If you attend an acclaimed theatrical production, and find yourself doubting that you saw the same one critics so ecstatically received, the reason could be simple: You didn`t.
So observed writer William Goldman in his landmark book on American theater, ”The Season,” remarking on the phenomenon of revolving performers- and changing performance quality-in long-run Broadway shows.
Unlike movies or television, the theater is never frozen, but an evolving art that can change over time. One nagging problem is the difficulty in maintaining the same actors for extended runs-everything from prior commitment to old-fashioned fatigue can force replacements. While efforts are always made to maintain the zest of the original, no two actors are ever the same. A new face in some ways means a new production.
In Chicago, the problem has never been big. Runs are shorter, and the star system, to the extent it exists, is more muted and subtle than that of New York theater. But, lately, even resident not-for-profit theaters seemed plagued with a small epidemic of replacement-itis. On a recent week, a theatergoer could attend as many as four hit productions and not see important players from the original cast, even though the shows were only a few weeks old.
”I think it`s growing and it concerns me,” says Barbara Gaines, artistic director of Shakespeare Repertory, whose surprise hit version of
”Cymbeline” ended last weekend with three replacements. ”This wasn`t the problem with `Cymbeline,` but in general I try to discourage actors leaving mid-run by telling them in auditions we need them for the long haul. At this point in our history, every night is very important. We can`t afford to turn off a single member of the funding community.”
”I hear that this has become, if not a problem, at least a fact of life,” says Richard Fire, artistic director of the Organic Theater, whose
”Bleacher Bums” is now in its sixth month and no longer features a single original cast member. ”It can make things difficult-you want to deliver a high-quality product, and you`d like it to be the one that was reviewed.”
Dennis Farina, who played three weeks of previews and then three weeks of the run, left to make a movie. George Wendt was brought in, played for a while and would have lasted most of the summer, except he was called back unexpectedly early to his network television series ”Cheers.” At summer`s end, the whole cast moved on, since they had signed three-month contracts originally and some had prior commitments for the fall.
”In a way, we`re victims of our own success,” argues Ed Blatchford, who had to confront the issue from two angles, as artistic director of American Blues Theatre and as co-performer in its ”Desire Under the Elms,” when fellow actor Dennis Cockrum left to shoot a movie. ”It`s become a staircase. Actors leave non-Equity shows to do Equity ones, while Equity actors quit to go to the Goodman Theatre or do a movie.
”On one hand, it`s wonderful,” he adds. ”Since Dennis is a member of the company, it means more notoriety for him and for us when he does movies. And it`s important that actors, especially in this town, be allowed to accept movies and TV. But as an actor in the play involved, it means more work. In effect, it`s back to rehearsals.”
”Our salaries aren`t going up the way they should, so economic pressures on actors are increasing,” says Roche Schulfer, the Goodman`s producing director. ”But there`s also an increasing careerist mentality out there. It`s one thing to make a move because of the economics; if it`s a better part or better theater, then it`s disturbing.”
When ”Serious Money” opened earlier this season at Court Theatre, high marks went to Gerry Becker and Linda Emond; when the show closed, Calvin MacLean and Kathleen O`Grady had those roles. After five weeks in
”Cymbeline,” William J. Norris, Robert Scogin and Ernest Perry Jr. left for ”A Christmas Carol” at the Goodman; Kevin Gudahl, Ned Schmidtke and Richard Wharton came on board. ”I Am a Camera” lost its leading man, Jeffrey Hutchinson, for a portion of its current run with the National Jewish Theatre in Skokie, so he can go with the Body Politic`s ”Wenceslas Square” to a theater festival in Belfast; Eric Simonson stepped in until he returns.
In most cases, theater heads say recent departures were matters of extenuating circumstances. With ”Cymbeline,” the original run was only expected to be for five weeks-in fact, it was planned around ”Christmas Carol,” since three principals also were in that show. But, in the kind of headache directors dream about, ”Cymbeline” was an unexpected big hit-”the first time that`s happened, I think, in 400 years.” Gaines felt obliged to extend, despite her promise to the three actors who had to leave.
And, in fairness, her replacements are professionals with long track records and, in Gudahl`s case, a recent acting award from the Shakespeare festival in Ontario. But the over-all effect is still troubling. More than one observer described Norris` portrayal in ”Cymbeline” as the performance of his career. Norris signed to do ”Christmas Carol” before ”Cymbeline”
opened, so he had no choice.
The case with Court`s ”Serious Money” is especially unusual. It`s one thing when an actor leaves a show to go to another theater. But Becker and Emond left so they could rehearse Court`s own follow-up, ”The Hotel Paradise,” now on view. In effect, Court robbed itself. ”We haven`t lost actors during runs much in the past, but this was an unusual case,” explains Nicholas Rudall, Court`s artistic director. ”We wanted those two actors for the next show, but, because it`s a farce, it needed extra rehearsal time. If they had tried to do both, it would have meant an 80-hour week or more for both of them, and it wouldn`t have been possible.”
So why were they both booked into successive shows? Why not arrange the schedule to prevent such a thing? Aren`t audiences going to become cynical, wondering if actors are cast for reviews to generate ticket sales and, that assured, others are substituted?
There were two separate directors, Rudall says, and both wanted those two actors. And at the time of the casting last summer, it wasn`t clear that the double casting would be a problem. ”We didn`t realize the extraordinary demands both shows put on lead actors,” Rudall said. ”It was unfortunate, we wouldn`t do it again. Someone asked if they could do that with our current production, and we`ve told them no.”
William Payne, the director of American Blues` ”Desire,” aggressively defends a flexible policy about replacements for the sake of actors: ”Our actors work for $165 a week. When they have an opportunity to make 10 times that on a film, we gracefully say, `Go.` If an actor works 20 weeks out of the year with us, he`s lucky, and 20 times $165 doesn`t make rent.”
Veteran film and Broadway actor Barry Nelson, in town for ”The Cocktail Hour” at the Royal-George Theatre, just happens to be something of an expert: Goldman`s aforementioned book cites Nelson as one of the most reliable of `60s Broadway actors for the long haul.
”The truth is, a new cast member can jolt the actors into making an adjustment, which isn`t always bad,” Nelson says. ”I`ve noticed, in seeing a show that`s been playing for six weeks, a tendency for the actors` eyes to glaze over. The inspiration that caused a brilliant opening night can`t be repeated, but it has to be replenished with new inspiration as a show goes on. In that way, a replacement actor can be a plus. But he or she has to be given leeway by the cast so that the original performance isn`t just copied. The situation demands generosity on both sides.”
