sbaskett (sbaskett@netlink.com.au)
Fri, 22 May 1998 18:05:13 +1000
Grant Watson wrote:
But I would argue that the primary motivation behind casting *anyone*
in *anything* is whether or not they can act. Employing a tetraplegic to
play one is great and wonderful, certainly, but not if it damages the
show by also bringing in a poor performer.
This Andy Crowe thing has me really interested. I'd always assumed that
the Billy Homer part was created specifically for Andy Crowe, not that
Moffat decided "I know! I'll add a tetraplegic character to the show!".
Did I totally assume wrong? It's a kind of chicken vs egg thing. (if it
isn't, just let me say it is anyhow so I sound deep and philisophical)
So if that was the case, I think it could make the "why didn't they
employ an actor with heaps of training and a string of credits to sit
really really still and pronounce lines clearly" question almost
irrelevant. By this I mean, the part was only meant for Andy Crowe and
if he did not exist, neither would Billy Homer.
So c'mon PGers, tell me I've totally assumed wrong or just shoot me
down in flames for the fun of it, I'm a big girl now I can take it :-)
Stash
--
T H E P R E S S G A N G M A I L I N G L I S T
By default, pressing 'reply' will send mail back to the list, not
to the author of the message you're replying to.
To unsubscribe e-mail: pressgang-unsubscribe@lists.yoyo.org
For additional commands, e-mail: pressgang-help@lists.yoyo.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Sep 18 1998 - 02:34:51 BST