West End Understudies/Standbys
This is a completely unplanned post but, having read Gina Beck‘s tweet about a series of letters written to The Stage, I felt something had to be said. In the letters (just look through this link for anything with understudy in the title), many audience members were complaining that, having visited some of the West End’s most prestigious and spectacular musicals, they were disappointed to see multiple understudies/standbys in the lead roles. These patrons had bought tickets to the shows with the purpose of seeing the principal performers, for example Lee Mead and Rachel Tucker in Wicked.
I have to say, I am a member of the opposite team. I buy tickets to shows when I know that an understudy/standby will be on. Having seen both Ashleigh Gray and Nikki Davis-Jones and their respective principals as Elphaba, I only saw their principals once and have seen the standbys in the roles multiple times. In my opinion (and this is just that, my opinion), they give the show a fresh edge and make watching it for 8 or 9th time make it feel like the first. I am not saying Rachel is not up to doing that, no, I am saying I prefer to watch standbys in the roles.
Recently, I was given tickets to see We Will Rock You as a christmas present. I had never seen it and the tickets were for a Wednesday matinee. I assume that, were these tickets bought for the writers of the letters to The Stage, this would fill them with dread. However, as an understudy/standby junkie, this excited me enormously. I was going to get to see people play these roles who had only played it a handful of times. They weren’t the regulars that everybody loved and worshipped, there would only be a handful of people who had seen these people perform these roles. To my extreme enjoyment and happiness, it was almost a complete standby/understudy performance – all apart from the roles of Meat and Scaramouche – and Sarah French (Scaramouche) completely knocked me off my chair…she was amazing. But it was the thrill of seeing this unique bunch of people who rarely perform together do so that made me enjoy the performance that much more.
I have never been much of a ‘name hunter’. I go to see a musical to see just that, the musical…the story, the songs, the set, the stage, the company (as a whole – yes…they are a team), the theatre, the audience, the costumes, the lights and the action. Saying that, I would have been disappointed had Kerry Ellis not been Nancy when I went to see Oliver! BUT after the disappointed had worn off, I would have found positives in the fact that I’d get to see an ex-standby Elphie perform instead.
In one of the letters it is asked ‘If this had been a Saturday night performance, would the show would have gone ahead with so many understudies?’. Well the answer to that question is yes. Of course it would. The only reason I’ve ever heard of a show being cancelled is with snow (Hairspray, West End, 2009) and floods (Wicked the Musical, Brisbane, 2011). The Wicked producers have planned to fly in ex-performers from international productions if they were to be without a standby or principal performer.
All in all, I think that you will get out of a show what you expect to get out of a show. As an ambassador of optimism, I go to every performance with the view that I am about to see another spectacular show and that I am very fortunate to be able to do so. Unfortunately, I believe if you go to show feeling deflated because your favourite West End star isn’t in it, you will come out feeling exactly the same way.
As a final thought, Kerry Ellis was understudy to Martine McCutcheon in My Fair Lady – this was her first West End job (as far as I’m aware, correct me if I’m wrong) and look how far she has come. She is, arguably, one of the most well-loved performers in the West End and has thrived throughout her career. Let’s hope the same can be said for the likes of Ashleigh Gray, Nikki Davis-Jones, Carley Stenson, Sarah Earnshaw, Chloe Taylor, Ross Hunter and all the other fab standbys & understudies that work their socks off to ensure the show you see is just as good as, if not better than, if the principal cast were on.
I’d be really interested to hear your comments about standbys/understudies. What has been your experience? Do you love or loathe them?
Jx
Tags: Gina Beck, Love Never Dies, Standbys, Understudies, Wicked
I completly agree with the above comment, I think that stand-ins work incredibly hard and they are at the same level as the actual leads. As a lover of musicals I go to hear the music and watch the show it should not matter who is playing the role as long as they can perform to a high standard that’s all that should really matter surely. All i can say from past experience is that I have always enjoyed every performance given by the leads or the understudies and I think that it is a shame that people are dismissing them because they were not chosen to play the part but to understudy it … SO WHAT?? Overall I genuinely think that understudies are just as good if not beter then the leads. For example I have seen Wicked twice now the first time I saw it I saw Nikki Davis-Jones who was, in one word, AMAZING!! Then saw it with Rachel and, although she was very good (she is amazing as well), I didnt think she was as good as Nikki.
