Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“I don't think anyone whose name was made playing a cat and who acts a third line role in Eastenders has that much claim to offer massive wisdom.
They also have an enormous problem as they judge completely against what they would do.
Sheila rambles on about what the song is about - oblivious to what it might be about or even how the best people have actually played it. She likes some performances that are so subtle they may not exist and misses others that don't fit her pre-conception.
John Partridge marks on the basis of who does it as he would. But he tends towards show off, panto, OTT acting which I would pay to go miles to avoid. He misses anything subtle (except in Danielle where its magnified) and confuses acting big with having a big impact. There are big pantos and all singing all dancing shows in the Westend but there are a lot of understated, precision, acting performances that work brilliantly too.
Neither of them have mastered either the other point that the viewers are judging what works down a TV screen. Thats what a sane Dorothy should be doing well - being less subtle was Helena's problem. Its a far more complex question whether who can do it well down a TV screen is going to command a Westend stage - experience suggest many people who can act well can do both better.
Charlotte at least knows how to work a variety of audiences and a TV camera and she knows that there's a range of ways to interpret a song.”
John Partridge has been in Musicals here and abroad, for twenty years. He is not just the Rumtumtugger and Christian in EE. He also adores it all and knows a great deal about it.
Sheila gives her opinion of the ways the songs could be sung from her point of view, what she says often seems very reasonable to me. She is an actress first, and good actresses like to hear the story, as do we all actually. I accept she is concerned with subtlety, but she saw something in Danielle that I didn't to begin with, and I am learning to listen to her carefully.
I don't agree that John likes what he would do. I think he tries to be very honest about what HE thinks a performance lacks or excels in. He has a real feel for what 'makes sense', what 'carries coherently as a whole' on the stage. This makes him a valuable judge in my opinion.
Charlotte Church is a good singer, what she has to say about the vocals is often interesting - she rarely says anything really intersting about anything else, however, and sometimes she doesn't seem to understand the songs she is talking about.
As for her understanding what works with different sorts of audiences, perhaps she does, but she has had limited experience and success and this shows sometimes.
The judges NECESSARILY speak from their knowledge, experience and understanding. I find it interesting hearing their views whilst fully accepting this.
As for what 'translates to tv', well, I don't know. But the actual part is to be played in a big West End theatre, so the judges are judging it on this basis.
The audience can make its own mind up about who they like on tv. The Dorothies would do well to think about this, however I doubt they do. They are just trying to do their best, they don't know what goes down the best, how could they? I'm not sure I do to be honest, and people seem to disagree about who is good, and not so good, for many reasons.
”
