A lot of talk recently in the papers and on this forum (see Plays / Equus - the farce) about understudies.
I think the problem in most cases is that producers realise understudies are a necessity, but they don't want to spend money on paying and rehearsing actors (and someone to rehearse them - an assistant director or similar). It's a gamble - why spend money on understudies that may never need to go on? But when a principal does go off, surely it' in the producers' interests to have a solid understudy ready, so that they can face their audience with a clear conscience and say the understudy is perfectly capable of performing the role and performing it well.
A half-cocked approach to understudies - hiring them, rehearsing them a bit but not enough - is the worst of all possibilities. You do the show, still pay everyone, but then have to give all the money back to the disgruntled patrons, just as you would if you had cancelled.
Musicals also seem to attract a better calibre of understudies than most plays. There is a sort of stigma in understudying in a play that isn't there in musicals. Also, understudies in musicals are usually from the chorus - they have been rehearsing the show for as long as the principals and know it almost as well. In many plays, understudies do not arrive until the last minute, and often don't play smaller roles in the show.
What are the best understudies we've seen? I saw a great one on for Anna Maxwell-Martin as Sally Bowles in Cabaret recently.

Avenue Q has fantastic understudies: top of my list being Gabriel Vick, such a fantastic Princeton/Rod, also Clare Foster when she's on as Kate/Lucy and Luke Evans does a really good Trekkie/Nicky as well.

Oh and Mark Powell was a very good Che in Evita when he was on for Matt Rawle.

I've seen a lot of understudies and the quality has varied dramatically. Flaminia Cinque replacing Julie Walters in The Rose Tattoo was superb. Peter Cadden replacing Peter Bowles in The Old Masters was dire; I left at the interval.

Because of a combination of law with regard to holiday entitlement and insurance policies most West End shows are well-provided with understudies. In a big show (more than 20 in the cast) the chances of seeing a performance with no understudies/swings/covers is very small, and it would take a keen eye to spot the understudies if no announcement has been made. The actors' weekly wage includes at least 6 hours rehearsal per week so, as long as the resident/assistant director, dance captain and MD/asst.MD are doing their jobs, 6 weeks into a run everything should be learned and honed. I'm sure some producers skimp on costs and, yes, such cost-cutting might well result in losing money down the line when punters demand their money back or a show is cancelled and the insurance company won't cough up because the understudies weren't employed or adequately rehearsed.

Jason McGann was on for Glenn Carter when I saw Whistle Down the Wind and he was excellent in all respects and Lee Mead understudying Ramin Karimloo in the recent 'Miss Saigon' tour also stands out for me. Also, years ago (must have been about '93 or '94) I saw a girl called Sarah Ryan go on as Christine in Phantom of the Opera in Manchester and, having already seen the show with the principal cast, she totally blew me away with a magnificent performance. 13 years later and I chanced upon the website for the same girl with recent clips of her singing and on the clips she doesn't sound half as good as she did then.

The vast majority of times I have seen an understudy go on I have not been disappointed, however I remember on particular occasion when Phantom made a return to the Manchester Opera House (bout 98', '99 ish) and at the performance I was at the Phantom understudy was on. Well, he was awful. The quality and tone of his singing was unpleasant to listen to and he couldn't act and subsequently the whole performance of the show was detrimentally affected by this dreadful piece of casting.

I saw Cassidy Janson perform as "Elphaba" when Kerry Ellis was unwell, and she was absolutely wonderful. She thoroughly deserved the ovation which the audience gave her.

I remember one particularly dire performance of "Les Mis" when I was working on it. Due to a combination of holidays and a nasty bug going round the company every single major principal (except the Thenardiers, I think) was off and we were so short of company that the resident director went on for several minor parts. Fortunately he was Ken Caswell so it wasn't like he hadn't done the show before....

Sebastian

I saw something similar to that in the national tour of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers in 2002. Illness had septimated the brides and there were only half a dozen of them available, so company manager Natalie Cole got into costume and filled the gap.

(Mind you, specifying the number of characters in the title of a show is a problem waiting to happen. It falls into the same class as: Never precede any demonstration with a comment more descriptive than "watch this".)

