fact, I have a lot of respect for them as they chose to give all in a limited number of performances instead of spreading themselves thin across a number of shows that they think is impossible.
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on May 13, 2016 11:05:16 GMT
I don't know how I personally feel about this alternates debate, as I get both sides of the argument, but I've seen some absolutely wonderful alternates, and the exposure is fantastic for those performers. Overall though, if the producers decide on an alternate and make clear what days the alternate will perform well in advance then I don't really see the issue. Yes in an ideal world those with an alternate would perform in every show (and the majority probably could) but I guess employing an alternate is a good way to prevent all hell from breaking loose if the lead did get burned out and had to leave the show altogether. I know this rarely rarely happens, but better safe than sorry.
Plus, yeah, employing ANY deserving out of work performer in this industry can't be a bad thing!
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 13, 2016 11:09:12 GMT
Oh please don't get me wrong, I have nothing against having alternates at all!! More people in work, different takes on the role! Great!! I just put a performer head on (that sounds so pretentious, sorry), that makes me wonder why, is all.
It's very interesting - I wonder who makes the call as to how many performances an actor should do based on the role they're playing. Just briefly going back to Imelda, yes she had an understudy, but no alternate. And I would put Rose in a similar bracket to Effie. And to be fair, Imelda's missed performances weren't due to her burning herself out (well, maybe at one end. Sorry).
And with Glenn, hard to know whether the illness came from the exhaustion of the part (like Sheridan Smith along with personal reasons), or whether she just got ill.
On a slight tangent, why does Valjean have an alternative now? All surviving actors who have played Valjean for 8 shows a week are fine, but now they can't cope? And Ramin & Alfie only did 6 shows, no? With Alfie regularly being off - suggesting he wasn't capable of the demands of the role.
Obviously it's ridiculous for me to guess how Amber will do in the role of Effie, and maybe she has an alternate due to prior commitments and nothing to do with ability at all! But when they announce 3 actors sharing the role, questioning their ability does enter my head. Though it worked for Kim in Saigon, so I guess why not here, too. Time will tell!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 11:14:05 GMT
I think sometimes it depends on the composer too. Some roles are deadly and it's a relief to see them with an alternate (Andrew Lloyd Webber is quite bad for this, so alternate Christines and alternate Evas are a must), but other roles are more carefully written. Mama Rose is a great role, but you don't have to be all guns blazing, singing-wise, for the entire duration of the show. I don't know Dreamgirls especially well, but given what I do know of Effie's character and some of the songs, it sounds like it really is the sensible thing to have an alternate. I agree with ali973 in that it's better to have two or even three performers able to give their best across a sensibly scheduled week rather than risk burning out one performer, or having that performer give a substandard performance because it's the only way they'll get through the week.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 13, 2016 11:24:44 GMT
That's all very true, yes. I'm the same as you baemax, in that my extensive knowledge of the show is limited to just the film, having never seen it on stage. So if I see the show, I'm all prepared to eat humble pie and take it all back! Haha. In regards to Mama Rose, yes it's not belt after belt after belt, but there's also so much more to the part than that, especially emotionally, physically and mentally (as I'm sure there is to Effie, too). As it happens, I saw Denise Gough in PPT last night, and I can't fathom how she produces a performance of that standard, night after night, twice on 2 days. Noticed in the programme she doesn't even have an understudy, let alone an alternate!
