Tony Awards Sunday night

[+ Gar1eth]

Let me say right up front, I don't know diddly squat about New York theatre. Having been born and raised in Southern California where good theatre has always been wanting I haven't had the opportunity to appreciate it.

 

Now with that said and done I was thrilled to see that "A Gentlemans Guide to Love and Murder" won the awards it did. Robert Freedman, who wrote the book, is a great guy and a member of my family. WELL DONE ROBERT!!!!!

 

I'm glad it won too. One of the minor characters is a high school friend of my sister. And I was actually in a play at the local university with her (the actress not my sister) when I was in 9th grade when a few youngsters were needed for the production. I'm even a Facebook friend with her (the actress (and for that matter I'm a FB friend with my sister also)) although I wouldn't be surprised if she is not quite sure who I am after 35 years ( the actress I mean). I'm sure my sister remembers me.

 

Gman

[MrMiniver]

I now have this image of Estelle Parsons playing Billie Holliday...;-)

 

 

 

Oh boy, do I agree. I think they've played the gay jokes into the ground and beyond, and I wish they'd stop. I'd like to think we've all matured beyond that now - from a place where sexuality needs to be a constant insinuation and dirty joke, to the more affirming maturity of hearing winners being able to think their same-sex partners as a simple matter of course, etc. Since we DO have that ability now (we certainly saw it a few times on Sunday night), let's get rid of the sophomoric "Broadway is gay, wink wink, nudge nudge" stuff and get back to actually celebrating theatre.

 

It was funny the first 50 times they did it. Okay, we get it lots of gay people work in and enjoy the theater. But let's not balkanize the damn thing. Theater should be for and about everyone. This constant gay theater thing is annoying. It only serves to close it off for a potential part of the audience that doesn't want that shoved in their faces. Enough already. Unless, they've decided -- like other areas have -- that they only care about themselves and not the broader public that enjoys theater. That's how I often feel about the nominees ... let's just go for theater professionals (or what they view as theater professionals) and not everyone else. It's the only explanation of how a mediocre talent like Norbert Leo Butz wins a Tony over Daniel Radcliffe. I mean, in what alternate universe is he considered a great musical theater talent? There are dozens more examples.

[MrMiniver]

Sorry to see so much hating on Audra. It seems to come from the guys who are "in the business" in some way so I don't know how to interpret that. I only know, being merely an average everyday someone who loves theater and theater performers (and I agree she was nominated in the wrong category but that's certainly not her fault!) I can only go on what I have seen Ms. McDonald do in a previous performance. In that performance she overwhelmed me with her honest and gritty portrayal of a drug-addicted Bess who was trapped in her life and addiction. She won the Tony for leading actress that year too.

 

JMHO

 

TruHart1

 

Please can we stop using the "hate" word. I don't hate Audra. I like her. She's a nice person. I just find her overrated and undeserving of the constant acclaim she gets for doing the same thing over and over again. It reminds me, in the classical world, of Dawn Upshaw or Pierre Boulez. Everytime they farted, the critics proclaimed it a blessed event. Even when Upshaw had the whitest voice possible and was boring as hell and Boulez was turning Mahler into a clinical exercise.

 

That's what many are reacting against.

[MrMiniver]

I'm in the business as well, and I confess I like Audra's work. But it's funny - one of my close colleagues doesn't like her much either. (I think he'd say she's got a fine voice, but he doesn't think she's much of an actress.) Hey - one can't like everyone...

 

I'd agree with him. I don't think she's much of an actress. You can interchange the 3 or 4 gestures she does into any of her roles and go ... aha! Watch her on that awful TV show she was on and you'll see what I mean. Also, the voice is not what it was either .... she reminds me a bit of Lea Michelle who can't act her way out of a wet paper bag but has a good voice (actually a far better voice than Audra's). I liked Audra's work a lot early on (Master Class) but felt then I could never see her as a leading actress. She was terrific as a supporting performer. And I still just don't buy her as a leading actress.

