A Reasoned Explanation of Why Some Shows Just Need to Close Already

Sorry all you ABBA fans, but it's time for these "dancing queens" to retire.

Last season turned out to be a pretty prolific season for new musicals, with 12 brand new tuners officially debuting on the Great White Way.  But looking ahead at the 2014-2015 season, the situation is a lot less cheery.  Holler If Ya Hear Me already came and went, and looking at the currently announced shows for the next season, there are a whopping 3 new musicals scheduled to come to Broadway: The Last Ship, Honeymoon in Vegas, and An American in Paris. 

Yes, there are a handful of other musicals which have announced their intentions to come to Broadway next season, but as far as I'm concerned a musical isn't officially happening until it has a specific date and theatre lined up.  Even then, it isn't a done deal (see the very public collapse of Rebecca) but once those qualifications are met it becomes significantly more likely the show will happen.  So while a show like Finding Neverland (currently premiering at ART in Boston) will most likely come to Broadway, and shows like Bull Durham and Allegiance have announced intentions to come to Broadway sooner rather than later, they aren't guaranteed just yet.

Now obviously, any season that only produces 4 new musicals is depressing (especially when one of them has already flopped).  But what's more troubling is what this says about the current state of Broadway.  If you look at the Upcoming Broadway Shows list on Playbill.com, you can see the problem isn't a lack of new works.  After the 3 confirmed shows mentioned above, there are no less than 16 musicals with producers and creative teams attached that have announced Broadway intentions.  I count 9 shows that could reasonably be ready for a Broadway bow by spring 2015, as all 9 have already had world premieres or are scheduled to have them by this winter.  A few of them do have some well-documented behind the scenes troubles (Rebecca chief among them), but the majority of them are waiting on just one thing: an available theatre.

And that is what really bugs me about this upcoming season.  We have too many long-running productions on Broadway right now, many of which have become tired and a few of which weren't particularly good to begin with (for my purposes, long running means anything that premiered before spring 2013).  These productions are exclusively musicals, several of which wore out their welcome long ago, and as far as I'm concerned it would be better for everyone if those shows ended their runs to make room for new blood. 

Whenever someone expresses the sentiment that a show (or shows) need to close, certain segments of the industry are quick to point out that those shows mean jobs.  Now, I won't deny that Chicago and Mamma Mia! have employed a lot of people over the years, but the flip side of that is they have only employed a specific type of person.  If someone is not right for these shows (and many actors aren't), the productions' continued runs are actually preventing that actor from working by taking up theatre space which could be used for a show the performer is perfect for.  Both Mamma Mia! and Chicago long ago became the almost exclusive domain of tourists (or New Yorkers entertaining out of town guests), and there has also been a noticeable decline in quality in both productions.

When did it become the norm for a show to run for 10+ years? (Answer: the 1980s.)  The original production of Oklahoma! was considered an unprecedented smash when it ran for 5 years; in today's climate, a production with the kind of acclaim Oklahoma! received would be considered a mild disappointment if it "only" ran that long (many people were surprised when The Producers shuttered after 6 years).  This is a problem, in that it creates both unrealistic expectations for the vast majority of shows and eats up valuable theatrical real estate as producers try to chase these new standards.

Unless the production is poorly budgeted/horribly mismanaged, it really shouldn't take more than a couple of years for a Broadway musical to turn a profit.  Even a major musical like Kinky Boots, which had a capitalization of $13.5 million, managed to turn a profit in less than a year.  So rather than viewing a show as a disappointment for closing after 3 years, especially a profitable one that won good reviews and industry acclaim, I wish the theatrical community would celebrate a 3 year run as the achievement it is, letting more shows gracefully exit the limelight so new productions can take their place.

A perfect example of this philosophy is what Disney has done with Newsies.  Considering the excitement and strong notices that greeted the Broadway production, no one was particularly surprised when its "strictly limited engagement" became an open-ended run.  What was surprising was when the show, which still pulls in a very respectable weekly gross, announced it was closing at the end of the summer after a 2 year run.  Make no mistake, Disney could run this show longer if they wanted to.  Newsies could easily sustain itself until Christmas, and could probably limp along through next summer if it wanted.  After all, it recouped its capitalization ages ago, so as long as the weekly box office covers operating costs the show isn't hurting anyone financially.  But instead Disney has smartly decided to let Newsies go out while still on top, rather than wearing out its welcome and thereby damaging the show's overall brand.

