<p>I do believe the ‘it’ factor involves being more fully present, available, engaged, and committed to the role/performance. (I think this comes more naturally for some performers than others and/or is learned more readily.) I think this leads to the connection with fellow actors and audience that mom4bwayboy brought up. Fatigue can obviously play a role, but I believe other factors can overcome the negative effect of fatigue. </p>
<p>I also believe the composition of an audience can make a difference in how the audience responds to a particular theme or type of humor, which can, in turn, affect a performance. I remember seeing a middle school play in which a particularly well-delivered line had the audience in stitches, which the actor fed off of in subsequent lines, for an “electrifying” sequence. She acknowledged after the show that the audience reaction encouraged her to be less inhibited and she just went with it. In the subsequent two performances, the line was just a tad less well-delivered and did not elicit the same reaction from the audience (many of whom were seeing the show for a second or third time), nor the same response from the actor; and while the sequence was still funny, it was not ‘electrifying.’</p>
<p>Reading these comments reminded me of an example of someone losing “it”, probably just in the short term, as a result of college training. We saw a guy in our town that my D and I had idolized since her middle school days do a performance shortly after he graduated from a top MT BFA program, and he was technically strong but felt utterly unconnected in a way we’d never seen with him before. We ran into him a year later, and he said he was re-training in an effort to unlearn some things he had picked up in college which he felt were inhibiting his performances.</p>
<p>So I guess it’s important for young actors to recognize that the magic may come and go at various stages of their growth process. </p>
<p>@mom4bwayboy “Ring of Keys” was breathtaking! Definitely an electrifying moment and remarkably unaffected, unadorned, genuine, soulful, and technically precise. We will definitely be watching for Sydney Lucas as she grows!</p>
<p>Agree that Ring of Keys was a lovely performance - very honest, sweet and well connected. D got to see Fun Home off-Broadway last year and loved it.</p>
<p>I had an interesting discussion yesterday that relates to this. </p>
<p>It is well known that most theaters prefer to work with actors they already know, in part because they know they are easy to work with ( no drama!) and reliable.</p>
<p>But another reason may be that with many actors that electric spark isn’t nearly as apparent in the audition room as it is in front of an audience. I also wonder if this is why some actors are overlooked until they are seen performing as an understudy. Some actors really only come fully alive in the spotlight.</p>
<p>“I also wonder if this is why some actors are overlooked until they are seen performing as an understudy. Some actors really only come fully alive in the spotlight.”</p>
<p>Interesting point. This happens in sports too - some players are “gamers”, don’t seem to play well in practice but perform well in games. A few years ago a QB at my college alma mater was tagged like this. Wasn’t the starter until he had to come in mid season as replacement and then was starter until he graduated. Now is a starting QB in the NFL. I assume there is something in some people (whether arts, sports, whatever) that needs the excitement/stress/whatever of the actual performance to be able to reach their peak performance. Don’t know if that something is genetic, personality, or what, but those folks are able to bring it when it matters.</p>
<p>Haha - point taken!! I was thinking of people who may be seen to actually outshine the person they were hired to understudy once they get in front of an audience. I think I remembered that happening with both Elaine Stritch and Sutton Foster at some point in their careers. @raellis123 - the term “gamers” fits!</p>
<p>
@vocal1046 - I had meant to speak to this briefly. I am overall very pro-union (both of my parents were teachers), but D’s recent experiences call the logic above into question, at least for some females in some markets. Because of a specific opportunity, D opted at the last minute not to take her Equity card this summer. She has subsequently gotten several amazing opportunities - all for non-Equity contracts in major Equity houses - which would not have been available had she taken her card earlier. In her case I think it was a very wise choice to forgo the card in the short term (she opted for EMC) in order to add some plum credits to the resume. I assume she will take it shortly after graduating, though, if that’s an option.</p>
<p>More discussion of this here… Recent grads: Join Equity or Stay Non-Equity: timing, pros/cons…discuss</p>
I was thinking of people who may be seen to actually outshine the person they were hired to understudy once they get in front of an audience. I think I remembered that happening with both Elaine Stritch and Sutton Foster at some point in their careers.