4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Sept 26, 2018 12:16:32 GMT
As the title says, at what point does a 'star name' have enough theatre credits to then only be seen as 'regular' casting? I'm specifically looking now at people like Beverly Knight, Sheridan Smith and Alexandra Burke but this extends to people like Matt Cardle, Duncan James, Matt Willis, Danny Mac et al. Are they all in a weird limbo between being seen as celeb casting and just 'normal' theatre actors? Or do you see one/some of them as becoming one more than the other now?
|
|
19,794 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 26, 2018 12:21:28 GMT
If we like them, it’s not stunt. If we hate them, it is.
Simples!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 12:30:23 GMT
Interesting question. It was posited here that the difference between the two is no pre-existing theater credits for 'stunt casting' and then anyone with any amount of theatre credit would class as star casting. I'd toyed with the notion of asking here if the casting of Peter Andre in Grease was stunt or star casting, but hesitated after it got a bit heated in the previous stunt casting thread when the subject of James Corden arose. Given Peter Andre's previous 'experience' on stage, by the definition provided, casting Peter Andre in Grease would be considered star casting, although I'd beg to differ.
|
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Sept 26, 2018 12:38:50 GMT
Interesting question. It was posited here that the difference between the two is no pre-existing theater credits for 'stunt casting' and then anyone with any amount of theatre credit would class as star casting. I'd toyed with the notion of asking here if the casting of Peter Andre in Grease was stunt or star casting, but hesitated after it got a bit heated in the previous stunt casting thread when the subject of James Corden arose. Given Peter Andre's previous 'experience' on stage, by the definition provided, casting Peter Andre in Grease would be considered star casting, although I'd beg to differ. I think i actually mean both, stunt and star. At what point is it just seen as "casting" and nothing more? No difference between Beverly Knight getting a role compared to if Rachel Tucker did, for example.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 26, 2018 12:40:33 GMT
I don't know why someone like Sheridan Smith gets called 'stunt casting' at all - she started out in theatre, and although she was working away in various TV roles for years didn't really become tabloid-famous until after she'd already won a couple of Olivier awards.
But I guess it is as Burly says - if we like them, it's 'star casting'...and when we don't, it's 'stunt'.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 26, 2018 12:48:42 GMT
Interesting question. It was posited here that the difference between the two is no pre-existing theater credits for 'stunt casting' and then anyone with any amount of theatre credit would class as star casting. I'd toyed with the notion of asking here if the casting of Peter Andre in Grease was stunt or star casting, but hesitated after it got a bit heated in the previous stunt casting thread when the subject of James Corden arose. Given Peter Andre's previous 'experience' on stage, by the definition provided, casting Peter Andre in Grease would be considered star casting, although I'd beg to differ. I think i actually mean both, stunt and star. At what point is it just seen as "casting" and nothing more? No difference between Beverly Knight getting a role compared to if Rachel Tucker did, for example. That's just fame/celebrity, though - and is really defined by whether the tabloids would bother writing about you. If you can walk past a pack of paps without a single one of them even twitching to take a photo then you're not a tabloid-level celeb. Stunt casting is when a 'celeb' is famous for something other than theatre-related work, has no experience in theatre-related work, and is cast in a production in order merely to draw the attention of the tabloid press. It should be surprising - so it was surprising the first time Beverley Knight was cast in a musical, but it's not any more. Thus, it is now star casting rather than stunt casting. There's still a difference between Beverley and Rachel, because Rachel isn't a celeb.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 12:59:08 GMT
Weirdly, I came on here during a 'break' from writing about...this very thing. So in my case 'debating' how much casting Andrew Garfield in Angels was, if not stunt casting then 'star casting' with a view to selling tickets (likewise Lane, who while not stunt casting is certainly a name you use to sell tickets) AND how this differs between actual 'stunt casting'
To use another favourite example, Gillian Anderson is 'star casting' certainly, but far from 'stunt casting' having proven her theatrical ability over and above. Someone like Beverley Knight once upon a time might well have been 'stunt casting' but now has more than proved her ability alongside (above?!) some of her peers.
Agree though Hopkins isn't stunt but rhymes with it....
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 26, 2018 12:59:46 GMT
Interesting question. It was posited here that the difference between the two is no pre-existing theater credits for 'stunt casting' and then anyone with any amount of theatre credit would class as star casting. I'd toyed with the notion of asking here if the casting of Peter Andre in Grease was stunt or star casting, but hesitated after it got a bit heated in the previous stunt casting thread when the subject of James Corden arose. Given Peter Andre's previous 'experience' on stage, by the definition provided, casting Peter Andre in Grease would be considered star casting, although I'd beg to differ. I think Peter Andre sort of defies categorisation in general, to be honest!