I completely agree with you! It angers me that people are moaning about not seeing a certain performer as it’s so disrespectful to the understudies/standy-bys who are sometimes even better than the principle!
I’m such an understudy magnet, I attract understudies wherever I go! Last one was Oliver Eyre as Raoul in Phantom back in January and he was wonderful, gorgeous voice!
Sometimes, I too, will plan my theatre trips around understudies. I’ve seen Les Mis more times than I care to remember! Now, I look ahead to see if a certain understudy will be on and I will try and see them.
Yes, it may be disappointing to not see a principle- I missed seeing Hayden Tee as Marius in Les Mis in ’05 and although I was initially a little disappointed, the moment his understudy- John Addison entered the stage, I was in love!
Understudies just truly highlight the talent and quality the West End has to offer and we should feel lucky and priveliged to see them and should always support them.
Well said. I completely agree with you. I personally never really find it disappointing when a stand-by/understudy is on; as you said it brings a lovely freshness to the role, which is fabulous when its a show you have seen many times before. Personally, one of my favourite performances of Wicked was when I saw Nikki-Davis Jones. Although Rachel is my favourite, it was so fantastic seeing a different intepretation of the role.
I completely agree with everything you have said. It’s only natural to be disappointed if your favourite star is off sick the day you see the show, and it has happened to me a fair few times, however it is often the case that I have seen the lead in a performance after I saw the understudy and actually preferred the understudy (Example: Stephen John Davis over David Shannon as The Phantom. Sarah Earnshaw over Dianne Pilkington as Glinda). Understudies are just as worthy to perform as the leading stars, just because they don’t have a household name does not mean in any way they are not just as talented, if not more! As it has been stated before, stars such as Kerry Ellis, Ramin Karimloo, Lee Mead, even the likes of Elaine Paige were all understudies at early points in their career, so I believe it is safe to say some of our current understudies in 5 or 10 years time will have a starring role to themselves and people will be complaining about them missing shows. People like Ross Hunter, I can see going very far!
I also read in one of The Stage’s letters that stars missing performances shows that they can’t handle 8 shows a week and shouldn’t be in the industry at all. Excuse me, everybody gets ill. If you have a day or two off from your office job because of an unexpected illness such as the flu, do people tell you that you’re not worthy of having your job? No, not at all. Performers are real, ordinary people and get ill just like everybody else in the world does, no matter what their profession is. They are also not machines and need to take holidays just like everybody else. Most of the time, it is advertised beforehand on the show’s website or before you book tickets, when the star performers are on holiday. People need to understand that this is a JOB, not a luxury. It may be a dream job for most of the performers and be different to your typical 9 to 5 office job, however it is what earns them money and keeps them alive. When they are in the theatre, they are at WORK and is treated as a working environment with holiday days and policies for illnesses. The only difference is, there is someone there who can step in and do the job of the ill star, just like, for example, the deputy Prime Minister fills in for the Prime Minister when he has his holiday. Absolutely no difference what-so-ever.
Very true, and in fact Kerry Ellis was 2nd Understudy in My Fair Lady, so she only went on when Martine and the 1st Understudy were both off.
I enjoy the westend very much and visit with my sister 2-3 times a year, I have some sympathy with people who pay top price for tickets to see a show, they may have seen a clip on t.v and may have saved the money for many months in order to see the show, travelled a fair distance, stayed in expensive hotels and want it to be special.
However when u see a production like Jersey Boys and the energy and work the whole cast puts in day after day, I understand that sometimes it is inevitable and there will be times it cannot be helped.
I have only once been offered 50% refund and taken it, and that was purly because i had taken 2 of my teenage children to London and booked tickets to see Whoopi in sister act, unfortunatley she had to go home because her mum was ill, I had already seen sister act and I was purly there for the rare opportunity to see whoopi ,the show was just as great but I would never have paid the top price I paid to see a show I have already seen .
I rarely book too far in advance and usually check who? the cast will be before I book.
I have only been a regular in the west end for the past 2 yrs, I saw Jersey Boys on Royal Variety and I wanted to see it, I had never been to London before let alone a show, I did see the regular cast but I would have been bitterly disappointed if i had’nt.
Because my experience was so good, I am now a west end addict! I promote westend stars other works via my website and I travel down regularly to see my fav shows.
