The Play's the thing

[Marmora Man]

I was buying tickets for a West End show this week - the person in front of me was demanding a refund for the previous evening when instead of the star name performer the lead role had been played by the understudy.

Question: What is more important - the play or the actors? Does this change if the principal actor(s) are "names"?

In my view - the play is the most important element, the actor of course brings something to the play but they are, usually, secondary to the writer's intention. Yet I acknowledge that certain actors are bigger than the play or that by virtue of their reputation and interpretation bring out something more from the play than others might.

This latter point is probably more relevant in classic plays - David Tennant as Hamlet, Adrian Lester as Henry V, Judi Dench as Titania (played as an aging Queen Elizabeth 1) in Midsummer's Night Dream all added a piquancy that refreshed the plays they were in.

[PeckhamRose]

The play is the thing.

The famous actor is secondary.

I had tickets a year in advance for Madame de Sade with Judi Dench.

A year in advance, mind.

She had tripped on the steps outside the theatre the night before and her role was played by an understudy when we attended.

And the play was still shite.

I both write and act and the play is always always always the thing.

With one, in my opinion, exception!

Little Voice was written for Jane Horrocks. And nobody not nobody could play that role but her.

So maybe if a play is written with someone in mind who is unique in themselves (and to my mind Jane Horrocks is a unique fab actress), and they don't appear then I would be irritated, but for most of the time I would always say the Play is the thing.

[legalbeagle]

Interesting question MM. I saw Alan Rickman and Helen Mirren in Anthony and Cleopatra, and though I admire both of those actors, they were not good in that particular play and it was very disappointing. No matter how much I liked the play, I couldn't get over the lack of chemistry, and the lack of theatre craft those two actors showed, though they are undoubtedly brilliant on tv and film.

But then I recently saw Mark Rylance in La Bete, and he was so jaw droppingly brilliant that I can't believe it would be the same with anyone else. Seriously, if you haven't seen it and it's still on with him, then do. It's a tired phrase, but he has created a work of truly comic genius that trascends the writing.

It's kind of like asking whether you should divorce the art from the artist. Do you appreciate a piece of work for what it is, or do you take its creator into account when you consider it? Does the fact that the "Diving Bell and the Butterfly" was written by a paralysed and dying man blinking out each letter to make each word make it a better book?

[PeckhamRose]

Oooh good book recommendation! Shall hunt it down immediately.

[legalbeagle]

I have a copy if you can't find it that you are welcome to borrow. It's quite old. In exchange for you reading my blog and giving me a critique?!

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm with Marmora Man and PeckhamRose on this one too

Going to see a play just because it has a name in it is symptomatic of something I'm sure

Either they enjoyed the play anyway and just want a way to claw back cash (which counts against them)

or they genuinely don't like plays that don't have a name they like on that evening (which also counts against them)

It's not like paying for a ticket to see Madonna in concert and getting La Roux instead (although that would make me happier in this instance) - the components of a play are many, and the names of the actors come way down that list

[Brendan]

Purely from a consumer?s point of view I suppose if it is the player who has been advertised rather than the play there may be an argument for it.

For instance if you were sold: ?JORDAN ? JORDAN ? JORDAN as lady macbeth? you would be a bit annoyed if this ended up not being the case.

Whereas in the case of ?GREASE the part of frenchy currently being played by dame helen mirren? you are being sold the show not the person.

[*Bob*]

I suppose the argument is that it gets new blood into the theatre.

It makes a change from it being full of fauning chinstrokers who force themselves to laugh because a well-known line is 'supposed' to be funny, even though they've heard it sixty times before - and it was never funny in the first place.

[Ridgley]

I agree in principal, that the play should be more important than the star but I must confess I am quite shallow when it comes to films. I would like to know who stars in a particular film before I am prepared to separate from my hard earn cash.

[giggirl]

MM - my head tells me that you are completely correct but I'm afraid in my heart speaks differently.

After years and years of theatregoing I've seen most of the classics so my reason for re-visiting a particular play would be the casting of it. Examples.... the best performance I've seen in years was Chiwetel Ejiofor's Othello at the Donmar. He is an actor I admire greatly, I was thrilled when he was cast, I wanted to see HIM as Othello and I would have been really let down to see an understudy. Yes I'm sure his understudy would have been perfectly fine but that's not the point - I wanted to see Chiwetel Ejifor as Othello.

Conversely, I saw David Tenant's Hamlet but would have been happy to see his understudy. David Tenant missed many performances because of back problems so we knew that there was only a 50:50 chance of seeing him. In the end we did see him and he was brilliant (the understudy also had rave reviews when he stepped in). I guess the difference is that I wanted to see Hamlet, the play.

I see most things put on at the Donmar* and most of their plays are uncast when booking starts. I see the Donmar as a centre of excellence anyway so I'm fine with that policy. Very occasionally a certain actor will be cast in a certain part and it is a marriage made in heaven, and that performance of that actor in that makes you want to see that play.

I'm not talking about "star" casting when some movie star treads the boards and we're all supposed to be impressed to see them.

Apologies if I haven't explained myself very well - please don't think I'm a diva who's adverse to seeing an understudy every now and again; I'm not like that at all. It's just that very occasionally, to me, the player is more important than the play; and if I said differently I'd be telling fibs.

*The Donmar's new booking period starts for members on Monday 8th Nov - grab a seat whilst you can.

[HonaloochieB]

That's some inspired casting from Brendan though.

Out, damn'd Pete, out, I say!

The raven himself is hoarse - I like horses me - that croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan - Oooh I hope it's him out of Blue - under my battlements - never heard 'em called that before.

Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here - I'll try anything once - and fill me from the crown to the toe topful of direst cruelty - but don't f@ck up me extensions!

A foolish thought, to say a sorry sight.

Alex does cage-fight again this night.

[giggirl]

That's the right speech for Jordan though isn't it Hoochie? If you keep going with it I'll think you'll find that it ends up being all about boobies. Or hadn't you got that far?

Edited to say that I meant "the raven is horse" speech.

[HonaloochieB]

Of course Gigg!

It continues

make thick my blood;

Stop up the access and passage to remorse,

That no compunctious visitings of nature

Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between

The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,

And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,

Wherever in your sightless substances

You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,

And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,

That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,

Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,

To cry 'Hold, hold!

It's like a page from her diary so it is.

[Mick Mac]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm with Marmora Man and PeckhamRose on this one

> too

>

> Going to see a play just because it has a name in

> it is symptomatic of something I'm sure

>

> Either they enjoyed the play anyway and just want

> a way to claw back cash (which counts against

> them)

>

> or they genuinely don't like plays that don't have

> a name they like on that evening (which also

> counts against them)

>

Are you giving good and bad marks to everyone in London, Sean. Are you the culture God by which we will all be judged....(?)

[*Bob*]

Why would anyone want to go and see someone well-known in a play when they can watch selection of failed television performers from the 1980's ham it up instead?

Bloody philistines, thelorrovem.

[waynetta]

I hear they're putting this on stage.

http://sfwriter.com/apes-trio.jpg

[giggirl]

To clarify my earlier post; I'm not talking about going to see a play because it has a so called "name" in it. It doesn't matter to me who is on TV and a movie actor isn't necessarily good in the theatre either. I've seen big names in the theatre before now and been completely underwhelmed. They can't always hack it. So I'm not talking about "names" OK.

What I mean is this - sometimes the planets align and there is a spectacular piece of casting whereby a talented actor gets to play a big fat meaty part in a brilliant play. It's as if that part could have been written for that actor. If I buy tickets for such a play I want to see that actor in it. If on the night I saw the understudy, I would be disappointed. I wouldn't demand my money back - that's just wrong. Actors get sick - it's a fact of life - so silly to argue with the box office. I would just re-book for another night.

[Marmora Man]

Giggirl & others

Interesting views - mostly in accord. I do follow one "name" these days and try to see every play with Judi Dench, tho' I missed early booking for the De Sade play and missed her. Other actors that I'd also usually try to see include Ian McKellen, Michael Gambon and perhaps John Simms. I was lucky enough to see John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson in their last performances when a student.

There is a theatrical geaneaology of actors that's part of my fascination with the stage.

[giggirl]

You've seen some good stuff MM.

Did you see the Dames Dench and Smith in that David Hare play a few years back? I wasn't that impressed with the play but I would pay hard cash to hear those two read the phone book.

I've seen Ian McKellen a few times but what stands out for me is his Richard III at the NT. The play has always fascinated me. The first time I saw it was with Anthony Scher (a zillion years ago). He played Richard like a thug. It was very scary to watch. Ian McKellen played him like an Edwardian gentlemen. The same play; polar opposite performances. My dream actor to play that role would be Ben Kingsley. It will never happen - he doesn't want to do any more theatre. I can dream though. Oh God I sound like a luvvie.

So basically MM, if it's a play with big meaty parts in it, then I often (not always) buy into the casting.

[Marmora Man]

GG,

I too saw Anthony Sher and Ian McKellen in Ruchard III. I preferred the Sher version - I will never forget the image of him, twisted body, elbow Fricker and a long black raggedty cloak scuttling across the stage. I should have his book "Year of the King" somewhere it was a brilliant insight into the actor's thinking.

btw - the first I saw Judi Dench was in '68 when she played Sally Bowles in Caberet - forget Liza Minnelli, that was the definitive Bowles.

[PeckhamRose]

I saw Sher as Dick3 too....!

[Mick Mac]

I saw Liam Neeson in Philidelphia Here I Come, with my Dad, when I was aged about 4 in a school assembly hall. Liam Neeson must have been about 18.

He was part of the Slemish Players, an amateur drama group of which my Dad was a founder member. As a result I saw a lot of amateur theatre then, plus rehersals, lighting, stage set up etc. Grass roots theatre is fascinating especially when you know the people involved from you day to day life.

I think because of this I now prefer smaller London theatres like the Almeida, Donmar, Menier Chocolate Factory etc. Even some pub theatres like the Kings Head and Brockley Jack can be good if the play is right.

Cosy is good for me when it comes to theatre. One man shows, small casts etc are great and really show the actors versatility.

The plays the thing, but there is always one actor who shines in a successful play, does not have to be someone famous. But having said that the acting greats mentioned by other people above would be great to see.

[????]

I saw Anthony Sher's Richard 3rd and I thought his performance was pantomine....the critics raved; Shows how much I know.

[Mick Mac]

The first two were much better.

[giggirl]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I saw Anthony Sher's Richard 3rd and I thought his

> performance was pantomine....the critics raved;

> Shows how much I know.

You and me both Quids. Completely mesmerising, but wrong. He was a thug. Tricky Dicky was clever; no need to be so overtly thuggish. McKellen; too far the other way; too much the gentleman. Ben Kingsley is my dream actor but, if he should happen to be on the East Dulwich Forum and decide to return to the stage and then chuck a sickie and send the understudy on, then I would be deeply unhappy. Shoot me.

Being an understudy of a leading actor must really suck.