This question reminds me of seeing Les Miserables the last time it was here in Perth. Rob Guest had the lead Valjean, but the first time I saw it, the understudy Chris Fennessy played the role. When I went back to see it the second time, Rob Guest performed. To be honest, I actually thought that Fennessy gave the better performance...

Conversely, when FAME was here in 2000 I had the opposite effect. The first time I saw the show Thelma Houston was playing her role of Miss Sherman - she was absolutely phenomenal. When I went back to see it again the understudy Margi de Feranti was playing and while still good, she was certainly no Thelma Houston.

What this leads me to is that I certainly don't feel cheated when I hear that an understudy is performing, but I also don't automatically think that they will be the better performer who simply didn't get the role because they aren't as big a name. I do believe though that booing when hearing that an understudy will be taking the stage is more than a littel un-called for. Also, it's really quite unfair on yourself. You're making a judgment call about the production that will impinge upon your ability to enjoy it without having seen/heard a thing.

I always feel that to have been chosen as an understudy you must have shown the casting team that you have the goods to play the part. The reasons for why you didn't get the part outright vary - it's quite common for a known name to get a particular role for marketing purposes (this is a reality - theatre is a business as well as an artform) but that's certainly not always the case.

I think Rapunzel said it well: "Or do you recognise the benefits of receiving that performance?" When an understudy takes the stage, we should support them as much as we would a known performer - to have been cast as the understudy they MUST have the talent to be able to perform the part, and we all have to start somewhere don't we? If we can encourage understudies when we see them, who knows where they might go...

My final note on understudies: The first time I ever saw Phantom of the Opera the part of Christine was played by the understudy, Anna Marina. The next time I saw Miss Marina she had landed the role of Cossette in Les Miserables and I believe she is now playing Christine in the new production of Phantom and is considered one of Australia's leading sopranos!

Darren

I guess those of us who work in the industry would have a different viewpoint than average punters: average punters need a reason to go see a show, and often the reason is the names in the show.

I go to the theatre to be entertained, enlightened, etc., not for who's in it (unless, of course, I know the cast/crew). I'm not interested whether I see the understudy or not; so long as the understudy performs just as well (or better) than the rest of the cast, who cares?

The show is to be seen as one entity, not as a solo performance.

I'm sure many people will disagree, but I personally don't mind seeing an understudy.

It's also worth remembering that understudies or alternates often mean that the show stays fresh, and that the cast don't get sick or overtired during long seasons. Give the poor understudy a break - they provide a valuable service to the rest of the show.

Sticky Apple Legs
www.thepromptcopy.com/sal

Puppets in Melbourne
www.puppetsinmelbourne.com.au

My puppets
www.collectzing.com/collection/137/