And in regards to them giving a sub-standard performance just so they can make it through the week, if that's what comes across, then in my own personal opinion, it may be that that performer hasn't had the correct or necessary training to understand the technique to make it look like you're giving your all when you're not physically doing as much as it would look - if that makes sense! Haha. And also, there's what audiences are already expecting her to deliver, I suppose, which is always an added pressure! Good to have an open discussion with varying opinions! Definitely hope to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that what I say is the be all and end all!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 11:33:39 GMT
I mean, you don't usually have alternates in straight plays in the way you do in musical theatre (notable exception being the very young Ben Whishaw's Hamlet; I think his alternate was Al Weaver?), so I tend to assume that the need for alternates comes primarily if not exclusively from the singing demands. As for the stamina required for the non-singing demands, I guess that's where the training really comes into its own. |
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 13, 2016 12:56:31 GMT
Given the huge demand for tickets, perhaps they're also wise to build up alternates who can take over when Amber Riley leaves? Not sure for how long she's contracted, but she may have other commitments in the US or even take Dreamgirls to Broadway after some months.
As long as the performances at which alternates will be performing are clearly communicated, I don't really see a problem with it. As others said, rather give the lead a schedulded break than risk her burning out.
The difference with straight plays apart from the singing demands may also be that plays often run for 12 weeks only, whereas musicals are scheduled to run at least half a year or a full year, so performers need to be sure they won't exhaust themselves during such a long run?
|
|
19,657 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 13, 2016 13:37:21 GMT
In regards to Mama Rose, yes it's not belt after belt after belt, but there's also so much more to the part than that, especially emotionally, physically and mentally (as I'm sure there is to Effie, too). Is it though? I think there's a tendency to only remember the last 30 minutes of Gypsy when describing the leads performance. But the first act is light as a feather, as is the start of the second. I'm not saying mama has nothing to do but it's hardy gruelling, and none of the songs in act 1 are that hard either. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 13, 2016 13:58:34 GMT
In regards to Mama Rose, yes it's not belt after belt after belt, but there's also so much more to the part than that, especially emotionally, physically and mentally (as I'm sure there is to Effie, too). Is it though? I think there's a tendency to only remember the last 30 minutes of Gypsy when describing the leads performance. But the first act is light as a feather, as is the start of the second. I'm not saying mama has nothing to do but it's hardy gruelling, and none of the songs in act 1 are that hard either. Yes that's entirely fair! But I'd argue that Some People & Everything's Coming Up Roses are both hard songs for females, Roses especially being an emotional tour de force, and there's a couple of scenes, most notably just before If Momma Was Married (I think?), where Rose begins to bubble and boil. Takes as much energy to just bubble under a explosion as it does to let rip! But as I said, I've ever seen Effie live so it's not really a fair comparison for me to make, I guess.
It's also interesting that there's an alternate from The Voice & an alter a from X Factor. Getting the yearly quota in!! Haha. Haven't listened to those earlier posted videos. One assumes they must be up to it, as neither are there as 'names' to bring in audiences! But that's another discussion!! |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on May 13, 2016 22:02:43 GMT
I think in addition to the vocal strain of musicals over plays, musicals tend to have a LOT going on for them on and off stage in terms of technical consideration and movement. There's a lot more cues, lighting, movement of sets, costume changes, and overall its a more technically complicated and active night for all the crew and performers than plays. There are of course plays with a lot of technical elements to them like Curious Incident and War Horse, but generally with plays, it's one unit set with very little else going on for them.
The actors in musicals need to juggle a lot more than actors in plays, which could be physically and mentally draining. Sure, they could be trained to do this, but man can only do so much.
I think this goes back to the character--Effie is quite a beast of a character. The Act 1 finale for Effie requires a woman of superhuman capabilities to pull off such an impossible song, and only to do another huge numbers in act 2 that are just as powerful and taxing.
I would have been surprised if she wouldn't have an alternate or standby at least.
|
|
364 posts
|
Post by dazzerlump on May 26, 2016 18:24:40 GMT
Has there been any other casting news yet? I live in hope Cynthia Erivo will me back and take on the role of Deena, but I fear we've lost her the the U.S now!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2016 18:27:26 GMT
Has there been any other casting news yet? I live in hope Cynthia Erivo will me back and take on the role of Deena, but I fear we've lost her the the U.S now! Not yet.. Hopefully soon. Maybe tonight?? |
|
