Today, in an article about the West End production of
One Man, Two Guvnors, the Telegraph Theatre's section reads as follows, 'Instead of going for another star name to replace Corden, the theatre has promoted his understudy, something that rarely happens in the theatre'.
Why is it so surprising that a Casting Director would choose an experienced stage actor to portray a leading man rather than search for a
star name - read television or film star - to take the role? The answer is fairly obvious at first glance. Yes, they might pay out more for the star name and they might, perhaps, find it tougher to find the perfect actor to fill the part when limited solely to casting a big name, but boy won't they notice the difference when the booking line opens! Basically, regardless of the play or the rest of the cast, the inclusion of one celebrity is generally enough to make a major difference in ticket sales.
I hate this cult of celebrity. By that I mean the idea of celebrity as it appears in our society nowadays. Not the concept of celebrity, or the fact that it exists, I believe it's perfectly natural for humans to elevate someone above themselves: for reasons of admiration and respect for that person's character, talent or skills. The French term, une cause célèbre, literally means a 'celebrated case', so it makes perfect sense to me that we
celebrate the actor who entertains and affects us, the musician who moves us or the scientist who opens up the world just a little bit more for us. But it seems to be the case that human beings are hard wired to turn into suckers who follow celebrities blindly. While those celebrities such as Judi Dench and Stephen Hawking tend to inspire people to train in their craft or devote themselves to a cause, the more mainstream celebrities -television and film stars, pop stars, reality TV stars (basically anything that you can put the word 'star' onto the end of) - seem to turn us into mindless sheep. Whether we're popping into the hairdressers to get a 'Rachael', spending our hard-earned cash on achieving just the right TOWIE orange hue or seeing teenage girls queuing for hours in hysterically sobbing masses to meet the YouTube 'heart throb' who made an online video called
Luke gets Herpes and other fun STDs, we seem to be losing the ability to make calls and decisions for ourselves.
Perhaps the real reason I'm so anti-celebrity is because of the way that it has infiltrated our theatres. Why is it that people will go to see a show they wouldn't dream of seeing if it didn't feature their favourite movie star? James Corden might have raked in great audience figures and both critical and audience acclaim, but were people going to see the show because they were interested in the writer or the narrative or the style, or because James Corden was in it? Were they going to see a play or a one-man show with back-up? One audience member who went because he adored the original play told me that he hated the NT version, that the narrative was continuously broken as Corden strode to the front of the stage at regular intervals and performed the script as...himself. Almost, he said, as a one-man stand-up comedy show. Yes the audience adored it, they were there to see Corden give a tour-de-force performance, but they certainly didn't experience the play they were ostensibly there to see.
So, in a business sense, I can totally understand how our culture's adoration of celebrity is helping British Theatre. But are we producing theatre or showcase opportunities? And does it matter or am I just whining?
As an Actress, neither famous nor currently working, I'm aware that this meditation on celebrities taking over theatreland is bound to come across as bitter. It's true that it's scary to think that no matter how hard you devote yourself to the theatre, you're likely to miss out on ever playing the big roles if you don't develop a recognisable face and name through other mediums. But I beg of you not to take my comments that way. First and foremost I am a theatre lover and seeing a great performance on stage thrills me almost as much as giving one. The reason I wanted to be an Actress and Writer was to take part in creating the kinds of worlds and performances that had moved me so much. So my comments below are meant as a factual look at the way in which the appetite for celebrities is affecting the potential of the writing and performing happening in our theatres:
Sienna Miller confessed that she wasn't prepared for as big a role as Miss Julie in After Miss Julie when she played it on Broadway. The newspapers agreed, The Guardian claiming that 'Miller doesn't quite convince as Strindberg's doomed heroine' and the Wall Street Journal that 'she has no...business playing a classic stage role'. Ben Brantley of the New York Times pointed out that 'at the Donmar, Kelly Reilly, playing Miss Julie as a trembling debutante teetering perilously on her high heels, captured that imbalance to self-loathing perfection. Sadly, Ms. Reilly is not a saleable commodity for a Broadway that increasingly seems to take its casting cues from Us Weekly. Ms. Miller is.'
Zach Braff, best known as JD from Scrubs, has just brought his self-penned play to the London stage in which he stars. The Times called it "the most aimless, pointless, immature play I have ever seen" and The Guardian said "What promises to be a savagely black comedy turns into a muddled, meandering affair that reeks of self-gratification." Quentin Letts, of the Daily Mail, hits the nail on the head when he points out that there are good comic moments and gags but that overall Braff simply isn't ready, he 'lacks the confidence' to have written and starred in a play and that overall 'the play tastes more of fashion than heart'. Why wasn't Braff told to develop his play more, perhaps take on a co-writer or perform some smaller parts first? The reason is that, once celebrity takes over, you can no longer easily disappear into a character which is the exact thing that most roles require for them to reach their full potential. Celebrity also seems to attract the idea that one can do anything and that training or practising is no longer needed, meaning that Braff, a comparatively new writer, has his play in the West End while full-time, experienced writers who devote 100% of their time to doing so are struggling to make ends meet and funding their own plays on tiny tours. Why do we feel that Braff has more to say in a play than an unknown who has spent their life experiencing things we can't even imagine?
The reason I write all this today is this. On the tube coming home late at night a few weeks ago I overheard an Uncle and his teenage Niece discussing the show they'd just been to and others they might like to see in the near future. Their obvious enthusiasm for theatre made me smile and I couldn't help eavesdropping. At one point the Uncle expressed his interest in seeing
One Man, Two Guvnors. The Niece had no idea what he was talking about.
'You know, you know,' he said. 'The one with James Corden in it'.
'Oh yeah.' She now knew the show he was talking about but no idea what it was about or where it was on.
'I want to see it,' the Uncle went on. 'But it's fully booked until it goes to the West End. But the new production doesn't have James Corden in it because he's going to Broadway.' He really knew his stuff. 'Which means,' he went on. 'That basically it won't be as good'.
WHAT? Why? Why does it mean that? Does he want to see the show or James Corden? Why doesn't he just go to see Corden do an arena gig? And so, on the morning after the Press Night of the West End production of
One Man, Two Guvnors, I want to pay tribute to the success that has been the brave decision to cast an outstanding, but unknown, stage actor in a part written for just that. Fiona Mountford, of the
Evening Standard, gave the new production four stars and says
'Whisper it softly, but I found the show even better this time around, without Corden's occasionally distracting presence.' Charles Spencer, of The Telegraph, also gave the show five stars and said
'Owain Arthur proves Corden’s equal...his hilarious monologues to the audience about his gnawing hunger and mounting confusion somehow seem even funnier' and Mark Shenton of
The Stage point outs that with Arthur in Corden's role the show
'isn’t quite as dominated by the character as before, and a true ensemble therefore gathers not so much behind him as around him.'
Yes, Corden was good. But it seems that Arthur is better. Better suited to the part at least. What a shame he didn't have it from the start.
