Understudies are the lifeblood of the theatre. So why do so few Toronto companies have them?

The collective uuuugggghhhh that shook the Bluma Appel Theatre came not from a scene in Amy Herzog’s adaptation of Henrik Ibsen’s drama — about the disintegration of Nora’s relationship with her husband, Torvald — but before the curtain even rose. 

It was prompted by a pre-show announcement informing the audience that the actor who plays Dr. Rank, Nora’s best friend, was indisposed and that his part would be played by emergency cover W. Joseph Matheson, who was not an understudy but brought on at the last minute to perform with his script in hand. 

By the show’s curtain call, however, Matheson received the most enthusiastic ovation from the audience. And in the intervening 100 minutes between that pre‑show announcement and Matheson’s bow, he delivered an illuminating and sympathetic performance in the small yet crucial role.

While that performance felt singular, it also revealed a growing problem in Toronto theatre. Far too many companies are forgoing understudies and swings in favour of emergency covers thrust on stage with minimal preparation. Sure, Matheson’s unexpected turn may have been a theatrical miracle, but professional companies in the city shouldn’t be relying on these miracles as a strategy to save them from a cancelled performance.

A situation similar to “A Doll’s House” occurred last season with Canadian Stage’s revival of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” 

And the season before that, the Crow’s Theatre and Musical Stage Company’s marquee co-production of “Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812” had to push back its opening after sickness swept through its cast. (It also had to bring in an emergency cover for several early performances to supplement its seven understudies, who had to cover 10 roles between them.) 

That’s three major productions across three consecutive seasons that have been impacted by a lack of adequate understudy coverage. 

It’s easy to see, though, why these companies don’t hire enough understudies or, in many cases, any understudies at all: it comes down to money — not just the cost of covering the salaries of these extra performers but also the expense of rehearsing them and fitting them with their own sets of costumes. 

In a statement to the Star, Canadian Stage executive director Monica Esteves said the company approaches understudy coverage, “on a show-by-show basis, guided by run length, scale and responsible stewardship of resources. When all costs are included, a full understudy plan can increase a show’s budget by as much as 10 to 20 per cent.”

But no matter the added expense, there’s still no excuse for any company, except the smallest of indie troupes, not to hire understudies. Even if that means cutting budgets on other aspects of a production, such as the physical designs, or selecting shows with smaller casts, so be it. Because understudies are essential.

That’s especially true for productions such as “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?,” “A Doll’s House” and “The Great Comet.” All three ran over the winter, during the height of flu season, while the latter two feature large ensembles, scheduled to perform eight shows a week over a multi-week run. Casting these shows without sufficient understudies is simply a recipe for disaster.

The absence of understudies in Toronto theatre is part of a broader lack of appreciation for the unique role. Last year, Broadway producers and the union representing actors reached an agreement which would make understudy slips optional. If audiences want to find out if a cover is performing, they’ll need to scan a QR code instead.

This change has already been enacted for many North American touring productions, including some that have played at Mirvish. Yet it only further diminishes the role of understudies, swings and standbys, who are the lifeblood of the theatre.

Their job is arguably one of the most challenging in the industry. These covers often memorize lines and blocking for multiple roles simultaneously. There’s never a guarantee that they’ll ever perform, but they must also be mentally prepared to step in at a moment’s notice.

Additionally, their presence within an ensemble offers peace of mind for other members of a company. When a primary actor has an understudy backing them up, they know that they don’t need to necessarily push through a show at the expense of their physical or mental health, or risk that show being cancelled. 

Understudies, in short, are irreplaceable and indispensable. Their work is also an art in itself. While emergency covers do exist — and sometimes make for memorable performances, as in Matheson’s case — they should only be called upon if both the regular actor and their understudy are unable to go on.

Putting on an emergency cover is always less than ideal. No matter how talented they are or how much they can bring to the role in the limited time they have to prepare, a show with an emergency cover is never the same as the one the director intended.

When this stunt is pulled off as frequently as it is by Toronto theatres, which refuse to hire enough understudies, it becomes unfair to the paying public, the primary actors on stage and Canadian actors who deserve the opportunity to understudy these roles.

I’m not arguing in favour of groaning the next time an emergency cover has to step on stage in Toronto. (Instead, go ahead and give them the hearty ovation they deserve.) But the next time a Toronto theatre announces a major mid-winter run without any understudies, you can bet I’ll be joining in on that chorus of uuuugggghhhhssss.