Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Defining an artist vs. a performer
Some may call her the consummate "performer", but I call her an "artist". And I read a quote from her in the NY Times that exactly illustrates why. The question was whether she had any regrets for 2004. And she responded:
"It was exhausting, but I wish we had kept doing the show ["Gypsy" on Broadway]. We could have gone deeper."
I saw this show last year, and Peters blew me away. Yes, she had vocal issues, especially early in the show. Who cares? I'm not a fan of "Gypsy", particularly, or of that role, and I thought Peters brought so many new layers to it. She made the show seem fresh and new, and her "Rose's Turn" was revelatory. She got a standing ovation at the end of the number, and it was well-deserved. IMHO, of course. You can read my original review of the show here.
My point is that after over a year in the show, she was still looking for more.
Non-performers (and even some performers) wonder how people get through such long runs. I've never been in a run that long, and certainly when I've been in shows where the people were a drag, and the show was a drag, and the venue was a drag...then even one weekend can seem like an eternity. But if you're in a great show, with a great role, with a great cast...it really can seem like each performance is a new one; each moment is a fresh one.
Sigh. Maybe I need to do a show.