<p>I’ve recently seen a string of performances - including local productions and several national tours - that felt, shall we say, NOT-electric. All of the performances were professionally perfectly competent, but they’ve had me thinking about what was lacking, which got me wondering what qualities move a performance from merely competent to “electric”.</p>
<p>Are there qualities of an electric performance that everyone agrees on, or is it completely subjective and personal? Some of the things that come to the top of mind for me are;</p>
<p>1) Your own kid is performing (hah!). This one is self-explanatory for those of us on cc.
2) The stakes feel very high. An example of this for me was in the recent Elaine Stritch documentary when she sang “I Feel Pretty” after struggling to remember the lyrics.
3) A performer brings a huge amount of energy to a performance. An example was seeing Liza Minnelli live, when she seemed utterly desperate to be loved by the audience and was pouring every ounce of her energy into it.
4) The performer is clearly working to overcome an obstacle. An example for me was early seasons of American Idol when contestants were younger and clearly very nervous.
5) The performer clearly LOVES giving a performance (NOT to be confused with loving watching themselves). I remember this quality from seeing Carol Channing live.
6) There is some tension inherent in the performance. I don’t know how to explain this but an example is the difference between Idina Menzel and Demi Lovato singing “Let It Go”. For some reason I always worry that Idina won’t hit the notes, which makes her performance literally give me chills, while Demi Lovato sounds perfectly in control and consequently (to me) is far less interesting. For some reason I often find some of the best-trained and most consistent voices boring, while voices with some “edge” are far more riveting.</p>
<p>Many recent performances I’ve seen felt dull and mechanical… almost phoned in. I couldn’t decide if it’s a problem with recent MT training practices, non-equity tours that are running performers ragged or…</p>
<p>Any thoughts about what qualities move a performance into extraordinary territory?</p>
<p>It probably is all a personal reaction, like you say. And you give some great examples. I guess I would say when the person on stage has the “it” factor. But it is impossible for me to describe the “it” factor. Some call it stage presence. But it goes beyond the skill set of great singing, acting, and dancing but how the person relates to the audience and commands the stage and just wows you and draws you to watch that person on stage. Surely not phoning it in! Ha! They are pouring their heart and soul into it but more than that, they just have some special quality that is hard to define but it is not all about skills and I don’t think you can teach it. </p>
<p>PS, I have to chuckle (but agree it is true), that it can be electrifying if your own kid is performing! LOL</p>
I guess some evidence that it is subjective are the times when American Idol voters sent “my” singer packing, as well as the touring show Tuesday night for which the audience lept to a standing ovation while I was less moved. </p>
<p>
Agreed! I also think sometimes “it” can happen magically to any performer at a random time. And sometimes the quality that makes a performer electric in one circumstance can make them feel off in another - for example the amazing comedian who seems adrift in a drama.</p>
<p>And @soozievt - your D is electrifying even to those of us who can’t claim her. ;)</p>
<p>Have any other long-time theatre patrons felt that touring casts have had declining energy/quality of late? I keep wondering if something has changed in touring schedules, training, quality of performers (maybe there are more tours on the road at any given time ) or have my standards just changed?</p>
<p>Going back to the mid-sixties – I know, possibly before some of you were even born! – one of the Supreme Court Justices, in dealing with obscenity, made the famous statement - I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. </p>
<p>I think the same applies to the “it” factor… that kid in the ensemble that you just can’t take your eyes off; the scene or song that just physically grabs you in the gut; the suspension of reality that allows you to feel that you are involved in the story, and not just a passive voyeur.</p>
<p>I do think that sometimes the material makes it a challenge, but that can’t explain the performance that transcends the material, and those surely exist. I am thinking of a prolific local actor, about whom I have said - I would go to watch him in anything, even just reading the phone book!</p>
<p>I agree that there is a huge difference between going and seeing something that you can appreciate on a technical level, and seeing something that you view as transformative. I can live with the first, but live for the occasions when the second happens!</p>