I saw a Sondheim review at the Library Theatre in Manchester where the director had to go on. He was OK (ish) but he clutched at his music the whole time which surprised me since he must have directed a dozen Sondheim productions (and this wasn't his first night on as understudy I think). It may have just been nerves and wanting a prop. It was OK, though - I feel less harshly towards a little theatre like that who are charging £12 a ticket than to a West End theatre charging £45.

But my experience is that in the provinces you are less likely to see an understudy. As with all jobs, there is less sickness if people know there's nobody to cover for them (not that I'm suggesting it's a good thing to make people work when they are ill). Short runs probably help too.

I was an understudy last year for the two leads in a UK tour of a play. As it happens, the cast had only 10 days of rehearsal and the understudies (me and one other guy covering the male leads) - were not rehearsed. All we could do was go through the play ourselves (jumping from part to part) and try and make sure we knew our lines back to front, if anything. Needless to say, I used to pray every day that nobody would get ill and I didn't have to go on. Being an understudy is scary enough as it is (especially when you are covering big soap names in the provinces and know the audience will boo if they see you, the "unknown" instead) - but it's a complete nightmare if you have not had even one rehearsal.

One reason you're less likely to see understudies in tours is because there are usually allocated slots for holidays, where the tour takes a week off and everyone in the company takes their holiday at the same time. Similarly, in short runs the only holidays are emergency ones. It's not that people are less likely to take time off sick, but that the only time they're off is when they're sick.

Because of this regional shows sometimes try to get by with fewer covers than in the West End. I've known a couple of cases where some major roles have had only a single cover, and then when one out of the lead or the cover is injured they have to frantically rehearse someone else in case they run out of people to play the part.

The last time I saw a show cancelled through illness it was actually the technical side of the show that had run out of people. One of the cast had been ill and had refused to quit (doing the whole look-at-how-brave-I-am, I'm-going-to-be-a-martyr act), and ended up infecting so many other people that there was nobody available to call the cues.

I wasn't thinking so much of tours as of small regional reps like the Royal Exchange or Library Theatre where there are short runs and probably no understudies.

A while back the Bridewell did a musical (can't actually remember what it was now) where a chorus girl was upgraded to leading role between the dress rehearsal and first night and managed excellently. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

I've regularly seen understudies in tours. I think the frequency of understudies performing on tour is equal to that of them performing in West End.

The Royal Exchange don't employ understudies. They have a covers system with one actor and actress taken on for each production who are expected to be at every performance ensuring they are familiar enough with the play and production to be able to go on for any of the performers at any time. They are NOT expected to be off the book. They are required to go on very infrequently but it has been known to happen.

In Birmingham I got Nigel Harman's 2nd understudy there was alot of illness going round the cast, he could have been worse but he stumbled over alot of lines and missed out a few and didn't have the right charisma for Sky. Saw Sarah Lancashire as Adelaide and then saw Lynsey Britton when sarah left and though Lynsey was fantastic best Adelaide I have seen.

It seems to work out quite often that the understudies to celebs are better, it is obvious they would have been cast in the role if it hadn't been for the fact the compny wanted a celeb to play the role. obviously not always the case.

As one who goes far too often to the theatre, especially to the same shows, I can definitely notice the difference between a good performance and a bad performance.

I saw Earl Carpenter's first night in Phantom of the Opera, in October 2003 and he was excellent. His singing was a touch weak perhaps, but his acting and portrayal of the character was superb. When I went back to see him in 2006 I thought he was dire. His singing had improved ten-fold but he lost the character and the very charm which made him unique.
I like to see fresh, exciting performances, which usually can only be given by those new to a role, or on as an understudy. As a principal performers start taking liberties, especially if they have been in the show for a number of years. Look at Mark Hutchinson in Blood Brothers... how can you give a fresh, exciting performance every night for fifteen years? You can't. And he doesn't. The lines aren't funny to you after 100,000,000 times, and that will carry through. Especially if you're a 50-year-old man playing an 8-year-old boy.

In 2005 I saw what, (along with my musical loving partner) we agreed was the single worst thing ever seen on the West End stage, a performance of my favourite musical Les Miserables. Every single cast member was a principle, and they were either not up to it (which isn't there fault) or phoning it in. (step forward Mr Michael McCarthy). The lady next to me fell asleep and the two chaps on my partners right didn't come back after the interval. The performance was met with even a few boos at the curtain call, something I have never seen in the west-end before, for even the biggest turkey. Unsurprisingly, a few weeks later at the next cast change, pretty much the entire cast was cleared out.

