So, one of the arguments put forward for Danielle is that she is by far the best actress (outstanding, indeed).

Now I don't see this (and in fact can't say I've seen a lot of acting from anyone) but I ask:

How important is acting in Musical theatre?

What do you go to see: music, yes; dancing, yes: spectacle, yes. But do you go to Musical theatre for acting?

If you ask a thousand people from all walks of life who the best 10 actiors they've seen are, how many do you think will mention Musical theatre actors? I'd venture close to zero.

So, is it a red herring to even discuss who's the best actor?

You're kidding, right? Acting is vital!

The cast of a musical are portraying characters, whether they're singing or not. If you don't believe in their portrayal, the production will fail, regardless of their ability to hold a tune.

Acting may not be what you immediately bring to mind when talking about the elements of a musical theatre show, but you'd soon notice if it were gone...

OK I may have overstated it for effect. But is the ability to sing and dance not more important? A basic acting ability yes but is it critical to be a great actor?

Would you want to go and see a musical starring Robert de Niro if he didn't sing very well? (I have no idea whether he can).

(Sadly showing my age I remember seeing a holographic John Gielgud in Time - that wasn't the greatest decision I ever made!)

I'd have to disagree, i think in the case of dorothy the ability to act would be more important than the ability to dance. obviously both are required along with singing to an extremely high quality to pull off any role let alone a leading role. There's quite a lot of dialogue in the wizard of oz and so i feel the acting would have to be of a very high standard. For me personally i think 3 of them could pull it off to the standard needed.

Its an odd issue. Lots of people don't seem to notice - they just notice the odd note or seem to treat it like a series of X factor performances. Some shows have mixed brilliant actors with people who sing loudly consistently. Its perfectly possible too to win X Factor without showing much sign that you understand the lyrics or are acting them. Some people will notice if you don't sound like the standard version even if the standard version makes no sense (public school Eponine whose parents in the story sound like cockneys) and there's a lot of people who get away with accents that appear for the odd word (the recent sorry experience I had with the emergency cover at Blood Brothers who moved from Liverpool to upper class home counties in the same sentence) Much of the detail in the acting goes un-noticed anyway on a first viewing and you often get to the end with people asking who was who. Some people seem to even turn up to see a name rather than the story (Jerry springer fans in Chicago) but on the other hand some names can be brilliant pieces of casting. Depends a bit too on where you sit - you will follow the acting more from nearer to the stage but if its too understated you won't notice it enough from way back.

Deoends largely too on what the story is. If there's no emotional content or much story and no need for comic timing you may not notice weaker acting so much.

The other side of the equation is that a lot of musicals do have very complex stories and strong characters and they have to get that over and get the emotional response. You don't want people not laughing or crying or being concerned when they should. Legally Blonde has very well defined characters and even seems to pick people who can do the same look as the US version. There's a reason why its stuffed with people who have played WestEnd leads and can play comedy well. Chicago needs a Roxie who can play a likeable murderer and a Velma who looks the part and an ensemble who can play a psychopath in a musical where there's an obvious need for a good belt and great dancers. Les Mis is stuffed with stories and emotions and humour - you could cast it with people who can sing but not act well enough but people might as well then go and buy the CD. Its not only that people need to be able to act - its that you need people who can get over particular emotions whilst avoiding others, look right and fit the peopel they have to act with.

The problem with Wizard of Oz is its not obvious whats required. If ALW's relying on spectacle he rules out some people on dancing or stage presence , if he wants us to feel for Dorothy, innocence is difficult to feel for. Whatever he wants we have to like and care about Dorothy somehow - but what will make us like her? If he's upping the musical content and wants wow factor some of the the people he's ruled out may be his best bet. If he wants some comedy he needs to have a drastic rethink.

I think its very important, and that MT performers have to be able to act, and am amazed you even ask the question.

As I've said before, it is very difficult for the public to cast Dorothy properly, as although we are all familiar with the role of Dorothy in the film version of TWOO, the musical is as yet an unknown quantity. But I expect there to be a good amount of acting involved, both during and between the musical numbers.


If I just want to see music, dancing & spectacle, i'd go to a concert.

But if I just want to see acting, I'd go to a film or a play.

I accept that a basic acting ability is important, but I go back to my question - would you wish to see a good singer with reasonable acting ability or a good actor who can hold a tune.