It is a win for everyone involved.  The show turned a profit and made its producers money.  It has run more than long enough to be seen by everyone who was seriously interested.  From now until the end of time the show can be marketed as "the (Tony-winning) Broadway musical Newsies," with all the attendant prestige that description brings with it.  Without worrying about protecting the Broadway profits, Disney can tour and license the show to their heart's content.  And now the Nederlander Theatre is free to house a different show, increasing the number of new productions for the general public to consume.

Coming back to my original observation, I do believe the number of new musicals for next season will exceed the four announced, potentially by a lot.  There are several Broadway productions I have trouble seeing last through the holidays, and there are no shortage of shows looking for a suitable Broadway home.  As long as all the theatres that open up aren't snatched up by revivals (although I do hope Side Show finds a home sooner rather than later), next season should turn out fine.  But imagine how much more exciting things would be if some of Broadway's longer-running tenants packed up shop and let someone else move in.

Why Shorter Runs are Good for Broadway

 

When it first opened on Broadway, Oklahoma!'s 5 year run made it an unprecedented smash.  This past January, Phantom of the Opera celebrated its 25th year on the Great White Way.

Anyone who’s paying attention has probably noticed that even Broadway’s big hits aren’t running as long as they used to.  In a trend kickstarted by the singular sensation A Chorus Line, it seemed like almost every hit musical from the eighties and nineties was guaranteed a nice, long run that routinely stretched past the ten year mark.  Shows like Cats, Les Miserables, and The Phantom of the Opera (whose recorded shattering run has lasted over 25 years) made a compelling argument for hit shows that could run essentially forever. 

But around the dawn of the new millennium, things began to change.  Many of the old stalwarts like Les Miz and Cats played their final performances, and even Tony-winning megahits like The Producers and Hairspray began posting closing notices sooner than expected (although still long after they had turned a profit).  Some people bemoaned this fact; after all, I’m sure more than few producers have sent their kids through college using the money they made from long-running hits like The Lion King and Chicago, and the steady work such shows provide performers and technicians can be a godsend in an industry where stability is a rare commodity.  But I would argue the trend towards shorter runs is actually beneficial for the industry, and not just because there are only so many times I can hear “Dancing Queen” without wanting to punch someone.

To me, it seems the biggest benefit of the end of long runs is the theatre space it frees up.  There are only a finite number of Broadway theatres, and every season Wicked or Jersey Boys run they prevent another, potentially great production from receiving its Broadway debut.  This spring has already seen both The Velocity of Autumn and The Miss Firecracker Contest postpone their announced Broadway engagements due to lack of theatre space.  There is an extremely well-reviewed production of The Glass Menagerie currently playing at A.R.T. in Boston that producers would love to transfer (and I would love to see), but there’s no suitable theatre available.  Simply put, we have reached a point where there are more potential Broadway shows than there are Broadway theatres, and the longer the current shows run the longer we must wait to see what’s next.

An increased number of shows also means an increased number of playwrights, composers, and directors who get the invaluable experience of creating a show on Broadway.  This is particularly true for musical theatre artists, as finding an Off-Broadway venue with the space and resources to mount a new musical is at best challenging and at worst near impossible.  Yes, there are plenty of large regional theatres that are both willing and able to produce new musicals, and while an out-of-town experience is certainly useful, even vital, to the development of a show and its writers, it cannot duplicate the scrutiny and exposure a Broadway mounting brings with it.

The decrease in long-running shows will also help stem the tide of artistic stagnation that has been threatening to overtake Broadway for years.  New shows automatically increase the amount of fresh and exciting ideas circulating within in the industry, while preventing once innovative notions from wearing out their welcome.  A recent visit to the long-running Chicago revival confirmed what I had long feared:  what was once a fresh, exciting production has been overtaken by lackadaisical actors going through the motions, making the entire affair feel rather bland in the process.  This is not to say the show is bad; it still has its moments (the choreography, for example), and many of the tourists who make up the show’s demographic are blissfully unaware that they are experiencing a third rate version of this once first rate entertainment.  But Broadway is supposed to be the top tier of the American theatre industry, and unfortunately the longer a show runs the more likely it is to lose the luster that once made it seem revelatory.