Unless it is a very last min change, audiences should be given full information about the cast and to be fair to the understudies, they should be promoted MORE in their own right, the word understudy sounds like under achiever and should be changed all persons playing major roles should share the acolade equally and promotional material should reflect their contribution equally, if the company treated them as equals so will the audience. If ur playing a starring role you should be treated like a star all the time and not just when somebody is unexpectedly sick. The shows should promote ALL LEADING cast then it is just who is there on the day x
The companys are guilty of creating the problem becasue they only promote the leading cast, even the alternate cast are not promoted and they are performing 2-3 times a week.
With the price of tickets being so high, give people what the expect to see.
I totally agree – I recently saw the We Will Rock You tour in glasgow and on the first night I saw the full cast (who were amazing!!) and on the second night I saw the U\S for Scaramouche and Britney and it felt like a different show!! As much as the original cast are amazing, if I was to see something twice I would much rather see the U/S as well as the full cast as they give a fresh spin on the role and are always just as talented!!
When Avenue Q was in London I saw it many times, as a result I saw quite a few of the understudies. I loved all of the understudies performances and often saw the show because an understudy was due to be on.
I think the first time you see any show you want to see the principal cast….any times after that seeing an understudy can breathe new life into the viewing experience ! On the occasions I have seen understudies they have performed so well that without an announcement or programme I would not know they were understudies ( and I go to the theatre a LOT !) I adore Ryan Molloy and was so disappointed on my 4th trip to Jersey Boys that he was not on … but saw the understudy who was fantastic !! Because I was not focussing on a particular performer I saw more in the show! I think that people who maybe dont go to the theatre often may be disappointed if the star does not perform … many people have to save for months to be able to afford a trip to the theatre and dont understand that sometimes performers need a break. I think that an understudy can perform the role better than a principal cast member on occasion because they will be trying so hard to impress …and they will not have been chosen as understudy if not capable ! On my most recent visit to Les Mis Thenerdier was an understudy and I enjoyed his performance so much ! Maybe The Stage was partly to blame for actually printing the letters !
Well said! I personally love to see stand bys in a role and even if they’re not quite as good as the lead, it’s nice to see a different take on the role. They deffo deserve to be given a fair chance, after all, they got the job for a reason. The only time I’ve been disappointed was when Kerry Ellis wasn’t in Oliver though even as a huge Ellis fan, by the end of the show I couldn’t deny that Sabrina was also great in the role! So yeah, no matter how gutted you are, don’t knock it til you’ve tried it!
I think we have gone too far down the Broadway route, where lead performers miss performances for reasons other than illness, i.e. they have another event they want to attend, don’t want to do the matinee, they fancy a weekend off etc. This is both totally unacceptable and totally unprofessional. Also, when did it become ok to take a holiday during the run of a show…? As a theatregoer, I have seen good understudies, great understudies, and fair to middling to bad understudies. I don’t think that an understudy will necessary be any better or any worse than the absent performer, but that is not the point. If people have paid a large amount of money to see a performer in a show then that performer should be there unless there is a valid reason for their absence – again, it is a matter of professionalism and respect for your audience. If you are in a show and can’t do 8 performances a week, then you are in the wrong job!
Oh dear, I don’t think I’ll be very popular, but if I might put the case for the other side…?
First of all, let me say, in cases of illness, we the audience really can’t complain about seeing an understudy! But I think it is permissible, even in that situation, for a theatregoer to feel some disappointment at missing the star they may well have come to see, and saying an understudy is “just as good, if not better” (sorry, but sometimes they’re not) seems a little dismissive. If you’re lucky enough to have the time, a little money and live close enough to the West End to enjoy the luxury of seeing a show multiple times with different actors/understudies, that’s great (I speak as someone in that situation myself). But I understand that not everyone does have that luxury, so the disappointment/annoyance factor will be greater.
I recently went to see Les Mis and was disappointed when the announcement came before curtain-up that a number of understudies would be on that night. I’d particularly wanted to see Norm Lewis. But then I was happily bowled over by Jeff Nicholson’s performance as Javert. However, there were three understudies that night, all in key roles – whether due to holiday, illness or any combination of those. And if that’s a situation that’s occurring a lot more frequently these days – which presumably it is, owing to the letters of complaint to The Stage – I’d hate to think West End producers were getting the idea that it’s OK generally to field multiple understudies at the same performance. So maybe a few warning letters from miffed theatregoers is no bad thing.
