Some Thoughts on “Stunt Casting”

by Chris Peterson

A reader left the following comment under a thread asking for hot takes regarding theatre,

"Stunt casting devalues the show! If its not good enough to be performed by regular folk - its not good enough! (And particularly if you are casting some mega star to get bums on seats! Lots of film stars are AWFUL on stage!)"

I found this interesting and I wanted to discuss it on here.

The concern about “stunt casting” in theatre is understandable. There is real truth in the idea that hiring a celebrity purely to sell tickets can undermine a show’s artistic integrity. But the issue is not fame itself. It is intent. When a well-known performer is brought in simply for publicity, the results often feel shallow. When that performer is chosen because they bring something unique to the role and take the work seriously, the results can be powerful. Fame and artistry are not opposites. It depends entirely on how the opportunity is handled.

Chicago is one of the best examples of how this can both succeed and fail. Since the 1996 revival, the show has become known for its rotating roster of celebrity leads. Over the years, everyone from Melanie Griffith and Pamela Anderson to Usher, Brandy, Ashlee Simpson, and Billy Ray Cyrus has taken the stage. For some, this has turned Chicago into a revolving door of famous faces rather than a piece of great theatre. For others, it has kept the show alive, vibrant, and accessible to audiences who might not otherwise buy a ticket.

The distinction between stunt casting and smart casting is crucial. Stunt casting happens when producers rely on novelty instead of talent, hoping that name recognition alone will fill seats. The result is often a performance that feels out of place and a production that loses credibility. Smart casting, however, happens when a well-known performer is chosen because they truly fit the role and have the ability to bring new energy to the material. It becomes less about celebrity and more about reinterpretation.

Chicago has shown both sides of this equation. When Pamela Anderson joined the Broadway cast as Roxie Hart in 2022, many assumed it would be a headline stunt. But by most accounts, Anderson took the opportunity seriously. She trained, rehearsed, and delivered a performance that surprised critics with its warmth and sincerity. She may not have been the strongest singer to ever play Roxie, but she understood the character’s humor, vulnerability, and self-awareness. The performance worked because she respected the craft.

There have been other cases, of course, when the celebrity casting felt less successful. Some performers have stepped into Chicago without the stage experience or vocal strength needed to carry a live show. In those moments, the audience can sense the difference. The production becomes about the name on the marquee rather than the story being told. That is when “stunt casting” feels accurate.

Yet it would be unfair to say that celebrity casting always cheapens a show. Brandy’s turn as Roxie Hart in 2015 was a triumph. Her background as a recording artist gave her musical precision and confidence, and her performance was filled with warmth and humor. Usher’s portrayal of Billy Flynn brought a younger audience to the theatre and gave the character a new kind of charisma. Both examples show that a well-known performer can serve the material beautifully when they approach it with respect.

Theatre has always existed at the intersection of art and commerce. Producers have long relied on recognizable names to sell tickets, from Ethel Merman to Hugh Jackman. The difference lies in the level of commitment. A star who treats the stage as a platform for self-promotion will never deliver the same result as one who understands the discipline and collaboration of live performance.

Casting a mega star is not, by definition, stunt casting. It becomes stunt casting only when the choice prioritizes fame over fitness for the role. When a celebrity brings talent, preparation, and reverence for the art form, they can elevate the show rather than devalue it. In the end, Chicago reminds us that a show’s success depends less on who is in the spotlight and more on how seriously that spotlight is earned.