Jump to content


- - - - -

Week One Live Show


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
61 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2008 - 11:56 AM

If people really are committed and "want" it as much as they seem to claim on these shows, then they should invest the time to train properly and get proper tuition. Just standing in front of a camera saying "I want this so much, I really really do" doesn't qualify them for a lead in the west end.

If people really want to they can afford the fees, I come from a poor working class background and NO way could my family pay the fees for drama school so I set up a charity organised events and worked every hour I could in dead end jobs to raise the 40 000 needed to get me through - if you really do want to do it you can achieve it I really don't buy the "can't afford it" argument.

Having said all that i'm not saying that untrained people can't be talented I have worked with and seen people with no formal training being OUTSTANDING and putting my abilities to shame.

My feeling is that the best person for the job should get the job, but as seems to be the case in these competitions the best person for the job tends to be trained!!!

#42 Matthew Winn

Matthew Winn

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bletchley

Posted 31 March 2008 - 12:10 PM

QUOTE(si @ Mar 31 2008, 09:59 AM) View Post
I am hoping that this series will allow someone to shine who isn't from the Drama school background - it would be a huge result if someone with real talent was found and could make it through to the top - without having spent thousands of pounds on training (which can produce a lot of consistent - but not very individual - performers)

I'd agree that some schools can turn out rather less individuality than they should. I've seen some people who play exactly the same character no matter what role they're in: having been trained in a particular way they apply the same techniques to every job they get with the result that there's nothing to differentiate the parts they play apart from the words they speak.

It's no coincidence that my four favourite actresses have all had unconventional routes to musical theatre: one of them quit her training half way through after being offered a role, two more trained in ballet alone but then went into musicals and worked their way up from the ensemble to leading roles, and the fourth actually worked as a ballerina before switching to musical theatre and turning out to have the loveliest voice I've ever heard. It gave all of them great individuality in their performances, and that's why I find them so interesting to watch even though they may not always be as technically accomplished as I'd like.

QUOTE(Oxford Simon @ Mar 31 2008, 11:53 AM) View Post
I have worked with some incredibly talented people who have not gone through drama school.  The vast majority of people cannot afford the fees of such institutions and it shouldn't be the only route into the business.

It isn't, and I've seen some people who have become professionals as a result of going full-time after years of amateur work. But the fact remains that to do well they need experience. Most people get that experience through training, some get it through a couple of dozen roles in amateur productions, but nobody gets that experience simply by dreaming about it. The idea that someone can step up on stage and be an instant star doesn't work outside of fiction unless you set your standards ridiculously low.

In anything but the most unskilled jobs experience is vital, and when it comes to acting I could count the number of good lead performances I've seen from people who are appearing on stage for the first time on the fingers of one foot.
I have always hated eggs. I remember back when I was a sperm I tried to head-butt one. It did not end well.

#43 JIJane

JIJane

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 31 March 2008 - 12:16 PM

Great points Matthew, I agree. In regards to the "cloning" aspect of drama school - there is some truth to that but only if you LET this happen to you.  As an actor you have the choice to not be a clone and be an individual, not everything they tell you at drama school is the gospel and 100% true for your individual needs. It's just the start, YOU as an actor make yourself the individual. Not the place you train at.

#44 hitster

hitster

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 31 March 2008 - 12:20 PM

Amy was the weakest performer and deserved to go, Keisha was a nice surprise and is pleasantly stacked " I thought that DVO might have said her old "If in doubt whack em out " joke from her Big Breakfast days. Jessie needs direction but has time to learn. Francesca was probably in the bottom 2 as they had banged on that she had done Rent etc whilst two other more profesionally experienced performers in Sarah and Rachel weren't focused on so much.

I like Barry Humphries on the panel, he will be very funny and is a good replacement for Zoe Tyler who had got too big for her boots. John Barrowman has always seemed a fairly regular guy without a huge ego, always having time for fans and other performers. As he does Dr Who/Torchwood and other projects for the BBC then assume he will be on any of these shows as much as Grahm Norton will be due to his BBC contract.

