Editorial: Respectful Critisicm vs. Bashing

I thought I'd write an article on another issue that seems to be rather important within the "Wicked" community - respectful criticism vs. bashing. When critiquing a performance, one should not be expected to be all sunshine and rainbows - it actually makes a review better if it can see both good and bad in any give production. That being said, it is most certainly not a good thing when a review is filled with, "OMG that girl who played Elphaba sucked so terrible I hope she never plays it again..."

Many people need to learn to express dislike respectfully. If you truly think she sucked, say something along the lines of, "I did not care for so-and-so's interpretation of Elphaba at all - I thought it was pretty awful BECAUSE..." The word "because" is also very important - if you're going to say something, at LEAST back it up. I feel that that is the difference between constructive, respectful criticism and bashing. Always remember that the actor or actress who you are reviewing may read what you said - and they're much more likely to take offense at bashing than constructive criticism.

Closely related, when somebody criticizes your favorite actor in the role, don't jump down his or her throat. Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion; not that there's anything wrong with saying you disagree, but getting into a "No, I think so-and-so is miles ahead of what's her face" is just silly and proves absolutely nothing: it's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

I think if we all learned how to be respectful when reviewing a show, it would make the world of "Wicked" a much better place.

Editorial: Why Don't Standbys and Understudies Get Promoted?

Today’s editorial will be on a question which fans of “Wicked” commonly wonder: why do the producers of “Wicked” not promote very many standbys and understudies into leading parts? After all, they’re tested in the role and “deserve” the leading roles after understudying it for a long time. So why don’t they get it? Well, to answer this question, one really has to be in the mind of the people who cast the show: clearly, we are not. However, we can make educated guesses on the logic behind their decisions.

I feel that the main point is that standbys and understudies are cast as exactly that - standbys and understudies. Even if we as fans don’t see it, and even if we feel that Julie Reiber (standby for Elphaba in Los Angeles & Broadway) is the best thing since sliced bread, there has to be some reason that she was cast as a standby and not as the lead position – in this case, no doubt the experience of Eden Espinosa (standby Elphaba/Nessarose on Broadway; Elphaba on 1^st National Tour [temporary], Broadway, Los Angeles) sealed the nail on that coffin. Does it mean Eden is better than Julie? No, that’s a subjective decision: and honestly, we don’t even know if the producers think so: They could be going with her proven ability to lead a show (in both “Wicked” and “Brooklyn” on Broadway) over sheer talent. We never really know.

Closely related to that point, just to touch on the whole method of thinking that a standby or understudy “deserves” a part, one must honestly remember that the world isn’t fair – and also the fact that they do not have a guaranteed promotion clause in their contracts. Don’t get me wrong, I feel that many have been overlooked who really did deserve a leading role, but that’s really not up to us to decide.

Money also sometimes plays a part in the decision of who may lead a part. I know for a fact from people involved with the show that Laura Bell Bundy (standby for Glinda on Broadway; later played Elle Woods in “Legally Blonde” on Broadway and Tour) was offered the role of Glinda after Kristin Chenoweth (Glinda – Original Broadway Cast) but demanded the same amount of money as Chenoweth and ended up breaking the contract. However, we often do not know about money in the situations (and it’s really none of our business), so I’m sure that may be fairly common behind the scenes.

We also are not guaranteed that all standbys and understudies want to be promoted. While I do not know specifically whether or not she wanted to be promoted, Lisa Brescia (standby for Elphaba on Broadway; Elphaba in Chicago) was working on a degree in Womens’ Studies while backstage at The Gershwin and may have not accepted offers to be promoted until the Chicago stint. Once again, we will most likely never know.

Finally, I think name is important to “Wicked” producers, especially with the Broadway Cast. Look at all of the Broadway cast replacements: they had either had a good bit of New York theatrical experience or were very familiar within the “Wicked” world – Shoshana Bean (had done “Hairspray”, “Godspell”, toured with “Leader of the Pack”); Eden Espinosa (led “Brooklyn” on Broadway); Ana Gasteyer (of Saturday Night Live fame); Julia Murney (“The Wild Party” on Broadway; National Tour of “Wicked” as Elphaba); Stephanie J. Block (“The Pirate Queen”; “The Boy from Oz”; National Tour of “Wicked” as Elphaba; original Elphaba in “Wicked” workshops); Kerry Ellis (“Wicked” imported from London); Marcie Dodd (toured with “Hairspray”; toured in ensemble and as Elphaba and Nessarose understudy with “Wicked”; Nessarose in Los Angeles “Wicked”; standby for Elphaba in Los Angeles “Wicked”); Nicole Parker (MadTV); Dee Roscioli (2 ½ years with the Chicago company of “Wicked”, two of which were spent playing Elphaba full-time). Everyone of these women had shown a capacity to lead a show (or were a publicity stunt) and thus were given the leading role. I would go through and do the Glindas as well, but I think it’s fairly self-explanatory.

One other quick factor; especially for smaller roles: if an understudy is a swing, I feel that the production is much less likely to move them up simply because swings are so versatile and so difficult to train, as they have to learn 9-10 roles in the show: the one exception I know of with a swing promotion was Briana Yacavone to Nessarose in Los Angeles, and that was kind of done on an emergency basis with Caissie Levy’s vocal troubles. I do feel that being a swing can be a bad thing if you want to be promoted.

All of this being said, I still think that we fans must remember overall that it is the producer’s decision to promote people as they please, and though we may search for logic in their decisions, the only way to know for sure is to be them, and we are not.

PHOTOS: Top Right: Eden Espinosa & Laura Bell Bundy as standby for Elphaba & Glinda together on Broadway
Bottom Left: Nicole Parker as Elphaba on Broadway

Editorial: Why was Annaleigh Ashford let go from Cirque de Soleil?

There has been a stink in the "Wicked" community (and rightfully so) lately over the sudden firing of Annaleigh Ashford (former Broadway Glinda; u/s Glinda in 1st National Tour) from Cirque de Soleil, and it has left many people wondering why she was let go when she was such a major character, appearing in most of the press articles, photos, and even having a large spot in the commercials. For some reason though, producers wrote her part (and one other part) out of the show.

Even though my heart goes out to Ms. Ashford, I think we must understand that Cirque de Soleil is a huge production - one that most people attend without really caring who's in it. In a sense, it's like "Wicked", where maybe 0.005% of people could even tell you who was in the show. And like Cirque, it's going to continue selling out anyway. That being said, if someone is not working or a part is not working (we really don't know which is actually true in this case), they can be let go without any major repercussions, unless the casting is big and public. An example of this was the firing of Joanna Pacitti from the leading role of Annie on the National Tour and subsequent Broadway production of 1997: the casting had been done on a huge Macy's Talent Search with a Turning Point Special also being aired about the casting. Needless to say, when word got out that she had been let go when she was out for two days with bronchitis, many people boycotted the show, leading to it's quick demise, with the Broadway production only running from March to October of 1997.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for Annaleigh Ashford. She is merely a face on a commerical in pictures to most Cirque fans and her firing will not hurt the ticket sales of the show. That being said, I'm sure we all feel awfully sorry for her, because this is still a dreadful situation for her to be in.

PHOTO: Annaleigh Ashford in "Cirque de Soleil"; photo courtesy of playbill.com