understudies

Here's the thing.

I was supposed to see Richard Madden in Romeo and Juliet tonight.

Apparently.

I mean, forget about the fact that it also starred Derek Jacobi, Lily James and a host of other brilliantly talented actors, co-directed by Kenneth Branagh and Rob Ashford, performed at a historic and lovely theater during Shakespeare's 400th death-iversary year.

I was supposed to see RICHARD MADDEN.

Of Game of Thrones fame. THE Robb Stark.

But when I bought my programme (yes, American tourists, they're not free), there was a slip of paper included saying that he was indisposed and the role of Romeo would be played by-- GASP-- an understudy??!?!??!?!?!!

Then the usher had the audacity to remind me? Before I had to see that other guy walk onstage and perform one of the most iconic roles ever (apparently with very little notice given how late the house opened and that the show was held about ten minutes too), she REMINDED me? So I could be prepared for disappointment, right? So I could scoff to my friends and/or date sitting with me about how "he'd better be just as attractive. He'd BETTER BE." That's it.

You guys-- this happened tonight. Minus the part about me taking it personally. This happened.

The entire theatre staff spent the half-hour before showtime acting apologetic. I almost expected a preshow announcement, though I suppose with the audible whining that would have occurred as a result, I'm really glad that's not a thing. And the comments from the audience....

THE COMMENTS.

And I mean, I get it. I'm not like some big fan, but I was interested to see his performance (in part because he's kind of been slammed by critics...) and I like his acting well enough from the little I've seen. It's a surprise. It's kind of a disappointment. I get it. I've seen a handful of understudies for West End shows and I guess it's a kind of bummer if they're understudying a Name. But the things I overheard tonight made me just really bummed out by popular media-consumers who, from the looks of it, don't regularly attend theatre.

I heard a number of comments wondering if "the understudy" (who's name is Tom Hanson, according to the programme many were actively holding in their hands, thank you) would match Mr Madden's level of attractiveness. "OH NO REALLY?? Guh. Well is the understudy as hot as him??" Which like-- OK. But that's insulting to everybody and it makes you shallow, popular media-consumer. OK? Especially when you paid £35-£90 for your ticket.

And at the interval, despite Mr Hanson's performance generally being received positively during the show, I literally heard a woman say, "Well he's great! If not just a little..." And then she waved her hand in front of her face and then her gut, then shrugged and chuckled with her friends.

Because Romeo was supposed to be Robb Stark, not Robb Stark's stand-in. Because the audience bought tickets to see one show and felt like they were getting another-- and in some sense I guess that's true. But I was so disgusted and disappointed by these people, particularly thinking of the feelings Mr Hanson likely has about himself as Mr Madden's understudy.

No single person in the entire world knows just how precisely he is not Richard Madden, more than Richard Madden's understudy.

Understudying is always hard and thankless. You have to do the work of the actor whose role it is, but without the weeks of study and rehearsal, usually while studying and rehearsing your own role in the show. You have to have nerves of steel, to jump into a performance at the last moment if necessary and carry on without a hitch. You have to go back to your other, smaller role, knowing you're brilliant and capable, and watch someone carry on with work you're totally brilliant and capable of doing (with less study, rehearsal or preparation). But being the understudy to a celebrity I imagine comes with a kind of weight and pressure that is very specific because at the end of the day, your brilliance and flexibility and preparation doesn't matter: "the understudy" is simply not Richard Madden and will always be, in a way, blamed for that.

On top of it, the audience seemed to be prepared to consume the play as they would a weekend of binging Game of Thrones. I was sitting between two women about my age, each holding drinks and a handful of snacks, who crinkled and crunched their way through the play like they were watching a movie or sitting on their couch at home. One of them literally at an entire can of crisps with her mouth open. A guy nearby kept leaning over and talking to his friend/date so that a dull murmur was almost constant. People kept getting up to go to the toilet and coming back in the middle of scenes.

I was desperate for the safety curtain to come down at interval with a the condescending Netflix screen-- Are you still watching Romeo and Juliet? The screen that forces you to acknowledge that you've been sitting in front of your television for a number of hours and reminds you that have fallen down the rabbit hole of mindless media consumption.

Congratulations to The Understudy for a really brilliant performance. I rather love to see an understudy, not only because it highlights the intricacy of the seamlessly moving parts in a stage production, but also because understudies bring an electricity to the performance that is quite specific. It's satisfying to be able to cheer for the "underdog," especially when they deserve it. And it's sometimes also satisfying when The Understudy delivers a performance that exceeds the critical reviews that The Name has generally received.

But I mean-- he's no Robb Stark.