I'm with henman on this one.As long as the acting is ok(which i reckon on what i've seen all of the potential dorothys look capable of at least this standard),then when going to the musical i most want to be impressed by the vocals,especially of the lead in the show.(For that reason i would be disappointed if the lead was not 1 of stephanie,lauren or steph).

Put it this way,someones slightly better acting skills would not sway me towards voting for them instead of another who was superior in the singing department.Thats just my opinion.

Thank God at least one person agrees with me

Either would "do", but I'd rather see someone who can do both! And a competition to find the best ought to have a standard that high, not someone who wil "do".

To say you only really need to be able to act in a straight play is rather shortsighted if you don't mind my saying so; a lot of musicals are plays with music. Not fair to compare the two really as they are different art forms, and different styles of acting are often required but acting IS needed for both.

On the OTR shows, we see a lot more of the singing (& a fair bit of dancing) so that's what people tend to judge the girls on. But a lovely singer who cannot act would fall flat in front of a West End audience. I think whoever wins will have extensive training & coaching before the show even begins rehearsals (They have planty of time if it isn't going to happen until March next year) - BUT they can't train up just anybody and there needs to be some acting ability there already.

When I go to see musical theatre - I go for it all, the singing, the dancing, the spectacle and the acting. When all the elements are there - it is mindblowing - absolutely fantastic.

Danielle can sing, can act and can dance - so she is the complete package in my opinion as is Lauren.

I saw Carousel lst year and every member of that cast could act and it was a wonderful theatrical experience. The same with Le Mis and The Jersey Boys.

I can name quite a few Musical Actors who are brilliant - and Michael Crawford springs to mind and I would go so far as to say he is the best male actor and performer I have ever seen live. Julie Andrews, too, is an amazing actress and has an incredibly pure voice was a musical theatre star long before she made it in Hollywood. Oh yes - Petula Clark - a fine actress who could do everything. Jeremy Irons started out in MT and played the role of John the Baptist in Godspell - brilliant actor. I will never forget the opening of that show - Irons had such a stage presence and a wonderful voice.

Any memorable musical I have seen relies on someone on can act their socks off, sing and dance - and I have seen quite a few. So no it is not a red herring - is it?

Thats not the usual choice though. It can be between a very strong singer who can act fairly well or an excellent actor who isn't quite as striking or reliable singing. I would go for the second in most cases.....but I like musicals that are heavy on story and acting content.

Singers who can't act that well also raise the question can they interpret and if not what are they singing? You can hit the notes and sound ike an X factor winner or even an opera singer but if the words are not acted within the song what have you got? If there are not many songs, you have a song in a hole and if there are lots of songs, you have songs with not enough story. Once you start acting a song its also not entirely clear what "good singing " is - what can change to show anger or despair or humour? Depends too what the role is - if its Mdme Thenardier in Les Mis you don't want someone who can sing beautifully as she is meant to be grotesque, if its Christine in Phantom you could have the world's best actress and its going to be dire if she can't hit the top soprano notes.

Thats the problem with casting this show. If its meant to be Doris Day or Annie or tomboy Dorothy follows the yellow brick road, it needs the opposite people than if it is for Judy Garland rides again. The more complex or emotional you make Dorothy's story the more you need someone with the right acting range to play them. If its all dancing and spectacle and a weak story you need someone who will capture the audience that way and not get lost in the spectacle. If its got some big new wow factor songs it depends what the songs are. So far the only people who have sung a striking song thats like OTR, apart from Jenny who did well with Songbird, have left singing it .

If mopst people were asked to name the the ten best actors they've seen most people who work predominantly in theatre wouldn't be mentioned. But if your add in film musicals then the likes of Ewan McGregor, Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, Albert Finney and Susan Saradon would all feature.

The last two musicals I saw are Avenue Q and Cabaret. For me in Cabaret the let down was the acting, not Sam Barks she was outstanding as was Henry Luxemborg who played Clifford, but Wayne Sleep playing Em Cee was dire and I then didn't really care about him at the end.

Avenue Q doesn't really need good singer, although it had the fabulous Daniel Boys for two years, the songs are all about the content, not how well they're sung. But you have to care about these puppets and if you don't ,well, your ticket money was wasted.

