How did Julia Roberts do in the play?
Apr 20th, 2006, 02:20 PM
#21
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Brian Grazer looks like an anorexic. I would not pinch him but I might cook him a nice big meal.
I feel terrible for Julia Roberts...no theatre experience, being used as the draw due to her fame/popularity and being seen as a flop for a show that is sold out ( due to her being one of the stars)..what a burden to go onstage with every night
On the other hand, I have loved shows that critics panned, so I would not feel too badly about this, it is the theater goers who will have the last word ( I hope it is a good one)...
I feel terrible for Julia Roberts...no theatre experience, being used as the draw due to her fame/popularity and being seen as a flop for a show that is sold out ( due to her being one of the stars)..what a burden to go onstage with every night
On the other hand, I have loved shows that critics panned, so I would not feel too badly about this, it is the theater goers who will have the last word ( I hope it is a good one)...
Apr 20th, 2006, 02:41 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
What a good point, Scarlett. Doing a film and being panned is one thing. At least you are finished with that project. But to have to go on night after night and give your all after being raked over the coals for your performance is the worst kind of torture imagineable for any actor.
Apr 20th, 2006, 02:46 PM
#23
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the link to the review in the Post: http://tinyurl.com/ho2nx
It really is rough.
The review in the Times was a little better, even though he called her "Theatrically challenged": http://tinyurl.com/jws2h
You mentioned Kathleen Turner. I saw her in the Graduate and thought it was one of the worst shows I'd ever seen. I believe that Kathleen Turner's nude scene was at the beginning of the play and after the play began, you couldn't enter the theater until the nude scene was over. I remember sitting in the theater thinking how lucky the people who showed up late were because they got to miss it.
I give Julia Roberts credit for trying this play, but I don't think its fair to suggest that she is being used.
This should remind us how much different it is to act on stage than on film.
It really is rough.
The review in the Times was a little better, even though he called her "Theatrically challenged": http://tinyurl.com/jws2h
You mentioned Kathleen Turner. I saw her in the Graduate and thought it was one of the worst shows I'd ever seen. I believe that Kathleen Turner's nude scene was at the beginning of the play and after the play began, you couldn't enter the theater until the nude scene was over. I remember sitting in the theater thinking how lucky the people who showed up late were because they got to miss it.
I give Julia Roberts credit for trying this play, but I don't think its fair to suggest that she is being used.
This should remind us how much different it is to act on stage than on film.
Apr 20th, 2006, 02:52 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't feel too sorry for her though. One poster here has posted and raved over and over again about a recent performance by another "star" about whom the reviews said things even worse than those said about Miss Roberts. Sometimes the masses will support a star no matter how bad or miscast she might be.
Apr 20th, 2006, 03:20 PM
#27
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Gekko, I'll try to explain better: I don't consider myself a snob - and respectfully must say that I don't think that my attitude is "precisely why some people, particularly tourists who travel to NYC, don't go to see "good theater."
What I was trying to say is I think why some people, particulary toursits, don't see "good theater" is often b/c they only go to shows with a huge star for a draw and - not that some of those shows aren't great - I've enjoyed many myself -
but that too often people won't go to see a play because it doesn't have a big star, and sometimes those actors are far superior stage actors.
And I do understand that, if some tourists only get to NY infrequently or even frequently - or even people who live in the city - , and want to see a 'broadway show' infrequently and want the star factor and the big production - and I also do enjoy those - it's just that I enjoy theater so much and see so many other great opportunities in the city i wish some people would try those opportunities also because I think they would be more than pleasantly surprised.
But I have been disappointed at times in the contrast between a trained stage actor and the 'star' on stage - and often more pleasantly surprised by the understudy or unknown who isn't a star but has had fabulous stage training. some actors can do both and some can not and I would rather see those who can do stage acting than those who can not.
And I think everyone involved in a production knows by auditions who can make the tranfer from movie to stage but sometimes don't care b/c that name draw will get the show up and running - and sometimes those who see if after the star left, in that case, are often getting a better production.
I happen to like Julia Roberts in many of her movies; I think she lights up the screen, she's made me laugh out loud, cry, and was the reason I enjoyed some of the films she was in. I think she is talented in many different genres on screen.
My opinion however is, respectfully stated and just my opinion, that a star name gets investors, often gets a project up and running, sells a show out because of the star name, and that doesn't always mean it is going to be good - while other unknowns put on fabulously amazing stage performances with little notice, because some people are unwilling to try both and miss out therefor on some great theater in the city.