<p>Ah - but how to create that magic? That is surely the million-dollar question!</p>
<p>MomCares, you are too kind. Hope to see your daughter live on stage one day.</p>
<p>Anyhow the question about tours…I have to say that a lot of tours these days are non-Equity. I am not knocking non-Equity actors but still, it is a different pool of actors who are auditioning and being cast in those shows. I am sure some are every bit as outstanding as Equity actors. </p>
<p>The two most recent tours I saw were Pippin and Book of Mormon and I thought both were excellent. But both were Equity.</p>
<p>PS…I had seen that video of Meryl Streep on Ellen’s show and it really demonstrated to the core what great acting is. It was so great. Of course, Meryl has both the skill AND the “it” factor!</p>
<p>As one who has… let me just say that if ever there was a great time to shave your leg hair (because it was standing on end) that was it. Ew… Did I just write that? Sorry for the visual people but her kid can sing to the rafters. </p>
<p>I think it is always entirely about the acting. I’ll reference a local actor in my neck of the woods that you might know @momcares, (Joshua Carter) who takes me along for the ride whatever he is in and makes me believe in his character every time. Yes he can sing and all of the rest too but his acting is what gets me. Don’t know the guy in real life and please don’t burst my bubble by telling me he is a jerk (blah blah blah I can’t hear you…). On stage… he is always electric and I’m pretty sure I’m in love except that he’s probably young enough to be my son and that’s creepy.</p>
<p>@halflokum – Haha… so can I conclude D at least has a future doing shaving commercial jingles? I agree that Joshua Carter is fantastic, but will have to consider whether he makes my leg hair crawl. I also agree that great acting can easily compensate for meh singing and dancing.</p>
<p>I’ve noticed that an increasing number of tours are non-equity, and that may be part of the issue. In addition to a different (younger?) talent pool I’m guessing they may also involve more taxing schedules (for example maybe relying on bus transit versus air travel). Does anyone know if there are also just more tours out these days and/or if they are employing more actors than they used to? I may be remembering the dark ages, but it seems that when I was a kid the tours that came through our small city featured the same actors who had originated the roles on Broadway. Am I imagining that? Or maybe those were the only shows my parents bought tickets for.</p>
<p>I also wonder if the Glee effect has resulted in bigger regional audience bases, which might in some cases be less discerning than the traditional MT audience base?</p>
<p>It’s certainly true that strong material can elevate any performance, but as has been mentioned standout performances can happen anywhere - chorus, bad material or wherever. I remember in the first BOM tour we saw the “maggots in my scrotum” guy was the real standout, as was the Piragua Guy in the touring cast of In the Heights that we saw.</p>
<p>The shift to non-equity performers in touring shows is a more recent phenomenon so it may well be that you were seeing original casts or comparable players.</p>
<p>Just saw a National tour show tonight with D. Overall, It was fantastic! Not sure if they were equity or not. At least one of the standouts graduated last May. D and I did discuss how one particular male and one female definitely had us riveted, holding our attention to every word, note and nuance. Others acted well & sang beautifully but did not command our attention in such a manner. Sadly, as good as the others were, individually, they were mostly forgettable…and yet I felt it was a good show.!?</p>
<p>Rambling thoughts ahead … and only my personal opinion. </p>
<p>MTV Awards … Jessie J, Ariana Grande & Nicki Minaj performance. Jessie J had the “it” factor oozing out of her pores … I couldn’t take my eyes off of her. She commanded that stage. Ariana … not so much. I’ve never seen an electric Ariana performance. Ever. </p>
<p>Group dance performances I’ve ever seen. There is sometimes just one dancer who has it. The moves are exactly the same … but there’s just something about that person that screams “look at me”. </p>
<p>Ricky Martin’s first Grammy performance (1999 I think?) I sat in front of the tv floored. Awestruck. THAT was a star. </p>
<p>In a somewhat different (non MT) vein, I couldn’t take my eyes off Phillip Seymour Hoffman in A Most Wanted Man…I don’t know how he did it, but he was mesmerizing even when completely still. (Same thing in the Master, especially the scenes with Joaquin Phoenix.)</p>