[Frankly Rich]

Let me say right up front, I don't know diddly squat about New York theatre. Having been born and raised in Southern California where good theatre has always been wanting I haven't had the opportunity to appreciate it.

 

 

You'd fit right in here. Some know more than others, but many of us are here because we want to soak up theater information. I don't know how we'd handle a guy who knew everything.

[bostonman]

It's the only explanation of how a mediocre talent like Norbert Leo Butz wins a Tony over Daniel Radcliffe. I mean, in what alternate universe is he considered a great musical theater talent? There are dozens more examples.

 

I'm not sure why Radcliffe was even cast in that role. Finch should at least be past his college years. Radcliffe still looked like he was at Hogwarts. It seemed like it was a throwback to him being that cute kid from the Harry Potter movies, now suddenly starring in a musical, instead of it being a mature step forward for him. (Equus was a step forward, How To Succeed, not so much.) And he has an ok natural singing voice (Robert Morse didn't have a "trained" sound either), but it seems he has trouble sustaining a note without flatting.

 

Butz, on the other hand, was playing a very different kind of role than he had before, and yes, he has been at it for a while, which means he could draw on past experience and refine his work based on that experience.

 

If you don't like Butz, that's fine. But Radcliffe wasn't really ready for that role, and it showed. Being that the Tonys have tended to become a popularity contest more than really awarding the "best," Radcliffe might have won just for his celeb appeal. But the voters didn't buy that, ultimately. I think they made the right decision.

 

But actually, I remember being surprised that one of the two Mormon actors didn't win that category - after all, that was the show that was getting all the attention. (Again, that shouldn't mean anything in terms of racking up awards, but we know it can - The Producers, anyone???) I tend to wonder if the two of them would up cancelling each other out, as sometimes happens when two people from the same show are nominated for the same award.

[MrMiniver]

I'm not sure why Radcliffe was even cast in that role. Finch should at least be past his college years. Radcliffe still looked like he was at Hogwarts. It seemed like it was a throwback to him being that cute kid from the Harry Potter movies, now suddenly starring in a musical, instead of it being a mature step forward for him. (Equus was a step forward, How To Succeed, not so much.) And he has an ok natural singing voice (Robert Morse didn't have a "trained" sound either), but it seems he has trouble sustaining a note without flatting.

 

Butz, on the other hand, was playing a very different kind of role than he had before, and yes, he has been at it for a while, which means he could draw on past experience and refine his work based on that experience.

 

If you don't like Butz, that's fine. But Radcliffe wasn't really ready for that role, and it showed. Being that the Tonys have tended to become a popularity contest more than really awarding the "best," Radcliffe might have won just for his celeb appeal. But the voters didn't buy that, ultimately. I think they made the right decision.

 

But actually, I remember being surprised that one of the two Mormon actors didn't win that category - after all, that was the show that was getting all the attention. (Again, that shouldn't mean anything in terms of racking up awards, but we know it can - The Producers, anyone???) I tend to wonder if the two of them would up cancelling each other out, as sometimes happens when two people from the same show are nominated for the same award.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'll completely disagree with you. Radcliffe was terrific and totally believable in the role. I have several bootlegs of the show and I've often gone back to look at them because his performance is completely infectious. He has star quality. That is something that Butz simply doesn't have. He's a journeyman and well liked by theater professionals. That's why he won. But back in the heydey he wouldn't even get hired. He's third, fourth rate at best.

 

I'm with the critics who loved Radcliffe in it and based on the video evidence -- and as someone who has taught voice -- he rarely if ever flatted that I could hear. If you wanted flatting, you should have gone to see his replacement Darren Criss who flatted on most every note and who couldn't be heard past the fourth row. Now, THERE's mediocrity!

