Posted 16 August 2007 - 01:32 PM
I'm not entirely sure I believe in triple threats any more. Becoming highly skilled at anything takes time, and it's inevitable that training for one talent must come at the cost of the others, while training for all three involves compromises.
For example, I've seen enough dancers to think that nobody can be a truly great dancer unless they've trained for ballet, and by that I don't mean covering ballet as part of a general musical theatre training, but training specifically to be a ballet dancer. To many experienced theatregoers ballet-trained dancers in musical theatre stick out a mile: they have a confidence, precision and grace that surpasses anything a general education can provide.
But the downside is that in many cases dancing is all they can do. Not always, mind. I know one woman who trained for ballet and also for musical theatre, who has ended up with all the dance skills I'd expect from a ballet dancer along with the loveliest voice I've ever heard, but she doesn't have much acting experience. There are a couple more who trained for ballet, worked in musical theatre instead, and who have picked up acting and singing along the way, but although they're quite good they're not triple threats by any means and a serious acting role would strain them to the limit. But these are exceptions. Many ballet-trained dancers are pure ensemble material: with less experience of acting than their musical-theatre-trained colleagues they almost never get a shot at lead roles. I've seen a couple whose acting skills have been close to nonexistent: fantastic dancers, but with all the acting talent of a fencepost.
Meanwhile, the musical-theatre-trained performers are slightly let down by their dance skills, no matter how good their acting and singing. Although most of them can dance reasonably well, the fact that their dance training was less intensive than that of the ballet-trained people means that (in my eyes, at least) they'll never be quite up to the dance standard of would-have-been ballet dancers.
So I'm reluctant to believe in triple threats. Double, certainly. But the sheer amount of experience necessary to be among the best at anything precludes being among the best at everything. I think that perhaps when people are seen as triple threats the dance requirement is relaxed a little: two and a half skills rather than three. Looking through the names mentioned so far, of those I've seen every one has been great at acting and singing. But there's not a single one who's made me think "Damn, that person there is a great dancer". The best that can be achieved is Jack of all trades and master of most.
Perhaps I'm just too fussy. I need to watch more Big Brother. That'll make me appreciate any talent I can find. (I did watch Big Brother recently. Someone said "Let's sing Kumbaya", so they did. Had I been there I'd have said "Great. Now shall we try singing it with a tune?" Is there a word for people with no talent at all?)
Having said all that (Short? I don't do short!), Linzi Hateley and Josefina Gabrielle are probably the closest to triple threats I've seen.
In my opinion anyone interested in improving himself should not rule out becoming pure energy.
(Jack Handey)
Promote to Article