Tickets are so expensive these days – eg I paid £67 + booking fee for a show the other day – and as a single person and an early booker, I am often seated near the back (but that’s a blog for another day!). So if I’m paying that much money for a not great seat, barring illness, I sort of expect to see the star!
In her original post, Gina referenced Love Never Dies’ star, Ramin Karimloo. LND is an interesting case (and let me state now, I have no axe to grind as many do against LND; I even loved the March 2010 version!). They’ve done intensive rehearsals and reworkings on this show, meaning the actors in key roles have had (irregular) time off, presumably to give their voices a chance to recover. Now, nobody would want a singer to do any damage to their beautiful voice or indeed their general health, but is it fair to an audience paying the best part of 70 quid (more for premium seats) to have to accept an understudy purely because the producers decided they didn’t get it right when the show launched? (I don’t have an answer, I’m just posing the question.)
While it’s true, as Gina says, that today’s stars were often once understudies themselves, it’s also true to say that when they were understudies, their voices wouldn’t be quite as developed as they are now. (Just listen to Ramin on the relatively recent Bluebird CD; his voice, lovely as it was even then, hadn’t quite attained the wonderful depth, tone and control it has now; the tone I would happily pay 70 quid, and far more for Les Mis at the O2, to hear.)
And while there are great understudies, it’s true, it’s not always the case. An understudy’s performance, rather than the star’s, can affect a person’s view of an entire show. I took my family to see LND but unfortunately Ramin was ill and we heard one of his understudies instead. No amount of persuasion on my part will convince my sister to go back and see the show, because it just didn’t sweep her off her feet – a reaction I’m sure would have been different had she heard the star.
As I said at the beginning, I qualify all of my opinions here with the mantra that none of this can be helped if a big-name actor is ill. However, as I believe Kim Knight said above, in the case of holiday, I think the producers should declare it. You shouldn’t have to follow a star on Twitter, or access their website/Facebook fanpage to find out when they’ve booked holiday. If the producers have the courage of their convictions and are telling us that understudies are as good as the stars, they should post their stars’ holiday dates on their websites so that the audience can make a more informed decision rather than feeling cheated because the people who took your money didn’t tell you the facts.
I notice a few of you here have said that you specifically look out for when understudies are on – I’d be genuinely interested to hear how many shows publicise this, because it hasn’t been my experience – maybe I’m looking in the wrong places! I’ve only seen absences publicised twice – Kevin Spacey’s break at the Old Vic during The Philadelphia Story and Rowan Atkinson’s holiday during Oliver!. Going back to LND, will they publicise that Ramin isn’t singing two nights per week from now on, or will you only know that if you follow the cast on Twitter? There’s no mention of it on their website at the moment, as far as I can see… but we’ll see what Monday brings!
Rant over! I don’t wish to offend and certainly appreciate stagecraft can only be perfected by going before an audience; I guess I’m just saying I wish the theatres would be more upfront.
Absolutely agree with the above post from Laura. I think there is great and real disappointment and upset for many people when that dreaded slip falls out of the programme, or the sign in the lobby indicates cast substitutions. This disappointment should not be underestimated as it colours the whole experience of the theatre visit and influences future theatre-going.
Agree wholeheartedly. I go to see a show and look for quality of performance whether that be from the “name” or the understudy. I am rarely disappointed by the understudy.
Good point, Jane – another thing that annoys me, the “sign in the lobby”. Who has time to read that when there are a hundred other people milling around, you’re trying to find the toilets and get your tickets checked? It goes back to being upfront – I think Les Mis got it totally right with their pre-show announcement. After all, it’s not all negative – it’s just as valid for the point other people are making here: if I heard/saw a great understudy, I’d want to know their name for the future (indeed I am going to see Jeff Nicholson as part of a low-key evening in a couple of weeks).
I agree with a lot of the points made here. I think that to an extent, for the non-regular theatre goer, initial disapointment at learning you are watching an understudy, is inevitable. In the majority of these cases though, the customer forgets this as they proceed to watch the understudy do their thing, and realise that the understudy is more than capable of fulfilling the role. Getting irate about it, as per the letter written to The Stage complaining about the five understudies they had to ‘endure’ at Wicked, doesnt help anyone and is a result of ignorance.