<p>I see a lot of shows and I can say that the difference is not just Equity vs. non-Equity. Some of the very best and most transformative/electric/committed/beautiful performances I’ve seen are from non-Equity actors and I have often been very disappointed with some Equity performances. Some non-Eq tour producers do a better job than others. I don’t think that it’s accurate to generalize and, trust me, I get the big union vs. non-union debate. </p>
<p>I think the <em>it</em> factor is really undefinable to any true extent. I saw a show a couple of years ago at a regional theatre, a cast of five, four of whom were experienced pros and one who was a new grad. It was the new grad who had <em>it</em>. Honestly, it was difficult to take your eyes off her during the entire show. I contacted her afterwards to let her know how much we enjoyed her performance. I should look her up and see what she’s doing now! </p>
<p>Soozie’s daughter definitely has that <em>it</em> factor, too. I saw her years ago at Tisch in a very small studio production that was flawed in many ways. She had a small role but was the one who everyone was watching. I have no doubt that that type of eye-drawing performance continues now in her post-college career. </p>
<p>I agree with halflokum that it is always about the acting for me. There are a lot of great singers out there but if they can’t act, well, the performance just doesn’t do it for me. For many years, I was tangentially ‘related’ to a very successful Broadway show that ran for years, had numerous tours, played all over the world, and employed tons of young actors, many of whom have gone on to great careers on stage/tv/film. I had the opportunity to see the show close to a hundred times with many different incarnations of casts, which was great fun. Comparing performances was inevitable and it always came down to the acting choices a particular actor made. Not just for me, but for critics, fans, people involved in the theatre community. Subtle acting choices can make or break a role. It’s not often that one gets the opportunity to see so many different actors playing the same role and I’ll be forever grateful for that opportunity for so many years.</p>
<p>One thing I have noticed is that audiences in some locations have changed from years past. Audience etiquette has deteriorated. Not that there was never poor behavior years ago but it happens far more often today, from what I’ve seen. </p>
<p>Yes, I agree that the acting makes a huge difference. In MT, someone who sings well just is not enough. </p>
<p>I also agree that there are some non-Equity actors who have more “it” factor than Equity ones (after all, every Equity actor was once a non-Equity one!). I don’t think the difference is all that great whether a union or non-union actor, when speaking of individuals. I was simply saying to the inquiry about someone thinking tours were not as good as in the past, that as a whole, many tours are non-Equity these days, and can be super great or sometimes not, and draw as a WHOLE from a different talent pool. I would not hesitate to see a non-Equity tour. </p>
<p>Alwaysamom, thanks for the lovely comment. That show was surely not a highlight for my daughter and was just so-so and she also had such a small part in it. Maybe one day our paths will cross or you will see her in something more significant. She’s been showcased a lot more in the professional shows she has done this past year than in that college studio production. I think you saw the one show in the past 10 years of her career where she had the least to do in the show.</p>
<p>My thinking with non-Equity tours was partly that they just may tire out actors more, as the scheduling and transit demands may be more rigorous. I can imagine that delivering electric performances 8x/per week is hard enough when you are sleeping in your own bed every night and well rested. As one whose D has (in the short term) opted against taking an Equity card to build her resume a little more, I like to think that at least some non-Equity performers are capable of delivering electric performances.</p>
<p>Can anyone think of an incredible singer who consistently delivers amazing performances who is not a particularly good actor? I know it’s not too hard to think of weaker singers or downright mediocre dancers who have given killer MT performances.</p>
<p>I should add that we’ve seen a Tony-winning MT actress give an entire performance badly off pitch, so anyone can have off nights. And also that one of our local theatres that hosts national tours has a TERRIBLE sound system, which pretty much precludes any performers from delivering truly memorable performances.</p>
