Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Review: Godspell

The cast of Godspell, in the midst of their daily sugar high.

There is nothing particularly wrong with the first Broadway revival of Godspell, which opened in November at the Circle in the Square Theatre.  Unfortunately, there also isn’t anything particularly noteworthy about it.  While solidly staged and sung, there isn’t a whole lot to make this production stand out from the hundreds of regional and amateur productions of the show that occur every year all over America.

If you are somehow unfamiliar with the show, it’s a collection of vignettes depicting the various parables used by Jesus Christ as part of his ministry, occasionally punctuated by pop-influenced songs written by Stephen Schwartz.  The only named characters are Jesus, John the Baptist, and Judas, the latter two played by the same actor for reasons I’ve never quite understood.  The rest of the 10 person ensemble is a collection of loosely defined everymen and women who are intended to take on whatever characteristics the actors playing them possess.
The cast assembled for this production is comprised almost entirely of fresh young faces, with the only “name” star among them Hunter Parish (who apparently plays the son on the TV show Weeds, though I had never heard of him until he was cast in this show).  Parish makes for a generic Jesus; he has a gentle demeanor that works for the character but is by no means the most magnetic personality onstage, and his singing voice is merely passable.  His “Alas for You” is a tad flat, both vocally and performance wise, although to be fair I’ve never really seen any Jesus pull this song off successfully. 
The rest of the cast is certainly high energy, almost too high at times.  There is a frantic, hyperactive quality to this production which is off-putting, especially in the intimate Circle in the Square.  But one cannot fault the cast for trying, and their eagerness is ultimately more endearing than it is annoying.  All fine singers, the vocal standout is Lindsay Mendez, whose rendition of “Bless the Lord” is the production’s highlight.  Among the men, Telly Leung has a seemingly endless vocal rang and a star quality that makes him infinitely watchable, although he tends to overdo the vocal gymnastics.
Part of the appeal of Godspell is that while the order of songs and parables is set, the way in which they are presented and even the specific lines are meant to be improvised, allowing each new production to speak specifically to the time and place in which it’s presented.  This means the show is a true collaboration between director Daniel Goldstein and his 10 person cast, and it’s often difficult to tell who contributed what.  Whoever is responsible, there is a definite inventiveness to the way the parables are presented, especially the first tale of a widow and a judge, which in this production is rapped.  If the rest of the show had lived up to that high benchmark, then this Godspell would be a truly transcendent experience.
Also problematic is the fact that the staging of the parables is far more engaging than the staging of the musical numbers, which in theory are Godspell’s strongest asset.  While well sung, many of the musical numbers devolve into the cast aimlessly jumping about the stage.  This looks bad enough when they do it on TV’s Glee, but to see it in person without any camera lens to focus your attention amplifies the chaos factor.  And towards the end of the show, which attempts to evoke a more somber mood by presenting a stylized account of Jesus’ final days and his eventual crucifixion, boredom starts to set in.
The physical production of Godspell is quite lovely, especially given the additional challenges of staging musicals in the round.  David Korins’ set, sparse by necessity, is always interesting to look at, with trap doors, trampolines, and other surprises constantly being revealed.  There are even several magic tricks that are supremely effective because they are in no way telegraphed; they simply happen, often to audible delight from the audience.  And the lighting design by David Weiner is truly breathtaking, enhancing the shows mood while remaining interesting in its own right.  Miranda Hoffman’s costume design isn’t quite at the same level as the set and lights, but does manage to look eclectic and cohesive at the same time.
Those who are fans of Godspell or have never seen the show before will find plenty to enjoy about this production.  It is a great entry-level Broadway show, perfect for tourists or families with young children.  But more seasoned theatre goers will be less impressed, and can probably find better shows to spend their money on this spring.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