What i would say it there is no sign so far that we are going to be given any more than a rudimentary look at each of the girls respective acting skills.We are being given a much more thorough look at their singing skills so for me,it feels fair that i weight that accordingly when(have yet to vote by the way) i cast my vote.

I saw a version of Wizard of Oz a couple of years ago at RFH and I think the Dorothy they cast was an actress who could hold a tune (as from her past credits she'd done mainly TV and straight plays).

It depends on the musical as something like Blood Brothers need actors who can sing whereas something like Grease the acting is the least important aspect of it - well in my opinion anyway! The last few years I have seen a lot of straight plays after years of just seeing musicals and the difference in the standard of acting amazed me.

Robert De Niro was in the musical New York New York.

maybe you would deem the acting more important if it weren't for the fact that it's danielle that has been highlighted as the best or one of the best actresses by the judges. I personally dont understand the relevance of the post in reference to danielle, like being a good actress isn't necessary and we should just focus on dancing and singing? well she can dance and sing just as all the other girls can dance and sing. I personally go with who i feel can do all 3 to a high standard but thats just me. Thats what happens with shows ultimately judged by the public, we never really know how the public are going to decide who is best for the part. A lot of people just do it on who they like the most and not on talent which i think is a shame. However it's their money they're spending to vote so i guess they can decide however and who ever they want.

Sorry OP that is laughable!!! i LOL'd out loud big time!!!
i dont mean any offence though
Acting is totally needed in MT with no acting ability (jessica!! shhh) the song will come across wrong and hammed up or dead in the face!!
in the normal process without drama school you would never have a hope of getting a leading role, sorry i do understand but i feel your argument is slightly flawed!

Jill i tend to almost agree with eveything you said - fine fine line avenue q, acting is imperritive to make the song but vocally there are only parts of it that need to be good it has a top d at the end though!! as long as you can hit the note in an actable way it is great!!

OK, I'll jump in here. I am by no means an expert, and the closest thing to formal training I've had is four years of drama class in high school and one playwriting class at university, but I have worked in amateur theatre in the past and have played leads in shows and have directed and assistant directed amateur productions (and most of them have been with teenagers, as most of these contestants are), as well as participating in casting them. It's all been at a very small amateur level, but I was able to work with some really wonderful mentors over the years (my high school drama teacher and my amateur theatre director) who did have the formal training and were very good at their jobs. I will try to speak from what I've learned from this experience.

From my perspective, when casting a musical, singing, dancing and acting are all important, but acting is the most important. I would never want to cast a bad singer in a musical, and ideally you want a great singer and actor, but when given the choice, I would always prefer a decent singer who can act the most out of the role rather than a fabulous singer who can't really act it. Acting is very evident in how songs are performed. It helps to carry off the meaning of a song, and if a song is acted badly it doesn't matter how great the person's voice is. A show with great singers who can't act can be terribly boring as well, as you have to sit through the dialogue between the songs.

Also, some of the greatest musical theatre performers in history (Angela Lansbury, Gwen Verdon, Robert Preston, etc.) have been excellent performers who didn't necessarily have fabulous singing voices. What they did have, though, were decent voices and loads of acting talent and character. I'll take performers like this over someone who just has a fabulous voice and nothing else any day of the week.

Also, as to judging how good these girls are at acting, remember that they are all very young. What you look for in performers this age is not the finished product but the potential and natural ability. Of all the girls on this show, Danielle strikes me as the one with the most potential and natural talent as an actress. She and all of them will only get better with more training and experience, but Danielle is already well on her way. She acts all of her songs, and everything she does communicates that she is thinking about the words she is singing, but not too obviously like Lauren does sometimes.

Also, Danielle approaches everything from an actor's standpoint, and none of the other girls seem to be doing this (Lauren is close, though). I was speaking about this show to a friend of mine who is a trained singer and actress, and told her about the dance task where Danielle was the only one who took on a character and acted the task. My friend said that that's what you're supposed to do, and that the other girls are "stupid" (her word, not mine) if they don't do that too. I wouldn't call the others stupid, but that task certainly was, to me, a sign that Danielle has a real actor's sense about things.

I wouldn't rule her out in singing and dancing, either. She has proven herself to be one of the best dancers, as well, and her singing voice is also very good and will only get better with more training and experience. I remember when watching the mission with Charlotte, hearing that tiny little snippet of "Enough Is Enough" that Danielle sang, think that if she is ever allowed to sing a song that where she can show off that voice, it would really help her in the show.

