Musicals.Net
http://musicals.net/forums/

Check out this high school Mama Rose!!!
http://musicals.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=79302
Page 2 of 5

Author:  Quique [ Sat May 29, 2010 8:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Of course she's good. That's a given. She can obviously sing well and plays Patti Lupone to perfection. :wink: All she needs is the infamous curling lip, and she'd be all set! XD

She's doing an adult role so I figured I'd give her adult criticism. We ALL slip into impersonation, often subconsciously, and it's normal for a performer or non-performer alike to take the best parts of a great performance and incorporate them into their own interpretation. The result is a fragmented performance but at least it isn't a carbon copy of a very distinct characterization by a very distinct, larger-than-life actress, right down to the inflection, which sounds hokey when mimicked no matter how well it's done.

It's like a bassoonist trying to go beyond the natural limits of his instrument by playing notes far too high. He may very well produce something that sounds like a piccolo in pitch but it will sound and feel very unnatural, forced, and will throw the composition off by altering the intended texture. Same with all these impersonators; they try to sound just like the cast album and they may actually achieve a very similar sound/performance but there will be a sense of dishonesty there. It will be forced and unnatural and the performer will rightfully bear the mark of an amateur.

Like Beagle said, she obviously doesn't suck as the potential is clearly there. But she might as well cause her very obvious Patti impersonation is too unnatural, thus irritating to sit through.
#-o

Author:  Beagle On Stage [ Sat May 29, 2010 8:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Jman383 wrote:
Here is her "Ladies Who Lunch". Ironically, Beagle, despite her lack of life experience, she "got" the song more than most actresses twice and even three times her age, especially more than one user on here.

She does do a good Ladies Who Lunch (even though she didn't have the range for it). The clips of her as Rose were leagues below this, though, and that's what the thread was about, and my comments on the subject stand.

Author:  Jman383 [ Sat May 29, 2010 8:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

What exactly do you mean "the range" for it? I sure hope you're regarding her age, as opposed to her voice...

Furthermore, I stand by the fact that her vocals as Mama Rose are basically flawless. No, literally near perfect.

Author:  Beagle On Stage [ Sat May 29, 2010 9:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

They brought it up a half-step and it makes it sound brighter. That isn't her fault, but I'm sure she'll be able to do it as written when she's the right age. She did a much better job bridging the gap between her age and the character's this time, and it was easily the best teenage rendition I've seen. I don't know if this was before Gypsy or after... maybe Company represented a maturation and improvement for her as an actress.

While you may think her vocals as Rose were flawless, that's never been a quality that's important to the role. Ethel Merman, Angela Lansbury, Betty Buckley, Rosalind Harris, and even Bette Midler would balk if told they sang Rose flawlessly. I would even venture that a flawless vocal performance as Rose contributes to the argument that she didn't get it.

Author:  Lepitot [ Sat May 29, 2010 9:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

In response to the comment Jordan made of her acting...yeah, she is more talented than many many high school performers.

BUT the fact that she is so obviously trying to imitate another actress so strongly makes her performance incredibly stilted and unbelievable, therefore painful and annoying to watch. The talent is there, but this performance is not pleasant to watch (whether or not it is a choice of the actress to imitate or an order of the director).

Author:  Jman383 [ Sat May 29, 2010 9:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Oh, Beags, I never said that by "near perfect", I meant that the notes were. Sure, that's a large part of it. But the thing is, the phrasing and stylist choices (which MANY of them ARE different from LuPone) execute the role in which many professional actresses haven't.

Granted, a great deal of it she took from LuPone and IMPROVED upon. But even that is an endeavor in itself.

P.S. Half the ladies you just mentioned, Beagle, were DREADFUL Roses. Which is sad, because they WERE age appropriate when they played them.

Author:  Beagle On Stage [ Sat May 29, 2010 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Jman383 wrote:
P.S. Half the ladies you just mentioned, Beagle, were DREADFUL Roses. Which is sad, because they WERE age appropriate when they played them.

Edit: I responded to this basically saying I didn't care, but now that I think about it, that's an asinine thing for you to say. First of all, whether or not my specific examples of past Roses were all top-drawer is subjective and the topic for another thread entirely. Second, even if half of them did miss the boat on the role overall, it doesn't invalidate my point that they all understood that character matters over vocal precision for Rose. Finally, if they WERE dreadful Roses, they fit right into a discussion of a girl who wasn't much of one herself when she tried it. So I really don't know why you chose to say that.