#45 Matthew Winn

Matthew Winn

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bletchley

Posted 31 March 2008 - 01:58 PM

QUOTE(JIJane @ Mar 31 2008, 01:16 PM) View Post
In regards to the "cloning" aspect of drama school - there is some truth to that but only if you LET this happen to you.  As an actor you have the choice to not be a clone and be an individual, not everything they tell you at drama school is the gospel and 100% true for your individual needs. It's just the start, YOU as an actor make yourself the individual. Not the place you train at.

You're right, of course, and I didn't want to give the impression I think that all trained actors are lifeless clones. It's just a few who fall back on the same techniques for every role.

Similarly, not all people who arrive by an unusual route are good. Although I've seen several fantastic performances from people who came to musical theatre from ballet, I've also seen many ballet-trained ensemble dancers who, while fabulous as ensemble dancers, should never be allowed near a lead role because they have no talent for acting at all.
I have always hated eggs. I remember back when I was a sperm I tried to head-butt one. It did not end well.

#46 hitster

hitster

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 31 March 2008 - 02:19 PM

As Matthew says in his posting, some performers are better dancers than singers and others are better singers than actors etc. Unfortunately to play a lead in musical theatre you have to be strong in all 3 or at least 2 out of 3 mainly singing and acting. This is no disrespect to dancers who often find work in chorus lines perhaps working more steadily as an ensemble member rather than some leads who often have big gaps between parts. I've seen over the years I've been following theatre some people who whilst never playing a lead or even covering one seem to be working almost constantly as an ensemble/swing performer and are fantastic dancers and their training is often more dance based. The BBC did a dance based show this year so there is no reason why this cannot be incorporated into a Joseph/Maria/Oliver show etc although the panel would need a Bruno/Arlene type judge to talk about dancing whilst ALW is involved then it would be singing based. Also doing "sketches" to show acting would only work with comedy ones and for a role like Nancy you are looking for the dramatic side rather than the comedic side.

#47 Haz

Haz

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1264 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 31 March 2008 - 03:02 PM

i can already visualise francesca's winning 'best bits' montage, talking about how she's come from the bottom two in week one and turned it all around.
whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should

http://curtain-up.blogspot.com/

#48 Guest_NancyBoy_*

Guest_NancyBoy_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2008 - 10:39 PM

There seems to be alot of Francesca talk on this board. Mainly to do I think with the amount of importance people have put on her by being a professional (even though I believe Rachel and Sarah have worked far more a more consistantly). Vocally she really wasn't on it and seems v lack lustre in the group songs.
I really believe that's why she was in the bottom 2. She'd been hyped up hugley and didn't deliver.
In regards to her husky jazzy vocal quality, I think she is just that. A jazz singer. Would probably be very sucessful in Ronnie Scotts, but not 8 shows a week in frankly quite a challenging role. Bare in mind she lost her voice during Nancy school. And was off both times i saw Rent. Could the 'professional' really hack it?

#49 Tintin

Tintin

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 463 posts

Posted 01 April 2008 - 07:30 AM

As with all the other shows in this series, the songs they are given to sing are really dreadful, with very little relationship to musicals, especially "Oliver". All that screeching and feeble diction really belongs to the world of pop, not the musical theatre. Who chooses the songs anyway? To me only the girl singing "Mad About The Boy" made any genuine impact. She may not make a suitable Nancy, but she really stood out a mile as a performer, and will probably be the one who will have the most successful career ahead of her. ALW compared her to Shirley Bassey, but she reminded me more of the great Elaine Delmar, who sang the same song in "Cowardy Custard" years ago.

They really should sack the hairdresser immediately. Such hideous creations only made the girls look like something out of a Hammer horror film, especially with those horrid Bride of Frankenstein body mikes they are lumbered with.

Thank goodness we are spared the no-talent celebs who used to be brought on to perform while the votes were being counted.

I am beginning to wonder if there is any BBC programme that does not feature John Barrowman.

It is a great idea to have Barry Humphries as one of the judges, but I would rather have had Dame Edna.

#50 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2008 - 09:50 AM

Actually five out of the final 12 are professionals who have agents already - granted Amy has now gone and is one of them!!!

I think the odds are in favour of a trained actress getting the part as has happened in the previous 2 shows!

Guess we'll just have to wait and see!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users