[Frankly Rich]

Norbert Lee Butz is a great comic actor. I would toss his post off to the usual disagreement theater fans have, except that MrMiniver seems almost always wrong, yet so sharp and sure of himself.

[bostonman]

If you wanted flatting, you should have gone to see his replacement Darren Criss who flatted on most every note and who couldn't be heard past the fourth row. Now, THERE's mediocrity!

 

Oh, I don't understand ANY of the thoughts behind casting that role in this revival - Radcliffe or the replacements. (Don't forget Nick Jonas too.) As much as I despised the former 1995 revival with every fiber of my being (especially the awful things that the musical staff, who all should have known better, did to that score), I will admit that Broderick could at least carry the show. (Though, hearing the recording of him in the more recent Nice Work If You Can Get It was like hearing nails on the proverbial chalkboard, IMO.)

[+ WilliamM]

I'm not sure why Radcliffe was even cast in that role. Finch should at least be past his college years. Radcliffe still looked like he was at Hogwarts. It seemed like it was a throwback to him being that cute kid from the Harry Potter movies' date=' now suddenly starring in a musical, instead of it being a mature step forward for him. ([i']Equus[/i] was a step forward, How To Succeed, not so much.) And he has an ok natural singing voice (Robert Morse didn't have a "trained" sound either), but it seems he has trouble sustaining a note without flatting.

 

Butz, on the other hand, was playing a very different kind of role than he had before, and yes, he has been at it for a while, which means he could draw on past experience and refine his work based on that experience.

 

If you don't like Butz, that's fine. But Radcliffe wasn't really ready for that role, and it showed. Being that the Tonys have tended to become a popularity contest more than really awarding the "best," Radcliffe might have won just for his celeb appeal. But the voters didn't buy that, ultimately. I think they made the right decision.

 

Robert Morse looked young, even in his late 20s and early 30s. I saw him play a juvenile in the Jackie Gleason hit musical "Take Me Along," although Morse was twenty-eight years old at the time. He was thirty when "How to Suceed in Business..." opened on Broadway. I am not sure it's necessary for everyone who plays the lead role to be eight years past his college years, but Morse apparently set the standard. I do agree that Radcliffe would have been better served in "How to Succeed..," if he was slightly older and a better singer. But, he has charm to spare on stage and off.

 

I loved Norbert Leo Butz in "Catch Me If You Can," so I was thrilled that he won the Tony Award for Best Actor in Musical that year. He also won a Tony in the same category for "Dirty Ritten Scoundrels." Butz is a seasoned musical actor, who is almost always a delight; it's good to see him recognized by his peers.

 

Radcliffe did deserve all the praise he received in the press for his performance in "Equus," even if the production itself was otherwise second rate. He should have gotten more Tony Award consideration for "Equus."

[bostonman]

Robert Morse looked young, even in his late 20s and early 30s. I saw him play a juvenile in the Jackie Gleason hit musical "Take Me Along," although Morse was twenty-eight years old at the time. He was thirty when "How to Suceed in Business..." opened on Broadway. I am not sure it's necessary for everyone who plays the lead role to be eight years past his college years, but Morse apparently set the standard. I do agree that Radcliffe would have been better served in "How to Succeed..," if he was slightly older and a better singer. But, he has charm to spare on stage and off.

 

Morse did look young, but he still had the look of a young man, not a growing boy. Finch does have to be at least a college grad, of course - first off, the firm probably wouldn't have hired him at all without the degree (even taking into account that this is all farce, even so), and of course Biggley has to somehow believe that Finch is indeed an "Old Ivy" alum.

[Frankly Rich]

People like Tyne Daly are being hired and working on a Broadway stage. Some of the criticism here sounds just like Moss Hart described the group he joined every day at the Rutledge Hotel. Mean and vicious, and quite contrary.