<p>There are dreadful actors in the union and fine actors who work non-union. However, overall, it is a safe bet that the more experienced actor will be an Equity member and, in general, experience is key to the development of expertise. (See Gladwell on genius.) Still, Mark Rylance certainly draws the eye with an unusual intensity, as does Patti Lupone. They could be identified as having some inborn ‘it’ that other performers do not. Anna Kendrick singing, improbably, “Here’s to the Ladies Who Lunch” in the film “Camp” showcases this quality in a 17 year old. However, you may find any one of these actors repellant. To a certain extent “it-ness” is in the eye of the beholder. Each of us will make ticket purchasing decisions based on his own preferences and prejudices. Non-union tour producers who opt out of the system of collective bargaining that establishes fair wages and safe working conditions are profiting, I believe unfairly, from a glut of available workers and a paucity of jobs that combine to foster desperation. Non-union fringe shows or local companies of recent graduates are a different matter and AEA makes provisions for members to work for lower wages in the context of such labors-of-love. Equity’s current campaign is meant to increase awareness of the fact that the tour ticket you’re buying may not be buying you a “Broadway” experience at all. If you are already aware then that’s that. If you are uncertain then you can go to this link for the current information.<a href=“http://www.actorsequity.org/newsmedia/touring_main.asp”>http://www.actorsequity.org/newsmedia/touring_main.asp</a> As far as our children are concerned, bear in mind that Anna Kendrick got her card at 10 and never stopped working. Michael Rupert (currently in On the Town) got his at 12. Neither of them had any difficulty getting work thereafter. Producers, casting directors, and agents will all discourage young people from joining. On the AEA website you can also find the stories of many actors being discouraged from joining who, instead, insisted that they deserved fair pay and stuck by their guns. See Raul Esparza’s tale for a good example. I hope my kid joins the union at the first opportunity. Your mileage may vary.</p>
<p>Ooh! I love this question! I am in no way an expert on this, but when S was a HS sophomore/junior (& beyond) we went (still go) to LOTS of shows - of all kinds, including dance - some professional, some college, some high school. Based on what we saw, S’s idea of what he wanted in BFA college experience changed dramatically. We came to realize that technical proficiency - or over-the-top technical skill - was not what gave performances the “it” factor. A dancer who can execute 30 pirouettes, a singer who can hit an impossible note, a musician who can play the fastest cadenzas, or an actor who can quote all of Shakespeare is nothing if she/he cannot connect with the others onstage/screen or with the audience. Juliets who appear to be able to get along just fine w/o their Romeos; Albrechts merely biding their time with Giselles who obviously have practiced their steps; violinists who can certainly play an accurate étude, but are not expressing “music”, get really boring, really fast. We saw plenty of shows with perfectly timed choreography, in-tune singing, and actors who were dong exactly what the director had instructed them to do, but at the end (or sadly, 15 minutes in) we didn’t care.</p>
<p>In his HS (outside school) acting group, S got an inkling of how to overcome the insidious “getting-caught-up-in-skill-proficiency” lure, but now that he is a freshman in an MT BFA program that focuses on acting he is learning what the “it” is, and how to “be” it. While he has some difficulty expressing it to me, the closest he could come was to say they are learning how to “be”, not to be “something”. And in a good ensemble, everyone is “just being” together. It’s not about hitting the marks with your hand in the proper position, but about “being” the character/music. The body is merely the instrument through which the words/music come. You cannot be looking for a reaction from “others”, or try to “show” something, but just be yourself in THIS time/space. S now realizes he made a major mistake in his college audition monologue/song choices - he was trying to “show” something, rather than “be”. One of the places I think you can see this dichotomy is on DWTS. You see some “stars” who are NOT “dancers”, but grab your heart anyway because they allow themselves to “be” the character expressing the true purpose of the particular music being played. Great dancers, whether professional or amateur, can express emotion and story w/o saying a single word. Another leg-hair-raising example of this I heard recently were the songs “Changing my Major” and “Ring of Keys” sung by character Allison in Fun Home (Keys has most bone-chilling use of " no words" I think I’ve ever heard). After all, what Is the true purpose of music/theater but the deepest expressions of human emotion, which are felt despite the use of proper words and hand gestures.</p>
I also agree that great acting can easily compensate for meh singing and dancing.</p>