| re: because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 06:55 pm EST 02/05/25 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:51 pm EST 02/05/25 | |
| In reply to: re: because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit - writerkev 01:38 pm EST 02/05/25 | |
|
|
|
| Sutton Foster won a Tony in a role she shouldn't have been cast in, and I still say she shouldn't have been cast, was wrong for it, and wasn't great in it. Shrug. It happens. I didn't put ALL the blame on the director, I chose to discuss the portion that I put on him. And I explained why... because *I* think, seeing what I've seen from him, that he was capable of more. It's like telling an actor in a John Doyle production that I didn't like their acting choice to say the line out instead of to their scene partner... sometimes I can feel the directors hand strongly, for better or worse. Personally, I thought when seeing that H2S revival that it was the director's take and direction of the show and the actor in the role that was largely the reason why his performance was so consistently passive and dull. I suspected that Ashford's take on it was that Finch being a passive inactive non-player being moved up the ladder without doing or being anything was the joke/commentary he wanted to add to this show, or maybe that if he wasn't seeing Radcliffe bringing the Morse or Broderick "active" approach, this might be a valid take and something he could direct Radcliffe to do. I also put the blame more with the director because Radcliffe was a newbie to musicals and Broadway musicals while Ashford was an experienced musical theater director and performer. I felt safe in assuming it was more likely that Radcliffe was in Ashford's hands, trusting him to guided his performance and the big show around it than that Ashford was serving Radcliffe's take/instincts for this musical. I certainly don't blame every performance I don't love on the director. This one, for me, feels more specifically the likely fault *largely* (but not entirely) of the director steering the ship and the green performer. And not just any green performer... one who was indisputably cast *in large part* because of his fame and the audience and eye he brings to the project at that time -- they ALSO may have felt he was perfect for it, but I would be my life that if they were doing this revival and wanted to cast an unknown, with his particular skills and talent and experience at that time, he's never have been cast. But he's not just any famous person, he's a famously nice and hardworking famous person who loves theater and wants to be good in it and do well by it, so I imagine him deferring to the experienced director of the big budget broadway musical he's starring in for the first time rather than throwing his star weight around or anything like that. But who knows what happened. If it's better, I blame the director and the actor. And I guess it's worth saying that many people claim to have loved his performance and that revival. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit - writerkev 01:38 pm EST 02/05/25 |
| Next: | re: because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit - RoadGypsy2010 09:40 pm EST 02/03/25 |
| Thread: | |
Time to render: 0.016668 seconds.