I saw the very same show (and I'd like to add - with the same ticket price to boot) in October 2006, and it's the single best theatrical performance I have ever seen.
Everyone in the cast was on fire and amazingly the acting was superb from all involved. TWO understudies were on, and they are the best I have seen or heard in the roles they played. They were Rob Archibald (u/s Marius) and Laura Brydon (u/s Eponine) - both superb and better than the principals they were covering who I have since seen.

Other great understudy performances I have seen;
Tomos Griffiths is the best Phantom I have seen or heard (u/s Phantom 2004)
Craig Whitely (u/s Eddie, Blood Brothers, West End 2005) - now doing Blood Brothers tour as Eddie
Oliver Thompsett (u/s Fiyero, Wicked 2006) - hundreds times better than Adam Garcia
Rachel Barrell (u/s Millie, Thoroughly Modern Millie 2006)

I've seen a few bad-uns too, don't get me wrong, but they ALWAYS put in the effort. I saw the understudy Velma last year in Chicago too, she was fine but very nervous, which showed.

I feel it is slightly different with those who are mentioning plays, as I've been talking about musicals. With musicals, especially triple-threat parts, one track isn't that different to another, and usually people will know three or four tracks...
If I went to see say Kenneth Branagh in a play, and got an understudy, I would be disappointed and therefore as good as the understudy is I wouldn't enjoy it because of my disappointment. And the same probably is true for those who go to shows 'just' to see star performers. (I saw Oleanna with Julia Stiles and Aaron Eckhardt and there was no understudy - the show must go on!!)

Interesting article on this in the Sunday Times particularly at the end when different producers give their views - those of Mr Rogers (Equus) particularly revealing in their inability to accept blame

Click here

I think the Les Mis situation can happen to anything that has run so long. It's a great pity because it was a great production when it was first out and it still can be thrilling on a good night. The last time I saw it was very near the end of the Palace run and it was dire - Sloppy, lazy, inaccurate and the cuts (made to save money whatever Cameron might say) were appalling. I could barely recognise it as the production I had worked on so many years before. I vowed I would never see it again and everything I have heard from people who have seen it since has confirmed that view. I think a lot of the blame for sloppy long runs must rest with the resident directors but, in the end, the buck has to stop at the producer's door.

Sebastian

What are the best understudies we've seen? I saw a great one on for Anna Maxwell-Martin as Sally Bowles in Cabaret recently.
[/quote]
I thought Kaisa Hummerland who is the understudy for Sally Bowles was awful. sorry.
After all the praise she got on this site when AMM got a throat infection, I got balcony tickets to see her.
Dear God, She forgot her lines during 'Perfectly marvellous' and I much prefered Anna Maxwell martin who sang clearer as far as I'm concerned.

Understudies generally try harder in my opinion because it's their oppourtunuity to shine, I'm never disappointed when I hear an understudy will be replacing a certain performer.

I'll never forget travelling for miles to see a performance of Grease on tour a few years ago (mainly because the wife wanted to see Luke Goss as Danny) and there had been such a bad bout of illness among the cast that most of the roles were played by second and third understudies. It was still a very good performance though!
On a positive note we recently saw Wicked with the Wizard played bythe understudy (Andy someone?) who was excellent and played it far better than Nigel Planer.

Saw Spamalot yesterday and was really impressed with Craige Els who in my opinion was even funnier than Tom Goodman-Hill.

If you're going to slag her off, at least get her name right! She's called Kaisa Hammarlund!

Kaisa Whatever.
Don't be so pedantic.

The first time I saw Les Mis in London, Elinor Collett was the understudy for Fantine, and MY GOD! She was absolutely FAB! (OK, I admit that Fantine is my favourite character, but nonetheless) At first I was a little bit dissapointed that Carmen Cusack wasn´t on, but Eli really blew me away. The rest of the cast was just horrible, but I can´t really blame them, it was just before the cast change and everybody was just phoning in their performance.

btw, did anybody see the swedish ESC-star Carola Häggkvist when she played Fantine (I think it was in 2002 or 03) for 8 performances when Carmen was in China? I would love to hear about her performance since I wasn´t there to witness it.