There is a huge difference between a seriously trained stage actor and a movie actor; both require talents in different areas; the stage actor must have a different talent for voice projection, inflection, movement, playing off the other actors - all things that are done differently for a close filming with a camera when in some scenese the actor isn't even in contact or present with other actors but speaking to a camera.
Very different than playing to a live audience - and I have seen over the years those who were trained solely for film acting botch it on stage because of lack of proper training in that venue.
So I don't feel I am a snob because I also go and see non-famous people in theater whether on or off or off off broadway and have seen some amazing stage acting that is an incredible live experience.
I understand people giving standing ovations to, say a Julia Roberts, just for being Julia as you say - but then I also feel that it is better to give such applause for a job exceedingly well done and not for some other job you did well. Although I know that is the way of the theater and the movies, - how often have we seen someone get an academy award for a film when many think it is because they were passed over for the previous film they really deserved it for.
politics in the theater and politics in the movies.
I apologize if that makes me sound like a snob, that was certainly not my intention at all. I have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy all types of theater - and I hope others do also, star or no star.
What I was trying to say is I think why some people, particulary toursits, don't see "good theater" is often b/c they only go to shows with a huge star for a draw and - not that some of those shows aren't great - I've enjoyed many myself -
but that too often people won't go to see a play because it doesn't have a big star, and sometimes those actors are far superior stage actors.
And I do understand that, if some tourists only get to NY infrequently or even frequently - or even people who live in the city - , and want to see a 'broadway show' infrequently and want the star factor and the big production - and I also do enjoy those - it's just that I enjoy theater so much and see so many other great opportunities in the city i wish some people would try those opportunities also because I think they would be more than pleasantly surprised.
But I have been disappointed at times in the contrast between a trained stage actor and the 'star' on stage - and often more pleasantly surprised by the understudy or unknown who isn't a star but has had fabulous stage training. some actors can do both and some can not and I would rather see those who can do stage acting than those who can not.
And I think everyone involved in a production knows by auditions who can make the tranfer from movie to stage but sometimes don't care b/c that name draw will get the show up and running - and sometimes those who see if after the star left, in that case, are often getting a better production.
I happen to like Julia Roberts in many of her movies; I think she lights up the screen, she's made me laugh out loud, cry, and was the reason I enjoyed some of the films she was in. I think she is talented in many different genres on screen.
My opinion however is, respectfully stated and just my opinion, that a star name gets investors, often gets a project up and running, sells a show out because of the star name, and that doesn't always mean it is going to be good - while other unknowns put on fabulously amazing stage performances with little notice, because some people are unwilling to try both and miss out therefor on some great theater in the city.
There is a huge difference between a seriously trained stage actor and a movie actor; both require talents in different areas; the stage actor must have a different talent for voice projection, inflection, movement, playing off the other actors - all things that are done differently for a close filming with a camera when in some scenese the actor isn't even in contact or present with other actors but speaking to a camera.
Very different than playing to a live audience - and I have seen over the years those who were trained solely for film acting botch it on stage because of lack of proper training in that venue.
So I don't feel I am a snob because I also go and see non-famous people in theater whether on or off or off off broadway and have seen some amazing stage acting that is an incredible live experience.
I understand people giving standing ovations to, say a Julia Roberts, just for being Julia as you say - but then I also feel that it is better to give such applause for a job exceedingly well done and not for some other job you did well. Although I know that is the way of the theater and the movies, - how often have we seen someone get an academy award for a film when many think it is because they were passed over for the previous film they really deserved it for.
politics in the theater and politics in the movies.
I apologize if that makes me sound like a snob, that was certainly not my intention at all. I have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy all types of theater - and I hope others do also, star or no star.
Apr 21st, 2006, 04:59 AM
#28
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stage actors have an easier time making the transition to film than film actors have in making the transition to stage. Think of Olivier or Gielgud or Hopkins. Even Fonda, Stewart, Gable, Welles and Garbo started on stage. On the other hand, Wayne bombed when he tried stage when he was a struggling actor in the 30s. I would imagine past stars like Eastwood and Newman and almost all the modern stars like Travolta or Depp or Pitt would fail miserably if they tried stage.
