There have been five Broadway productions of Gypsy, and for many the Ethel Merman original remains the best |
One interesting phenomenon among musical theatre
aficionados – really all theatre fans, but it’s more pronounced in musical
theatre circles – is the near-universal belief that a show’s original cast is
always the best one. No matter how many
times a show has been successfully revived or remounted, these fans insist the
original group of actors represent the best possible incarnation of a property. If the work is particularly beloved, suggesting
different actors for the lead roles becomes tantamount to sacrilege, and
eventually you get people who think the then 43-year-old Sarah Brightman is an
appropriate choice to play ingénue Christine Daae in the 2004 Phantom of the Opera film.
The above example is extreme, but the thinking
behind it is so widespread that people have paid good money to see a
37-year-old Adam Pascal play Roger in Rent
or a septuagenarian Carol Channing do Hello,
Dolly! Those real-life examples can
be explained away as people who missed legendary performances willingly
suspending their disbelief in order to see great actors recreate their most
famous roles, but such reasoning doesn’t justify the idea that no matter how
many times Gypsy or West Side Story get done, the original
cast will always be the best.
So what’s driving this belief? Is there any substance to the assertion that
the original cast is always the superior one?
In large part, I think the primary reason comes down to mere
familiarity. With musicals, many times
the only thing resembling a permanent record of the show is the Original Cast
Recording. This is how the vast majority
of fans are first exposed to a show, and it is just about the only way anyone
can relive the experience of actually seeing a live production. The particular set of mannerisms, vocal tics,
and acting choices captured by the recording becomes subconsciously ingrained
in the listener’s head, and through repeated exposure becomes the accepted or
“correct” way the material should be done.
If the person has never actually seen the show in question, then the
cast album becomes representative of the ideal version of the property that’s
been created in the listener’s head. Any
deviation from this imagined ideal can prove off-putting, even with supposedly
open-minded people.
But if the reasoning behind this preference for the
original cast seems somewhat arbitrary, that doesn’t mean the resulting wisdom
is entirely wrong. The truth of the
matter is that the originating actor often ends up being the best, or at least
one of the best, people to tackle a particular role. If the performer is lucky enough to have the
part written expressly for them, the way Gypsy
was written for Ethel Merman or The
Producers was tailored specifically to Nathan Lane, then of course he or
she is going to impress in the role.
Even if the writers don’t have a particular person in mind when creating
a character, they will inevitably end up fashioning the part around the person
chosen to play it. If a scene or song
isn’t working, any rewrites will almost certainly take the performer’s
strengths into account. In a
particularly collaborative environment, the actor may have direct input into
the character’s moods and actions, subtly but forever skewing the script
towards that performer’s interpretation of the role.
Then there are the times when a performer proves so
compelling in a role that it takes on a life of its own, becoming greatly
expanded in order to fully utilize that actor’s talents. Anyone who has read the novel Wicked will tell you Glinda is a much
more prominent presence in the musical, because the writers wanted to put for
focus on Kristin Chenoweth’s bravura performance. Stephen Flaherty and Lynn Ahrens wrote the
song “Sarah Brown Eyes” in Ragtime specifically
to give Tony-winner Audra McDonald more to do, since she was simply too good to
leave out of the second act. Rory O’Malley’s
Elder McKinley didn’t even exist is early drafts of The Book of Mormon, but Matt Stone and Trey Parker were so
entertained by his antics in the ensemble they crafted a role to better
highlight him. When a role is so
specifically tailored to the original performer, their take on it will
naturally be one of the strongest.
Original casts (and premiere casts of revivals) also
have the benefit of extended rehearsal time to explore their roles. A typical Broadway musical has about a month
of rehearsals and another month of previews, giving the performers plenty of
time to discover the nuances of their characterizations and iron out any kinks. Add to that the months or even years spent
workshopping a modern musical, and you have an artist who is intimately
familiar with their particular character.
By the time workshops, out-of-town tryouts, and previews are taken into
account, Idina Menzel spent three to four years
refining her Elphaba, whereas her many replacements got at best a couple weeks
of rehearsal before their first public performance.
The massive investment of time, combined with the knowledge
that they are the first person to portray a particular role, results in actors
feeling a sense of ownership that is difficult to replicate. The original cast of a show has a heightened
investment in making the show succeed, and going through the journey of
discovering their characters with the writers and director gives their
performances a more fully-realized and believable quality. In contrast, many subsequent actors are
encouraged to replicate the original’s performance, which can create a feeling
of inauthenticity in their work. Even if
the production is new, such as a revival with entirely original staging, the
shadow of their predecessor can loom large over any actor. Every woman who’s played Joanne in Company has had to choose between trying
to mimic Elaine Stritch (thereby inviting director comparison) or veering from Stritch’s
blueprint and likely being criticized for it.
As we have seen, there are a lot of factors that
contribute to making the original cast of a particular show the preferred one. Because of this, I will always try to see a
show while the original company is intact, but I have also seen enough
replacements and understudies to know that they can be every bit as strong as
the original performers. I’ve also seen
some incredible revivals that surely must compare favorably with the originals,
such as the Patti LuPone-led Gypsy or
the most recent New York staging of Follies. Ultimately, the right actor in the right
role will make for amazing theatre, whether that actor is the first person to
ever play that character of the hundredth.
That is what makes live theatre so exciting, and being able to see
multiple interpretations of the same show is what keeps me coming back, time
and again.
No comments:
Post a Comment