This is something I have been pondering for awhile now, but that really came back to me last night while watching that local production of "Oklahoma!" Knowing that the vast majority of the 6 or 7 people who read this blog are fans of the theatah, I ask this of you...I have yet to determine my stance:
The actress who played Laurie was very strong musically, but was lacking in conviction with her acting, and was even weaker when dancing. I know the show backwards and forwards, so I wasn't lost. I kept thinking that something would be lost on folks who are new to this show, though, as there was little feeling in her acting performance.
So, in a nutshell...
In musical theatre, is it better to be a singer who isn't a particularly capable actor, or is it better to be a strong actor with an ok singing voice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sounds like an uncomfortable night at the theatre. I hate having to cringe in my seat. I've got to agree with Stephen Sondheim who says he always favours actors who sing, as opposed to singers who act.
Good pitching beats good hitting. I say go for the acting. The music is so good that it will carry itself.
You know, I am really thinking that I tend to agree with you both on that. I think that is why it doesn't bother me that Deborah Kerr, Audrey Hepburn, etc. were dubbed in musicals. They played the characters so well, they made me believe they were singing.
Nice baseball comparison, CW!
Post a Comment