| re: because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 11:50 am EST 02/05/25 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:44 am EST 02/05/25 | |
| In reply to: re: because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit - writerkev 05:38 am EST 02/05/25 | |
|
|
|
| Well, I don't think I am proving his point. If the proof that someone has a range that is proven by him having played roles that require the extremes of that range, but they weren't cast in those roles because he could meet those requirements and the requirements were changed, then it is not proof he has that range. But the discussion of whether he's castable based on the role as written is pointless, because if we can cast people who can't meet the roles demands then we can cast anyone in anything. I agree about his H2S, but I put the blame almost entirely with the director Rob Ashford who either completely misunderstood the show and the play and how Finch functions and what the point is and what is satirical and what is funny, basically everything... or he thought he was given Radcliffe something to play that he could handle, which I guess was to play nothing? Ashford also proved his lack of understanding of how the show works by overchoreographing it massively, as he does everything. You mention Broderick, sure, but my goodness... Robert Morse. To from his performance (which I know well from that incredible OBCR, and the film, and clips) to Radcliffe... would have Frank Loesser turning. Again, I blame Ashford, because I think Radcliffe was capable of a much sharper, better, more active, charming performance. He's absolutely not who I'd cast or build a production of that show around, but I think he could have done much better under a better director. I was relieved though that he didn't get a Tony nom for it, so many discuss it like he was snubbed and robbed, not at all. Working hard doesn't mean being great. If you're not great in a role, why do you automatically deserve a Tony nom? |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit - writerkev 05:38 am EST 02/05/25 |
| Next: | re: because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit - writerkev 01:38 pm EST 02/05/25 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.015959 seconds.