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 26, 2018 13:07:41 GMT
Weirdly, I came on here during a 'break' from writing about...this very thing. So in my case 'debating' how much casting Andrew Garfield in Angels was, if not stunt casting then 'star casting' with a view to selling tickets (likewise Lane, who while not stunt casting is certainly a name you use to sell tickets) AND how this differs between actual 'stunt casting' The question is 'would they have been cast if they were not famous?' But it's so impossible to know - and maybe the answer is yes, but then one of the other roles in the production would have needed to be a 'name', so instead of James McCardle we'd have had, I don't know, actually - who's as famous as Andrew and would make a decent Louis? (Said with the sensation that she might be dragging the thread irretrievably off topic....)
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Sept 26, 2018 13:12:14 GMT
If it isn't panto, and it is someone without theatrical training and experience, coming in for just a few weeks, it is "stunt casting." If they have theatrical training and experience, and commit to a proper run, it isn't. I was about to write something similar and Monkey totally took the words out of my mouth, though I cannot agree with the first 4 words of the post! I have seen some stunning unknown (to the non-theatre-going masses) singers and comedians in provincial pantos over the years who would totally have wiped the floor with many just-out-of-XFactor or used-to-be-in-Eastenders stuntly cast people. Panto deserves decent professionals as much as any other form of live theatre. After all, it is many, many children's first foray into visiting (and, indeed, performing) in a theatre.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 26, 2018 13:20:15 GMT
If it isn't panto, and it is someone without theatrical training and experience, coming in for just a few weeks, it is "stunt casting." If they have theatrical training and experience, and commit to a proper run, it isn't. I was about to write something similar and Monkey totally took the words out of my mouth, though I cannot agree with the first 4 words of the post! I have seen some stunning unknown singers and comedians in provincial pantos over the years who would totally wiped the floor with many just-out-of-XFactor or used-to-be-in-Eastenders stuntly cast people. Panto deserves decent professionals as much as anything else. After all, it is many, many children's first foray into visiting (and, indeed, performing) in a theatre. True! The unknown cast I saw doing panto in Horchurch the other year were far more entertaining than the slebs we had in Southend last year - though it was Stacey Solomon who was the highlight of that production!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 13:25:45 GMT
If we like them, it’s not stunt. If we hate them, it is. Simples! Burly, can you please remove you paws from your underpants. I am starting to find your posts somewhat disconcerting for a woman of my age and standing in the community.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 13:25:50 GMT
I don't know why someone like Sheridan Smith gets called 'stunt casting' at all - she started out in theatre, and although she was working away in various TV roles for years didn't really become tabloid-famous until after she'd already won a couple of Olivier awards. Yes, the casting of Darius in Funny Girl is probably a better example of someone who's moved from stunt casting to non-stunt casting
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 13:29:40 GMT
Weirdly, I came on here during a 'break' from writing about...this very thing. So in my case 'debating' how much casting Andrew Garfield in Angels was, if not stunt casting then 'star casting' with a view to selling tickets (likewise Lane, who while not stunt casting is certainly a name you use to sell tickets) AND how this differs between actual 'stunt casting' The question is 'would they have been cast if they were not famous?' But it's so impossible to know - and maybe the answer is yes, but then one of the other roles in the production would have needed to be a 'name', so instead of James McCardle we'd have had, I don't know, actually - who's as famous as Andrew and would make a decent Louis? (Said with the sensation that she might be dragging the thread irretrievably off topic....) It's hard to say. I'd argue (possibly) that the NT could have 'got away' without a star name. And it's been done both ways-in the 90s, Henry Goodman here was the only 'name' (at that time, Daniel Craig and Jason Issacs of course went on to be a bit known...) while in NY they had 'local' well knowns in Stephen Spinella, Joe Mantello etc. But those were also different times. Of course we're also muddied by the history of the play in this go around- had it ended up at the Old Vic with Spacey...but also that Lane was a late addition at the NT. Meanwhile enough 'theatre names' make up the rest of the cast, and given the play's history it probably would have done a decent run at the NT without ole Spidey. Who of course is much more than ole Spidey but his name sells...etc etc. The favourite 'other' choice of course remains Andrew Scott, following the NT 50, though to my knowledge I don't think he was ever a contender in this go around. (I shall avoid info dumping half an afternoon's work here however...)
|
|
4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on Sept 26, 2018 13:37:16 GMT
It’s all quite blurred now, as so many people now do such a big mixture of theatre, tv, film and music. I would say Michelle Visage being cast in Jamie is stunt casting, but that’s not to say she isn’t capable of playing the role because I can already imagine she will absolutely nail it.
Cuba Gooding Jr on the other hand, couldn’t sing the role, and was put there purely to bring in the punters (although that also kinda backfired). A very diffferent kind of stunt casting.
|
|
7,190 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 26, 2018 13:45:43 GMT
Amanda Holden blurs the line because she is likely cast in things like Cinderella or Stepping Out because she puts bums on seats but at the same time, she is a capable actress.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 13:51:00 GMT
Of course we're also muddied by the history of the play in this go around- had it ended up at the Old Vic with Spacey...but also that Lane was a late addition at the NT. Meanwhile enough 'theatre names' make up the rest of the cast, and given the play's history it probably would have done a decent run at the NT without ole Spidey. Who of course is much more than ole Spidey but his name sells...etc etc. Plus some of Andrew Garfield's earliest professional work was at the National (in fact possibly his first professional work?) so bringing him back as a lead is very appropriate!