From a personal point of view, the performer who got me hooked on the magic of the west end, was a Standby. I wasnt aware, at the time, that I was watching a Standby until after the show when I saw the signs up in the lobby and had a squiz in the programme. I too, before that time, had a preconcieved perception of understudies/standbys as being second rate. Not good enough to quite make the cut. This wasnt based on any kind of experience of any west end shows, i think its just an assumption that the regular person makes. Having now seen lots of shows many times over, I think very differently. My favourite interpretations of many roles happen to be by understudies/standbys….Elphaba and Glinda in Wicked, Galileo, Scara and Kashoggi in We Will Rock You…Paulette in Legally Blonde…if I go to a new show I havent seen and see I have an understudy, I am excited rather than disappointed.
I agree with previous points about pre-show announcements though…not everyone can afford to buy a programme so these people wont know they are watching a cover in the role. I think this is a shame because the cover should be credited. I have been at some shows and heard people walk out saying “oh that >insert a principals name< was fantastic!", thinking theyve seen the principal in the role, when in fact theyve been watching a cover. I felt the urge to interrupt and correct them!
I think the real lesson that all those moany people need to learn is, not to decide before you see a show, what you are going to think of the performers in it. Disappointment is inevitable if youre expecting to see one person but get another, and particularly if a show is sold on its 'stars'…but illness cant be helped, or planned!
Hi Caroline. Clearly there are going to be occasions where performers cannot appear because of illness. The issue for me is performers not appearing for reasons which have more to do with their social lives (i.e. attending other events, going away for the weekend, etc etc…) or merely because they don’t fancy doing the matinee!! I repeat: this is unprofessional and disrespectful to a paying (of a large amount of money) audience. I don’t necessarily agree with the older vs younger actor debate, but it does seem to be a more prevalent attitude among the younger generation actor.
Laura, thank you for atticulating my thoughts so well. I totally agree with you.
I go to see shows (musicals, plays, ballet, opera, anything) 3~5 times a week and as a result, have seen numerous understudies. And in my opinion, while most understdies are very very good (Jef Nicolson in Les Miz, Scott Davies in POTO and Tam Mutu in LND etc.), there are occasionally extremely dissapointing understudies too. We might have seen the same understudy in LND actually. I left at the interval that day. But the ticket still cost me the same.
In a restaurant, you complain, if you order caviar and get a boiled egg. It makes me angry to think that the production team wrongly presume that the audience wouldn’t notice when they see a boiled egg (no offence to eggs) instead of caviar.
@Jane Morrow – it is of course true that is disrespectful for someone to decide not to do a particular show ‘just because’, but during a run that is often over a year, I don’t know how you can expect a performer to do that whole run without any holiday. In any job you are entitled to a certain amount of paid holiday, and I don’t see why this profession should be any different, especially when it is so physically and emotionally demanding. One day off per week isn’t much, so they deserve as much holiday as any other job. It’s only fair. Also, I wonder what your basis is for this being ‘a more prevalent attitude among the younger generation actor’? I am currently in professional training, and therefore know a lot of people just coming into the industry, and I can tell you that no one could be more hard working. Also, we are taught by many young performers, who, as well as doing 8 shows a week, teach all day. I fail to see how this shows an inappropriate or disrespectful attitude towards their work or the audiences, but everyone gets run-down sometimes, and everyone deserves a break.
On the note of publishing holiday dates, while I agree this would be a good idea, I suspect that producers, while having faith in their understudies, are afraid that this will put patrons off, and with good reason. Remember the fiasco with the Sound of Music? Emma Williams was contracted to be the alternate to Connie Fisher’s Maria, and anyone who has seen Chitty or Love Story will be well aware of how wonderful she is, but she quit as despite being contracted to perform 4 shows a week, she was then cut to two, as people didn’t want to see anyone but the ‘girl off the telly’. The sad fact is that while industry professionals and regular theatre goers know that understudies are, more often than not as good as the principal, joe public does not.
I have to agree with @EC with the comment regarding holidays. Theyre more than entitled to take time off…we cant expect them to do every single show within what is usually a years contract. In terms of illness, there is more time off taken for this reason than, say, if you had an office job, because the smallest cold can ruin the vocal chords…whereas the rest of us can plough on to the office and just get on with it! Im not in the industry myself but know people that are and these performers need to look after their instrument…its what feeds and waters them so if they’re feeling run down, they should have a break.
If all the leads in the west end were randomly calling into work saying they wont be in because they cant be bothered, then id have an issue with it too…but i suspect that isnt the case!