[What are the best understudies we've seen? I saw a great one on for Anna Maxwell-Martin as Sally Bowles in Cabaret recently.
[/quote]

Kaisa! Yes I completely agree. She's brilliant! To say that Anna sings clearer than her is just a weird?. Siobhan you must be deaf..
Saw her in Sunday in the park w george too and she can definitely sing. Her Sally Bowles rocks!

Best- Jeff Nicholson as Javert in Les Mis. Hopefully he'll be the principal for a lead role in a show very soon.

The best Velma I have ever seen in Chicago was... and don't shoot me... Vanessa Leigh Hicks. Mind you, this was when the show opened back in 1997. From what I've seen of her since, I think it's best she gave Chicago a break.

Vanessa Leagh Hicks is the best Velma!! I've seen her loads over the years!! I thing she was brilliant every time i saw her!! Its a pity they didnt give her the role for longer after she left, rather than just two weeks!! Hopefully she'll be back soon!! In the meantime I have a nice DVD of her playing Velma!!
Vanessa Rocks!!!!

Right, Slobhen. Or are you really Jade Goody?

It's as simple as this:
You liked her
I didn't
Get over it.

I'm with Siobhan. It's a tricky name to spell, especially here where spelling and grammar aren't that important. As for claiming it's a racist thing - how absurd. My surname is of Scottish descent, no one can spell it correctly. I don't see this as a vitriolic racial slur against the Scots. I don't think anyone does.
I was not a fan of Kaisa Hammarlund. But then, I consider Anna Maxwell Martin's performance spot on. Moving, believable, watchable, energetic, funny. The best actress in a musicall this year (if we're considering acting rather than singing, but then 'best actress' does rather suggest that.) Kaisa Hammarlund was too polished, too perfect. Marvellous performer and then, bang, snivelling wreck. No continuity, no depth and fairly unbelievable. But then I do think that of Liza Minelli who was just plain wrong in the film. Oscar for performance aside, she got the part wrong

Does posting to this board actually make names harder to spell than normal?

No one minds a mistake but "Whatever" as a response to the mistake being pointed out, especially from someone called Siobhan, constitutes gratuitous rudeness, in my opinion.

This has been discussed before. Fine, don't worry about spelling and grammar; but on a board dedicated to the performing arts, where careers are analysed and dissected, spelling actors' names correctly should be common courtesy, and "it's a strange foreign name" was Jade Goody's excuse.

[quote name='frontofdahouze' date='Mar 22 2007, 01:17 AM' post='58 To say that Anna sings clearer than her is just a weird?. Siobhan you must be deaf.

Which one am I? Deaf or Racist?
Make your mind up.

From Slobhen

[quote name='Orchestrator' date='Mar 22 2007, 11:50 PM' post='5928']
Does posting to this board actually make names harder to spell than normal?

No. I said that it wasn't that important (it not being an arena for formal English) not that it made it difficult. To be fair Siobhan did try to spell it correctly. 'Whatever' was only in response to attack for misspelling it. As for especially from someone named Siobhan, I can't for the life of me see how that makes sense.

Of course one should aim to spell names correctly, asa common courtesy, but lets be realistic and not cringingly pedantic. Hammarlund is a trickier name to spell that say Paige, Barrowman or even Maxwell-Martin. Jade Goody's comments are, of course, irrelevant here.
Your concern for the correct spelling of Kaisa Hammarlund's name is slightly at odds with your inability to use the term 'slag off'. It is possible to criticise (and I really do think 'slag off' is the wrong phrase, idiomatic and colloquial as it is, it nonetheless implies something more vicious and less founded than Siobhan's measured criticism) without spelling a name correctly.
Worrying about spelling and grammar is futile. Noone's posts here are correct. This isn't and yours wasn't. Providing it's clear and understandable it shouldn't be a problem.

On a less argumentitive note, I always found Cory English to be much better than Nathan Lane

I notice it's OK to spell a name wrong if you praise the performer (see the post about Vanessa Leigh-Hicks).

But are posters really not familiar with the name Siobhan? And is it really necessary to abuse someone for having a different opinion of a performer?