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 26, 2018 14:22:40 GMT
Stunt casting is when someone with no theatrical training or background is given a big part in a show,or play because it will attract their fans whom they may have gained through an entirely different field. But remember a lot of people who for example may be well known in news reading may have had a training in something Theatre based. Voice work, ballet lessons all build confidence. And actors in soaps often have many skills not put into practice. They usually go for Strictly! I don’t think Sheridan Smith is stunt casting. I think she is an accomplished theatre performer. James Corden is an accomplished actor. He chooses to put his skills to what he does now.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 26, 2018 15:20:30 GMT
James Corden is an accomplished actor. He chooses to put his skills to what he does now. One of James Corden's peculiar problems is that many people think he is a comedian - in part because the hosts of other late-night shows in the US come from that background. He's a fine comic actor and a decent comedy writer, but he's not actually a comedian. Of course many of those skills are very transferable and there's more than a few comedians who are very accomplished actors, but Corden has never done stand-up, and doesn't have that skill-set. People complain about him not being funny and I'm always, like, well, duh... In Ocean's 8 they clearly *did* cast him to play himself - as a piece of stunt casting - rather than writing him an actual character to play, and it stuck out like a sore thumb.
|
|
7,190 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 26, 2018 15:34:27 GMT
One of James Corden's peculiar problems is that many people think he is a comedian - in part because the hosts of other late-night shows in the US come from that background. He's a fine comic actor and a decent comedy writer, but he's not actually a comedian. Of course many of those skills are very transferable and there's more than a few comedians who are very accomplished actors, but Corden has never done stand-up, and doesn't have that skill-set. People complain about him not being funny and I'm always, like, well, duh... In Ocean's 8 they clearly *did* cast him to play himself - as a piece of stunt casting - rather than writing him an actual character to play, and it stuck out like a sore thumb. I think Corden acting wise has a similar issue to what happened a couple of years ago when he was starring in things like Lesbian Vampire Killers, Horne and Corden and he acknowledged that in his autobiography, One Man, Two Guvnors helped rehabilitate him in the eyes of the media. He wasn't bad in Ocean's 8 but he seems to be picking easy gigs like Peter Rabbit and Smallfoot but I guess doing a four day a week chatshow and having a family means, you can't do much else I never get why soap actors get a hard time if they decide to do theatre or other television work, many started in theatre and EastEnders to be fair did cast a lot of people from theatre backgrounds like Maria Friedman, Jenna Russell to name but a few
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 26, 2018 15:47:54 GMT
One of James Corden's peculiar problems is that many people think he is a comedian - in part because the hosts of other late-night shows in the US come from that background. He's a fine comic actor and a decent comedy writer, but he's not actually a comedian. Of course many of those skills are very transferable and there's more than a few comedians who are very accomplished actors, but Corden has never done stand-up, and doesn't have that skill-set. People complain about him not being funny and I'm always, like, well, duh... In Ocean's 8 they clearly *did* cast him to play himself - as a piece of stunt casting - rather than writing him an actual character to play, and it stuck out like a sore thumb. I think Corden acting wise has a similar issue to what happened a couple of years ago when he was starring in things like Lesbian Vampire Killers, Horne and Corden and he acknowledged that in his autobiography, One Man, Two Guvnors helped rehabilitate him in the eyes of the media. He wasn't bad in Ocean's 8 but he seems to be picking easy gigs like Peter Rabbit and Smallfoot but I guess doing a four day a week chatshow and having a family means, you can't do much else Yes, I think he gets overexcited that people like him and then says yes to everything. And with Corden a little bit goes a long way - he'd be better off being more selective. Having said that, Peter rabbit was a box office hit even though the critics hated it. I must admit I have written off soap actors as poor in the past, before seeing them on stage. Soap acting seems to involve a very narrow scope of character-acting, depending very much on type-casting. It's not until you see them doing wildly different work on stage that you realise they are a versatile actor with an impressive range, because they don't get to use it in a TV soap.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 16:43:08 GMT
I go back and forth on Corden, part of me wants to go 'good on you lad, you milk it for all it's worth' and the other half of me goes 'oh dear do you have to be EVERYWHERE'
I do think however he'll have a few years out in America, a few years back in the wilderness then probably have a resurgence via the stage or TV in the UK. He was however, dire in Ocean's 8 which probably isn't his fault.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 16:56:16 GMT
So, is Peter Andre in Grease stunt or star casting? Does a big legacy musical like Grease need someone like Andre on the billing?
|
|
19,794 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 26, 2018 17:27:29 GMT
Surely James Corden in The History Boys at the NT, Broadway and the film absolves him from ANY accusation of stunt? And his first ever stage role as a teenager was in Martin Guerre.
I know he’s been over exposed and not everyone likes him but you can’t take his chops away.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 17:48:15 GMT
I think Corden was more a tangental comment. That and he really is EVERYWHERE. Including this thread.
|
|