[actor61]

Robert Morse looked young, even in his late 20s and early 30s. I saw him play a juvenile in the Jackie Gleason hit musical "Take Me Along," although Morse was twenty-eight years old at the time. He was thirty when "How to Suceed in Business..." opened on Broadway. I am not sure it's necessary for everyone who plays the lead role to be eight years past his college years, but Morse apparently set the standard. I do agree that Radcliffe would have been better served in "How to Succeed..," if he was slightly older and a better singer. But, he has charm to spare on stage and off.

 

I loved Norbert Leo Butz in "Catch Me If You Can," so I was thrilled that he won the Tony Award for Best Actor in Musical that year. He also won a Tony in the same category for "Dirty Ritten Scoundrels." Butz is a seasoned musical actor, who is almost always a delight; it's good to see him recognized by his peers.

 

Radcliffe did deserve all the praise he received in the press for his performance in "Equus," even if the production itself was otherwise second rate. He should have gotten more Tony Award consideration for "Equus."

 

I liked Radcliffe in "How To" - there was a lot wrong with that production but he wasn't one of its problems. He was charming, very funny, and worked his tiny butt off. His number with John LaRoquette deservedly stopped the show. I am not a Norbert Leo Butz fan - too manic for me. I can always see him working, and he just seems to be begging the audience to love him. I saw him in a tour of "Cabaret" as the MC with Teri Hatcher as Sally Bowles. Enough said. I'm not a Danny Burstein fan either; in fact, I actually avoid shows he's in. Everyone raved about him as Billis in the "South Pacific" revival. I found him creepy and psychopathic in that role. It was a very strange interpretation. People raved about him again in the revival of "Follies". To me, he looked and sounded like a panicked chipmunk. I hear he's good in the current revival of "Cabaret". I won't be spending any money on a ticket to that one so I won't be able to offer an opinion.

 

As for Audra Macdonald and her 6 Tonys: She's a supremely talented woman but 3 would suffice. I saw her in the revival of "Raisin in the Sun" with Sean Coombs and she was good but it wasn't a Tony performance, and yet she won. By the way, they seem to be doing annual revivals of that show! I saw her in the revival of "110 in the Shade" - what were they thinking?! Lizzie is supposed to be plain; Audra certainly isn't. I hated her in the concert version of "Sweeney". I liked her in that notorious t.v. version of "The Sound of Music" with Carrie Underwood, and she sang "Climb Every Mountain" gloriously but any soprano worth her salt should be able to sing that song gloriously. Maybe I'm just jealous of her career but she leaves me cold.

[bostonman]

I saw her in the revival of "110 in the Shade" - what were they thinking?! Lizzie is supposed to be plain; Audra certainly isn't.

 

I don't happen to think Inga Swenson was plain either. Nor Kate Hepburn or Geraldine Page.

 

They might have taken more steps to make Audra look a bit plainer - but when you think about it, are you going to cast an actress in that role because she's plain-looking in real life? Ouch!

[MrMiniver]

Oh, I don't understand ANY of the thoughts behind casting that role in this revival - Radcliffe or the replacements. (Don't forget Nick Jonas too.) As much as I despised the former 1995 revival with every fiber of my being (especially the awful things that the musical staff, who all should have known better, did to that score), I will admit that Broderick could at least carry the show. (Though, hearing the recording of him in the more recent Nice Work If You Can Get It was like hearing nails on the proverbial chalkboard, IMO.)

 

We obviously disagree. But at least with Nick Jonas I got to look at something that I could drool over

[MrMiniver]

Morse did look young, but he still had the look of a young man, not a growing boy. Finch does have to be at least a college grad, of course - first off, the firm probably wouldn't have hired him at all without the degree (even taking into account that this is all farce, even so), and of course Biggley has to somehow believe that Finch is indeed an "Old Ivy" alum.