How to Increase Full Price Ticket Sales: A Suggestion

Are discount tickets actually driving the cost of full priced seats up????  News at 11.
As far as I know, no one (except perhaps the super-rich) is happy with current Broadway ticket prices.  Most people, especially the struggling artists who would probably be Broadway’s biggest supporters if they weren’t living paycheck to paycheck, think that show tickets cost too much.  Unless you manage to nab one of the extremely limited lottery or rush tickets to particular performance, you’re looking at spending at least $70 and more likely $100+ to see a Broadway show.  And the producers who are financing said shows keep raising those prices, not necessarily because they are evil money grubbing monsters, but because the running costs of theatre continue to escalate.
Now, getting said costs under control should be the producers’ first order of business, but that is a subject for another blog entry.  I would argue that one of the main reasons ticket prices have skyrocketed over the past decade is the abundance of discount ticket websites and venues.  With so many places selling tickets at 30%-50% off, producers have to plan on not getting full price on the majority of their ticket sales.  Let’s say, for example, that a certain show needs to sell the majority of its seats for $75 each in order to be reasonably successful, but audiences are so used to getting a discount that they won’t buy them at full price.  So producers mark the face value of the ticket up to $135, knowing that it will likely be sold at a discount the brings the price back down to the $75 they originally wanted for it.
Now, there’s a certain segment of the population that will only buy things at a discount.  They aren’t concerned with the actual price of an item as much as how much they saved off the original price.  These people, as proved by shows like Extreme Couponing on TLC, are not normal and cannot be reasoned with, and would probably happily buy a $150 ticket if they were told it was worth $300.  But a good number of people, myself included, aren’t so much concerned with how much we’re saving as the final dollar amount. 
The reason these people aren’t buying full priced tickets (and any producer will tell you they’d much rather sell full priced tickets than discounted ones) is simple: the current top tier ticket price of $135 a seat is simply too much for a lot of people to afford in this still shaky economy.  Now, you could argue that for these people there are the mid- (around $90) and lower-level ($67-is) ticket prices.  Unfortunately, for most shows there are only two rows of seats available for the lowest ticket price, and they are in the back of the house and sell out quickly.  The privilege of being able to sit slightly closer – because face it, three rows from the back is by no means “close” to the stage in most Broadway houses – and not have to buy months in advance is apparently worth an extra $25.
And this is the problem.  $90 is a lot of money to spend on two and a half hours of entertainment.  And even those of us who would gladly pay to see live theatre don’t necessarily have the luxury of spending that much money regularly.  $90 is costly enough to make most people stop and think, and when we realize that we’re sitting basically in the back of the house for a show we may not even enjoy, we tend to decide against spending it. 
So what’s the solution?  I propose changing the pricing scale so that the majority of the mezzanine/balcony retails for the low-level ticket price of $60.  Obviously, the front few rows are prime seating and can remain at their current prices (because some people can and will spend that much on a show without a second thought, and there’s no reason producers shouldn’t take that customer’s money).  Because for me, and I would imagine for a lot of people, the convenience of being able to buy in advance, rather than waiting in rush lines all day or hoping you win the lottery, is worth that much money.  Especially when you consider that most lottery and rush tickets are between $30 and $40 anyway.  I would gladly pay an extra $20 to have a better seat and know that I will actually get in to see the show I want to see.
I suspect that if Broadway shows instituted this practice, they would see a major increase in full price ticket sales, and also advance ticket sales.  That would give producers the ability to more effectively budget a production and to plan further out, rather than slashing a bunch of tickets at the last minute and hoping they sell.  It would make live theatre a more attractive option for small groups of people, who can’t afford $100 a person and can’t count on getting three or four tickets if they do go the lottery/rush ticket route.  And it would make the theatre going experience more pleasant, which would increase the amount of repeat business.
Now, not being a Broadway producer, there may be other factors that are keeping this plan from working.  But I think from a logic standpoint, it makes a lot of sense.  Yes, people will gladly pay $150 to see The Book of Mormon, but that show is the exception that proves the rule.  In most cases, you’d be better off lower the ticket price to a more palatable level, and then (surprise!) your show just might run long enough to turn a profit.

Monday, March 12, 2012

When It Rains, It Pours: Why the Glut of Spring Shows is Bad for Everyone

Peter and the Starcatchers, one of several Broadway shows I'd love to see but may not be able to this spring.

In another example of time flying, it is suddenly mid-March.  The days are getting longer, the temperature is getting warmer, and there are literally dozens of Broadway shows getting ready to vie for your hard-earned dollars in the coming weeks.  I’m already wondering how I will find the time and money to see even half of them, especially since limited runs and the uncertain nature of theatre reward seeing things sooner rather than later.  Wait too long, and that really good sounding show may not be around any longer.

This isn’t a surprise; it happens every year at this time.  And every year it sucks just as hard, because despite my best efforts I still do not have a stockpile of money secreted away that can finance almost-nightly excursions to Broadway.  In past seasons I’ve been able to make my peace with the process as an unfortunate fact of life, much like how I deal with paying taxes or the varied quality of SNL comedy sketches.  Yet this year, I find myself asking why it has to be like this, and thinking that there really is money to be made by bucking the trend.