So, I am not forming my opinions of Danielle (or any of the others) as an actress based on what Sheila says. I happen to agree with Sheila, but it's because of what I personally have seen, with other actors in the past and on this show.

Sorry not had time to read this whole thread in full, but this is how I see it:

There is acting in between songs, and acting the song. Both are very important.

In my view Danielle, Steph and Lauren have 'acted' their songs the best so far. I mean by this that they are believable (truthiness as monkseal calls it).

I noticed Danielle early on in 'if my friends could see me now' because she really stood out for me as the one in the group who acted her lyrics (and in particular the emotion of excitement). I think that is why Tamzin O noticed her then.

I then thought she acted really well in Red. What I like about her is she seems to really make the song her own somehow, and make me believe that she means the lyrics.

She has acted well IMO in all other individual songs, even could it be magic, but that was an appalling cheesy song choice, and also a very substandard vocal compared to her other performances.

I think Simon Cowell talks about this a lot on x factor - the difference between singing it well but karaoke (the same format of the original song), and singing it well but your own version of it.

btw Lauren was amazing last week as an aside, gone up in my estimation, very well acted and 'truthiness'. Love stephanie - voice, look, bubbly etc but I am not convinced that she can act in the way the other three can

I think one problem is that Danielle has been highly praised for her acting, and Sheila can really go off on one. I do think she is easily the best actress in the group, but she is not Laurence Olivier! Sheila's comments probably piss people off too much - they piss me off and I am a devoted DH fan...

so in summary...I think acting is crucial and that three contestants have really convinced me they can act so far.

^I actually perfectly understand Sheila. When an expert comes across someone who is so young who displays the natural ability and potential that Danielle has, they tend to get excited. I've seen this several times over the years with directors I've worked with, particularly regarding young performers. When a director sees a young performer with that much potential, they often get a glow about them like this is a very special find. I think that is what Sheila sees in Danielle, and I don't blame her. Sometimes I do wish Sheila would dial it back a bit so she doesn't turn off the audience, but I completely understand where she's coming from.

Also, I agree about Steph and Lauren as well. I think Lauren's acting is a little too mannered and obvious at times, but her last performance was much better in this regard. I think Steph is very good at acting her songs as well.

The one of the "front-runners" I've been most concerned about when it comes to acting ability is Stephanie. She is an excellent singer and dancer, but I just haven't gotten much of a sense of her as an actress from the way she performs her songs. She sings them very well, but mostly she's just singing, and I don't get as much of a sense thats she's really thinking about the words.

Part of the problem is that Sheila says it but we don't see what she's just based her conclusion on. Danielle wasn't shown acting much. Jenny got high praise for acting in role throughout but then criticised for not acting enough in her songs the next 2 weeks. The difference is the content of what she was asked to act and the content of the songs. We are no wiser if she can do whats required or not or how well she did to get the praise. What we have is two different conclusions in that case and one thats not been demonstrated in another.

There's also acting when nothing has to be said or sung - the character can depend on that looking right and some of the biggest female roles (Roxie, Maria, Eponine, Fantine , Elle.........) require the ability to stand on stage there on your own, and hold the entire audience in a silence.

It's a long time since I saw it - but was he not a musician rather than a singer.

In any case, it was an example. I can accept that people have a different view from mine - it's clear from the responses that many do.

However, my position still remains that (in my view) the singing is far more important than acting in a musical. The fact that Robert de Niro appeared in one musical 30 years ago, does not make him a musical actor.

Neither will Meryl Streep be remembered primarily for Mamma Mia, nor will Susan Sarandon be remembered primarily for Rocky Horror - much as I enjoyed both movies.

I accept that I positioned this relative to Danielle and it is true that Sheila in particular has stated what a great actress she is. As I've said I haven't seen it.

But it is a genuine question, not related to Danielle.

For example, Jenny got the faking it comment re Why do Fools Fall In Love. Now that song is a bubblegumn pop song, which she sang perfectly adequately. What acting was required to sing it well.

In context, what acting is required to deliver ;We're off to See The wizard'.

I genuinely question whether being an excellent actress is key. My opinion is that the singing (including being able to interpret the songs, which some may describe as acting, but I think is pretty integral to singing) is more important.