 

 

The problem with starting down this road of "authenticity" is where does it end? Who decides? It's the theater ... suspend disbelief? It's why I couldn't accept the actors in All the Way or Act One or Audra. None of them looked or sounded or acted anything like their real-life counterparts. At least Radcliffe's part was fictional!! LOL

[bostonman]

The problem with starting down this road of "authenticity" is where does it end? Who decides? It's the theater ... suspend disbelief? It's why I couldn't accept the actors in All the Way or Act One or Audra. None of them looked or sounded or acted anything like their real-life counterparts. At least Radcliffe's part was fictional!! LOL

 

I think so-called suspension of disbelief has a lot to do with how one's day went, how one personally feels about the performers, and how much money one spent on the tickets, etc. And it changes depending on what kind of a theatre you're in. For instance, if you're watching Bryan Cranston at the Neil Simon Theatre, maybe you don't think he's believable the way your memory tells you you think LBJ was like. But if you head over to the Metropolitan Opera and probably pay more to see, say, an adult Italian soprano trying to pretend to be a 15-year-old Japanese geisha, it's just fine and dandy.

 

(Except of course, when you have a soprano who can't fit into a "little black dress" - being overweight takes away from the credibility of being a romantic lead, while being decades too old or the wrong ethnicity does not. Go figure...)

 

I bet you'd say, however, that Radcliffe might have seemed a little young to play Biggley, yes? His part is fictional too, after all...

[MrMiniver]

I think so-called suspension of disbelief has a lot to do with how one's day went, how one personally feels about the performers, and how much money one spent on the tickets, etc. And it changes depending on what kind of a theatre you're in. For instance, if you're watching Bryan Cranston at the Neil Simon Theatre, maybe you don't think he's believable the way your memory tells you you think LBJ was like. But if you head over to the Metropolitan Opera and probably pay more to see, say, an adult Italian soprano trying to pretend to be a 15-year-old Japanese geisha, it's just fine and dandy.

 

(Except of course, when you have a soprano who can't fit into a "little black dress" - being overweight takes away from the credibility of being a romantic lead, while being decades too old or the wrong ethnicity does not. Go figure...)

 

I bet you'd say, however, that Radcliffe might have seemed a little young to play Biggley, yes? His part is fictional too, after all...

 

Well, as for the "little black dress" that canard has been repeated so often that it has become accepted as fact when, it is, a myth. I know Debbie Voigt very well and she was fired because she was unable to do the blocking for the show .. they would have happily fitted her with a different dress but it didn't matter because she simply was incapable of doing the blocking. It made for a nice story for her and her PR people .... but it was not the truth.

 

And I'm far more able to believe an adult soprano doing Butterfly than I am for Audra McDonald to remotely remind me of Billie Holliday! LOL

[bostonman]

Well, as for the "little black dress" that canard has been repeated so often that it has become accepted as fact when, it is, a myth. I know Debbie Voigt very well and she was fired because she was unable to do the blocking for the show .. they would have happily fitted her with a different dress but it didn't matter because she simply was incapable of doing the blocking. It made for a nice story for her and her PR people .... but it was not the truth.

 

And I'm far more able to believe an adult soprano doing Butterfly than I am for Audra McDonald to remotely remind me of Billie Holliday! LOL

 

Wasn't that Ariadne a new production at the time (as opposed to her joining it later, after the show had been more or less 'set')? If so, the blocking should have been a collaboration between her and the director, not something she was being fit into. Something's fishy about this story...(besides, most Ariadnes I've seen, for better or worse, don't do much more than park and bark and roam around the "island" - it's Zerbinetta and her crew that get all the intricate blocking. What was this director wanting her to do - sing on her head? Was this a Peter Sellars production, lol?)

 

As for the "credibility" of an adult (and often non-asian) Butterfly - aside from the fact that it's long-standing tradition that we've come to accept (and that there's the practical consideration of obviously not wanting to hear an actual teenager try to tackle the role), my question is - why DO we find such casting in opera more palatable than in other situations? It really doesn't make any rational sense, though we do wind up accepting it all the same.

