| re: Why pay a standby if she isn’t going to perform? | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 12:30 pm EST 12/26/24 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 12:24 pm EST 12/26/24 | |
| In reply to: Why pay a standby if she isn’t going to perform? - dramedy 06:24 pm EST 12/25/24 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. This show is fundamentally a star vehicle, no matter how much stage time is taken over by the ensemble's engagement with the key players. I remember when Mockingbird lost two of its stars in the same frigid weekend that season of post-quarantine re-opening. I saw several understudies/standbys, starting with the two leads, the stunningly good Christopher Innvar on for Atticus and Yaegel T. Welch on for Tom Robinson, and the play, beautifully served, was the event. But Mockingbird hasn't had multiple revivals - the new Sorkin script made newly minted theatrical storytelling the event - and the Shubert was still full for the matinee I attended (6th row center! Box office, TKTS price). This Gypsy is decidedly about this star in this iteration. I believe the cancellations were wise, regardless of the temporary loss of revenue. | |
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Why pay a standby if she isn’t going to perform? - Ncassidine 01:13 pm EST 12/26/24 |
| Next: | re: Why pay a standby if she isn’t going to perform? - Chromolume 06:31 pm EST 12/25/24 |
| Thread: | |
Time to render: 0.011044 seconds.