Of course, I intellectually understand why the season always breaks down this way.  The Tony Awards, with their late April cut-off date and tendency to favor recent productions over those from earlier in the season (especially if said productions have since closed), are largely responsible for the glut of spring shows.  Although the financial gains from winning a boatload of Tonys is questionable, everyone still wants bragging rights, and I doubt winning the Tony has ever hurt a production.  The producers are also thinking about tourists, those strange creatures that comprise anywhere between half and two-thirds of any given audience, who are in short supply during the cold winter months but emerge from hibernation as the weather gets warmer.

But there is definitely a segment of the theatre-going population that is being hurt by this practice of cramming all Broadway openings into the months of March and April, and in my opinion it is a segment that is potentially lucrative.  You see, I love Broadway, and I am not the only New Yorker who does.  Since I live here, timing isn’t an issue for me, and I have braved the wind and snow to attend live theatre on many occasions.  If I could, I would go see everything.  But I am not made of money, and I do have a life with other obligations like a job, so I don’t have time to see 20-plus shows over the course of six weeks.  So every spring, there are shows I really would like to see – pay for, even! – that I don’t make it to because they close before I get the chance.

To put things into perspective, I would like to see twelve shows (Clybourne Park, Death of a Salesman, Evita, Ghost, The Best Man, Jesus Christ Superstar, Leap of Faith, Newsies, Nice Work if You Can Get It, Once, Peter and the Starcatcher, and The Lyons) slated to premiere between now and June.  Realistically, unless I discover the location of Scrooge McDuck’s Money Bin, I’ll only be able to afford tickets to maybe half of those.  But if they were more spread out throughout the year, I would happily attend all of them, even those that end up with mediocre reviews.  But under the current system, I have to prioritize, and the producers of half those shows will be out one paying customer.  If they simply spread out the openings, everyone would win.  I could go see all the shows, the producers would have more money, and they wouldn’t all be competing against one another for press time and advertising space.

Opening during a less crowded timeframe has definitely helped shows before.  Take last winter’s revival of The Importance of Being Earnest, a show nobody was particularly interested in seeing before it opened.  It opened in early January to minimal competition and surprisingly strong box office, which prompted its limited run to be by almost three months!  I guarantee you that wouldn’t have happened if it had opened in March or April.  While it was the only new show in town, theatre fans like me went to see it, enjoyed it, and told are friends to see it to, thereby increasing its weekly grosses.

Follies is another excellent example.  While legendary among theatre folk and a favorite of Sondheim fans, the show has hemorrhaged money during past Broadway runs due to its massive running costs and middling ticket sales.  Yet the latest revival opened in early September to incredibly strong box office, breaking $1 million in weekly grosses on a couple of occasions, something practically unheard of for any Sondheim show.  No, it still didn’t turn a profit, but it came closer than any other production of the show ever has (and if Evita hadn’t booted it from the Marquis Theatre it might still be running and have become profitable).  Again, I think the key is that the show opened during a dry period for Broadway musicals, and thereby attracted the attention of every New York theatre fan who was desperate for a new show after the summer drought.

Now obviously there are other factors at work besides just timing.  The two shows mentioned above were known properties, and both productions were also excellent, which despite what the cynics may say still counts for a lot in this business.  But I really think that more producers should experiment with opening their shows throughout the calendar year, rather than only during October-November and March-April.  Smaller shows without big stars and name recognition have a better chance of gaining traction when there’s less competition, because if you give the public a choice between Evita and a musical adaptation of an obscure Steve Martin film (i.e. Leap of Faith), they’re going to choose Evita.  Hell, I would, and I consider myself a champion of new musicals.  And if you’re trying to court tourist dollars, why is no one opening their shows in the summer, when there’s such an influx of visitors that you can’t walk two feet in Times Square without running into an entire platoon of them?

Maybe there are factors at work that I’m not aware of, but I think right now the biggest deterrent to this idea is tradition.  Just because a lot of big successes opened in the spring doesn’t mean every show that opens in the spring will do the same.   Because Wicked was going to turn into Wicked no matter when it opened (it premiered in late October, if you’re wondering), but your show may just stand a better chance at turning a profit if you open it in July when there’s less competition.