 

I would also say that we tend to fall into a trap with shows revolving around historical/recognizable figures - I wouldn't want either Audra or Cranston in this case to be merely "mimicking" rather than doing a broader more theatrical and complete portrayal of the situation. Is the main point of the piece that they get the voice just right, like they were doing some P-town drag act? (And even there, there are very good ones and very awful ones, lol). Insomuch as some people are going to expect mimicry, I personally don't think that should be the main point for such shows. (Just like I don't expect any baritone playing Nixon in the Adams opera to really try to "sound" like Nixon - an occasional vocal inflexion or gesture that clues into what we remember him being like is plenty to keep it credible for me - the point of the piece is far beyond whether or not he's doing an impression of Nixon. The impression was Rich Little's game, lol.)

 

Memory and nostalgia play a big part in our perceptions of impersonation as well - even though of course we do have actual sound and/or film documents of LBJ and Billie. I love the comment that Jonathan Tunick made about his orchestration of Follies, for instance - that he was striving for (and I paraphrase) "a glorification of every Follies pit orchestra you thought you heard. Not a literal recreation - but the way you remember it sounding." So yes, one can go do research on what Billie or LBJ literally sounded like, but for most of us, we tend to have a more 'glorified' impression in our heads of what we perceive them sounding like - and those memories not always so accurate either. So, some people expecting Audra to sound like thee way they think Billie sounded in their memory are apt to be let down no matter what, because it comes down to a personal, nostalgia-driven memory of a sound, not the real thing. So it's a tough kind of a role to tackle no matter what, because everyone in the audience is going to come in with their own personal expectation of what Audra should make herself sound like - and it's just never going to satisfy everyone no matter what she does. (Some people will think she sounded "just like Billie." Some people won't think that at all. And some people won't care about the specifics of the voice as much, and instead concentrate on whether or not they simply believed Billie's emotional journey through the piece - after all, it is a PLAY, not a DOCUMENTARY, lol. And of course some people will think Audra got that emotional arc, and some won't.)

 

For me, I haven't seen the show, but I did see her appearance on Colbert a while back. I can't remember what song she sang, but my initial impression was that she sounded off - way too nasal, for instance. After the song, I went to youtube to find the corresponding recording of Billie's performance of that song - and I was surprised to find that Audra had actually nailed the sound perfectly - and it was MY perception of Billie that had been off. So, just goes to show ya...

[MrMiniver]

No, the blocking is not a collaboration between the singer and the director. The blocking is set by the production staff.

 

And the actual true story has been known and reported on for some time ... it's just easier to repeat the myth to make her sound like the victim. She wasn't. And having the time off enabled her to have the two gastric bypass surgeries ... which, as it turned out, helped her lose the weight but even so, she still couldn't act.

[bostonman]

No, the blocking is not a collaboration between the singer and the director. The blocking is set by the production staff.

 

Any reasonable director works with his actors to create blocking that is a collaboration. Sometimes the director really wants a particular thing that an actor disagrees with, and the actor just has to wind up dealing with it and doing it, but for the most part, the directors I've known of and have worked with have been very amenable to making things comfortable for their actors, within reason of course. Yes, there are indeed "auteur" directors that feel actors are nothing but chess pieces to be moved around a board at whim, without any motivation except "because I'm the director and I said so." If that's the kind of environment Voight was in, I feel sorry she ever got involved.

 

And I hope you're not confusing blocking (i.e. "staging") with acting. They are separate elements of the craft. One informs the other, of course, but they are distinct. One can follow all the staging that is laid out and still be a terrible actor, even though they're hitting all the marks and doing the movements. One can also act the hell out of a role but not be willing (or sometimes not be able) to render the physical life the way the director would want. The best actors, in terms of a finished product, are able to synthesize all of it together into a performance that looks naturally motivated. But it's also not just a stereotype that many opera singers are not accomplished actors (though that is slowly changing), and are more apt to express themselves through the music than to make their physical gesturing look organic.