Author:  Jman383 [ Sat May 29, 2010 10:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

Um, how is it NOT relevant to mention that your opinions on a "decent" Rose are obviously out of whack, when your examples SUCK? It'd be the same thing as having dreadful sources in an article or paper. Don't criticize a high school girl who pulled the role off better than half the ladies you just mentioned.

And no, there is no excuse for what some of those women gave forth as this character. You wanna talk about not getting it? Bette Middler, for example, played herself. Not even Bette as Rose, just Bette... on set... with some Hocus Pocus-isms. Likewise, her singing as Rose is probably the most mediocre Middler has ever sounded.

Secondly, Roz didn't even sing her own shit! How can you even DARE mention her? Even if the vocals are secondary to the acting (which they are), she was a horrid Rose. And if her fake vocals weren't bad enough, her acting is poor too.

Thirdly, while Merman was the original, Sondheim loathed her in the role. He said she truly just didn't get the character at all, and her Rose became literally a wicked, unfeeling woman by the end, which is completely wrong.

Lastly, Buckley, whom I adore, has some of the most self indulgent, nonsensical acting I've ever SEEN in the role. She literally takes 15 second pauses between lines for "effect". It's disgusting. Which is hard for me to say, because I think the woman is a genius in so many other things.

So point blank, had you actually named some stellar Roses, maybe I'd have backed off. But since you listed some of the worst, esp. in the acting department, I had to say something. I'm just thankful you didn't bring up Bernadette....

Author:  Beagle On Stage [ Sat May 29, 2010 10:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Fine, then let's say Angela Lansbury only. Sustained.

(Though I think you exaggerate to speak of Buckley taking "literally" fifteen-second pregnant pauses.)

Look. Maybe this girl was poorly directed, maybe she has improved since then, maybe whatever. In any case, the videos in the initial post are NOT of a great Rose. Not yet, anyway. It's fine if you like her, but if you have to discredit other Roses and my Rose-judging abilities to make your case that she was ready for this role, it's already over.

Author:  Adie [ Sat May 29, 2010 10:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ros Russel took a character who can hardly be contained in a theatre and brought truth to an onscreen performance.

This girl can clearly sing the role. She even brings a bit of feeling to the song. But in watching the dressing room scene all I got from her was "now I'm going to do a bit of anger" "now I'm going to shout a bit" "now I'm going to wait for gypsy to stop shouting at me so I can storm away".
I think she has an understanding of the character, but she hasn't really been able to grasp it. Do I sound harsh? She's a good highschool performer, phenomenal highschool singer and a competent actress.

Author:  Jman383 [ Sun May 30, 2010 12:56 am ]
Post subject: 

^^ And I was never arguing anything different, Adie. I was just saying I'm really not fond of people sitting here, overly criticizing her, as a 17 year-old girl, when she can do things most of us can't and won't ever do. Alls I'm saying. Let respect be where respect is due. Some users refuse to do that. They just nitpick and ONLY focus on the negative. It's silly.

After all, she just booked a principal in a National Tour out of HIGH SCHOOL. That's some Lebron James shit for ya!

Author:  Adie [ Sun May 30, 2010 1:25 am ]
Post subject: 

Jman383 wrote:
^^ And I was never arguing anything different, Adie. I was just saying I'm really not fond of people sitting here, overly criticizing her, as a 17 year-old girl, when she can do things most of us can't and won't ever do. Alls I'm saying. Let respect be where respect is due. Some users refuse to do that. They just nitpick and ONLY focus on the negative. It's silly.

After all, she just booked a principal in a National Tour out of HIGH SCHOOL. That's some Lebron James shit for ya!

Oh, I agree with everything you say to Jordan (I usually do, I've learnt a lot form you actually). I was more trying to add to your points to give credit where it's due and place a more 'middle ground' opinion between your view and our more critique-al friends.
Hell, I would have given her a standing O...and I'm pretty much a Brit. :)

However any disrespect to Roz Russel and my glare is on ;)

Page 2 of 5 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/