I have been thinking carefully about some lines of inquiry that I might pursue later in the programme and I keep coming back to the same interesting question.
What effect have T.V talent shows had on musical theatre? Is it a good thing for professionally trained performers?
I am currently in a musical that has recently turned to celebrity to sell tickets, as have many other musicals in the west end, and it has definitely had an effect on the ticket sales. We are now attracting a whole new audience to musical theatre that simply would never have considered coming to see theatre before and I think this is to do with crossing genres. Very cleverly, producers have bought into the popularity of reality television and are employing its “stars” as headline acts in musicals.
I think there are a lot of professionals that would argue that they have trained and worked hard for years to get the opportunities that reality television personalities get handed to them on a plate and that producers are sacrificing the quality and credibility of the show to sell more tickets.
Conversely, I think there are many very strong arguments in favour of this new business model. For every new flash in the pan celebrity in a musical there are hundreds of professionals in employment that perhaps would have been out of work. This doesn’t just stop at performers, there are now lighting crew, LX technicians, stage managers, front of house staff, marketing professionals and countless other departments vital to running a large scale musical, in gainful employment due to the demand for such celebrity.
I suppose it depends on how you look at musical theatre, do you look at it as purely a business or do you see it as a credible art form? As a business, the west end has bucked all trends in the current recession and continues to thrive financially when many other industries have suffered. But are we giving up too much to gain such wealth? Does the quality of the show suffer? In my own experience I have met many extremely talented performers who are perfectly able and competent to perform in leading roles and yet have lost out to less experienced and less talented individuals to ensure a good return on investment for the producers.
I think there are very strong arguments either way and it has certainly sparked a lot of debate in recent years among my colleagues and peers. I think the attractive prospect of this enquiry is that I am undecided as to where I stand on the matter and I think an un-biased opinion is definitely a useful thing when trying to step back from being a professional performer and look at the situation from a wider angle.
I also think that on further investigation it would be a very easy subject to research as there will be no end of resources online and in newspapers and magazine articles due to the fact that this is very current and still in the public’s interest. I also think it would be very interesting to have a look at the society of London theatre’s annual financial report and look at the hard figures behind the opinions.
This is a very interesting question. I will have to ponder it further, but I think that I stand more along the lines of its an art. I think that to a degree, casting celebrity in lead roles is damaging to the shows, simply because its done to make the show successful. celevrities are not always the best choice for casting, but they win because they have the face and the fan base, BUT i can see where the other side of the argument pulls at my heartstrings as well. thanks for sharing :)
ReplyDeleteThat is a really good line of inquiry and something I think you will have fun in persuing. I must say that I am for all the performers that have worked they're guts off over the years to land lead roles over some celebrity. Its such a shame when great performers who have trained all they're lives for a lead role end up the understudy of a D List celebrity. But on the other hand you need an audience. Surely there must be other ways to market and pull people into the West End? I know I personally would much rather see someone I had never heard of before do an amazing job than a celebrity that just isn't up to standard.
ReplyDeleteExample: I went to see Le Miserables at the O2- the 25th Anniversary performance. We saw Nick Jonas play Marius who we were very disapointed by, so much I wrote a bad review online when asked what I thought. He was way out of his depth showing the big difference between pop star singing and opera singers. The most embarassing thing for him was at the end when Michael Ball came on and sung, who played Marius origionally. He wiped the floor with Nick Jonas showing him how it should be done! But I got quite angry at the fact that Nick was cast in the first places. I am sure there were far better "unknowns" that could have played the role. Unfortunately the public were excited by seeing an american pop star, bringing young girls to the show!
Great line of inquiry!
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Laura and say that i would much prefer to go and see a show with an 'unknown' name playing a lead role than a celebrity.
It doesnt seem fair that celebrities land these amazing roles when more often than not there are other performers way more suited and talented for the part.
What about shows like 'Over the Rainbow' and 'How do you solve a problem like Maria' with Andrew Lloyd Webber? These would fall under the category of TV talent shows, but some of the people are trained and very talented (Lee Mead who won Any Dream Will Do had already performed in a number of musicals i think) They start as unknowns but end up becoming 'famous'. Its a great way to get musical theatre back in the lime light and i am sure ticket sales increase ten fold for these shows.
An interesting subject. Look forward to seeing what you come with!
I think this is a really interesting subject. It's also very current. Yes, we can get frustrated by the number of celebrities taking lead roles. However you look at it, they do increase ticket sales, which increases revenue, which means more jobs for us all. It is opening up the world of Musical theatre to people who would never have considered going before. Is it for the elites? I don't know. I am all to familiar with this subject- my agent literally had to tell me recently that I couldn't play a role because I was not famous; yes that was the exact words of the employer. So I really can see both sides of the coin!
ReplyDeleteI do however find myself thinking, you wouldn't get a celebrity to be a head chef just to get more people in a restaurant- because they don't have the skill. So why is the stage so different?
Great to see you have identified a line of inquiry. It's certainly both topical and timely.
ReplyDeleteThese questions you have developed have really stuck out, they are a great line of inquiry and very apt for today. It's true there are many performers out there that have tried so hard but get nipped at the posts as there name is not recognised, but then it does help our industry to strive. To me it feels like a 'catch 22' which has lead me to a line of enquiry I would like to pursue and blog about! Thanks!!
ReplyDelete