[+ WilliamM]

.

Memory and nostalgia play a big part in our perceptions of impersonation as well - even though of course we do have actual sound and/or film documents of LBJ and Billie. I love the comment that Jonathan Tunick made about his orchestration of Follies, for instance - that he was striving for (and I paraphrase) "a glorification of every Follies pit orchestra you thought you heard. Not a literal recreation - but the way you remember it sounding." So yes, one can go do research on what Billie or LBJ literally sounded like, but for most of us, we tend to have a more 'glorified' impression in our heads of what we perceive them sounding like - and those memories not always so accurate either. So, some people expecting Audra to sound like thee way they think Billie sounded in their memory are apt to be let down no matter what, because it comes down to a personal, nostalgia-driven memory of a sound, not the real thing. arc, and some won't.)

 

 

So true. I was born in Lyndon Johnson's congression district in Texas, in college and the military when LBJ was president.

I always think that I remember his voice. It's not so. I am always surprised when I listen to Johnson on YouTube, "Mad Men" or his White House tapes.

[MrMiniver]

Any reasonable director works with his actors to create blocking that is a collaboration. Sometimes the director really wants a particular thing that an actor disagrees with, and the actor just has to wind up dealing with it and doing it, but for the most part, the directors I've known of and have worked with have been very amenable to making things comfortable for their actors, within reason of course. Yes, there are indeed "auteur" directors that feel actors are nothing but chess pieces to be moved around a board at whim, without any motivation except "because I'm the director and I said so." If that's the kind of environment Voight was in, I feel sorry she ever got involved.

 

And I hope you're not confusing blocking (i.e. "staging") with acting. They are separate elements of the craft. One informs the other, of course, but they are distinct. One can follow all the staging that is laid out and still be a terrible actor, even though they're hitting all the marks and doing the movements. One can also act the hell out of a role but not be willing (or sometimes not be able) to render the physical life the way the director would want. The best actors, in terms of a finished product, are able to synthesize all of it together into a performance that looks naturally motivated. But it's also not just a stereotype that many opera singers are not accomplished actors (though that is slowly changing), and are more apt to express themselves through the music than to make their physical gesturing look organic.

 

I don't think you've ever worked in the opera world. There can be adjustments to the blocking once the rehearsal process starts but the actual blocking is done before that.

[bostonman]

There can be adjustments to the blocking once the rehearsal process starts

 

That's exactly what I meant, lol.

 

And yes, I'm much more accustomed to the theatre world, where I realize rehearsal periods are usually longer, and directors can work differently. Even then, though, I didn't mean to imply that blocking isn't set beforehand - it has to be (I have worked with some directors who like to let the actors explore and then things are set later, but even then, the director knows what he'd like to aim for), but I was trying to say that most directors, even as far as I know in opera, will be willing to adjust staging that isn't working for the singer. Auteurs who only want what they want are not really directors, as far as I'm concerned. A good director not only has a vision in his head, he's skilled enough to make that vision fit the cast he has, not to force the cast to fit his vision.

[MrMiniver]

That's exactly what I meant, lol.

 

And yes, I'm much more accustomed to the theatre world, where I realize rehearsal periods are usually longer, and directors can work differently. Even then, though, I didn't mean to imply that blocking isn't set beforehand - it has to be (I have worked with some directors who like to let the actors explore and then things are set later, but even then, the director knows what he'd like to aim for), but I was trying to say that most directors, even as far as I know in opera, will be willing to adjust staging that isn't working for the singer. Auteurs who only want what they want are not really directors, as far as I'm concerned. A good director not only has a vision in his head, he's skilled enough to make that vision fit the cast he has, not to force the cast to fit his vision.

 

In the case of Voigt, she simply didn't work with the concept that the director had and "working with her" would have completely changed what he wanted to do. So they dumped her.