Film can be art (as in John Ford, Hitchcock or Bergmann) but there is room for film actors to screw up because of retakes. Scenes are filmed one at a time in short bursts. On the other hand, stage is merciless in that there are no retakes and the pace is hectic with few breaks for the actors. I am not surprised that Julia Roberts has failed as a stage actress.
Film can be art (as in John Ford, Hitchcock or Bergmann) but there is room for film actors to screw up because of retakes. Scenes are filmed one at a time in short bursts. On the other hand, stage is merciless in that there are no retakes and the pace is hectic with few breaks for the actors. I am not surprised that Julia Roberts has failed as a stage actress.
Apr 21st, 2006, 05:24 AM
#29
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One little correction on GeorgeW's otherwise well-stated comments. Paul Newman started his acting career on the stage and was a highly acclaimed performer there before become a superstar in the movies.
And, my compliments to escargot for another well-presented commentary. You have no need to apologize. The "snob" comment you were responding to was not worth of a response.
And, my compliments to escargot for another well-presented commentary. You have no need to apologize. The "snob" comment you were responding to was not worth of a response.
Apr 21st, 2006, 05:55 AM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
While we're at it Paul Newman was a big hit in Our Town just a couple years ago on Broadway. It was a production that started at Williamstown Theatre in the Berkshires, a wonderful company actively supported by Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. They both keep their roots in live theatre firmly planted.
Apr 21st, 2006, 05:59 AM
#33
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Neopolitan, but I've got to make another correction on an otherwise excellent post! The wonderful Woodward/Newman production of Our Town got its start at the Westport Playhouse in Connecticut, not Williamstown.
That is just what I thought, GoT! He has that "I drank way too much and consumed too many narcotics" look.
Apr 21st, 2006, 06:46 AM
#37
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
escargot - The only thing I really take offense at is the implication that one has to travel to New York to see "good theatre." Many smaller cities have very good regional theatre and Broadway shows (though I realize this is the touring company and not the actual Broadway performers) come to town as well. I actually thought the cast I saw locally from the touring company of Mama Mia was far better than the group I saw perform on television several times that was doing it on Broadway. Anyway, my point is just that the reason tourists often gravitate towards seeing big-name performers in NYC is because that is one thing we don't have at home.
Apr 21st, 2006, 07:52 AM
#38
I join snowroostr in that for some of us we have great theater in our town.
Here in Boston, I've seen so many through the years from the World of Suzy Wong, to whatever is current and lucky me gets to go to the cast parties
because my friend is PR for theater and I work for her occassionally.
The stars who were especially nice were Angela Lansbery, Carrol O'Connor, Mary Tyler moore, Vanessa Redgrave, I remember many who started in theater, like James Dean. Paul Newman started his acting At Kenyon.
Here in Boston, I've seen so many through the years from the World of Suzy Wong, to whatever is current and lucky me gets to go to the cast parties
because my friend is PR for theater and I work for her occassionally.
The stars who were especially nice were Angela Lansbery, Carrol O'Connor, Mary Tyler moore, Vanessa Redgrave, I remember many who started in theater, like James Dean. Paul Newman started his acting At Kenyon.
Apr 21st, 2006, 07:53 AM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wow. I didn't read any such implication into escargot's post. But the thread was about Broadway, and it seems that's what he was discussing.
I totally agree that much of the best stuff I've seen in the past few years has been in regional theatres.
And Howard you are right, of course. I guess I was thinking of the Blythe Danner/Gwyneth Paltrow connections of Williamstown Theatre. Westport -- Williamstown, well I guess I had the W right.
And speaking of movie/TV/theatre connections, David Schwimmer of Friends is currently appearing on Broadway in Caine Mutiny Court Martial, but don't think that is a "TV star hits Broadway" thing. His roots are firmly planted in the Chicago live theatre scene.
I totally agree that much of the best stuff I've seen in the past few years has been in regional theatres.
And Howard you are right, of course. I guess I was thinking of the Blythe Danner/Gwyneth Paltrow connections of Williamstown Theatre. Westport -- Williamstown, well I guess I had the W right.
And speaking of movie/TV/theatre connections, David Schwimmer of Friends is currently appearing on Broadway in Caine Mutiny Court Martial, but don't think that is a "TV star hits Broadway" thing. His roots are firmly planted in the Chicago live theatre scene.
Apr 21st, 2006, 08:05 AM
#40
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If memory serves, Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart did the Cape Cod stage circuit in the 30s and were discovered there. In my very humble opinion, those two were the most versatile actors in film. Coincidence?