More regular change also keeps Broadway’s performers on their toes, creating an environment where they can grow artistically thanks to a steady stream of new experiences.  While there is certainly something to be said for a steady paycheck, too many talented performers become seduced by that notion and spend three or four years doing the same show, eventually reaching the point where they could perform the show in their sleep.  The skills that are not actively required by that particular role become dull or lost, which will make landing the next job that much harder and keep the actor from achieving their full potential.

Finally, shorter runs lead to smarter budgeting by producers.  While it has never been a sound decision to budget a show so that it must run for years to turn a profit, the eighties and nineties spawned enough examples of long-running shows that producers began assuming every show would be equally successful.  Now that even the hit shows are closing sooner, producers will (hopefully) start creating shows with more sensible, sustainable budgets so that a greater number of them recoup their investment, thereby generating more income that can be used to finance the next wave of productions.

To be clear, I am not saying that long runs are inherently bad.  Good shows deserve financial success, and the employment opportunities afforded by long-running shows are certainly appreciated in these tough economic times.  For instance, The Book of Mormon is an incredible artistic achievement that has earned every bit of its runaway success, meriting the nice long run it will surely enjoy.  Shows like Wicked and Rent have introduced an entire generation to the joys of live theatre, and many of the people entering the industry today were inspired to do so by their experience with those shows.  But I do think that wanting everything to run for decades is neither realistic nor healthy for the industry as a whole, and that shows which run for a more than five years should be the exception and not the rule.

Thankfully, I think Broadway is heading back in this direction.  Now that many of the old juggernauts have closed, the industry seems to be recalibrating its definition of success to a more realistic standard.  A two or three year run is a very respectable achievement for any show, and as those become more standard it should prompt producers to begin budgeting their upcoming productions accordingly.  This way, we should be treated to a steady stream of new shows that will keep Broadway artistically vibrant while ensuring our next generation of writers are fully nurtured and supported.  And that will benefit us all in the long run.

Podcast Episode 3: Recent Movie Musicals

As any musical theatre fan already knows, the big budget film adaptation of Les Miserables is coming to theatres in just one short month.  In preparation for the big event, I assembled a panel of experts (well, opinionated theatre people) to discuss the modern rejuvenation of the movie musical.  I'm joined by returning podcaster Jessica and first-timers Spencer, Jackie, and Brian for a conversation about what makes for a good film adapatation of a hit stage show, as well as a frank discussion of the successes and failures of the various musical films released since 2003 Best Picture-winner Chicago.

Also, I am looking to really increase the podcast presence on this blog in the coming months, so any feedback about it is greatly appreciated.  Let me know if you like the long format or would prefer shorter installments, and any suggestions for podcast topics are always welcome.

Enjoy, and have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Move, Bitch, Get Out the Way

It is difficult to quantify just how important  Broadway can be to a show's ultimate success.  Although a Broadway mounting is expensive and risky, it generates publicity that exponentially increases awareness of the show and the chances that it will be produced in the future (and therefore be seen by more people and make its creators some money). 

Now, before all of you avante garde artists who can't stand how commercial Broadway has become start complaining, take a couple of deep breaths.  I am not saying that Broadway is the only way a show can gain notoriety.  For plays especially, a well-received Off-Broadway or regional production can be a show needs to get noticed, and if said show happens to win a Pulitzer, it will forever be on a shortlist of scripts producers will take a look at.  But for musicals especially, they almost *need* a Broadway production to have any kind of widespread regional life.  Broadway brings the show a level of attention and legitimacy that even an acclaimed run elsewhere won't get it, and is invaluable to licensing companies attempting to sell the show's rights to regional and amatuer theatre companies.

However, one of the big hurdles on the way to a Broadway mounting is finding a theatre.  There are only 40 to choose from, and they are by no means interchangable.  Some are inimate houses better suited for plays and small-scale musicals, and some are absolutely cavernous and practically demand a big-budget musical to fill them.  Wicked would not be Wicked if someone had scaled it down to squeeze it into the Booth Theatre, and a two-character drama like The Mountaintop would be positively ridiculous in a theatre like the 1,800 seat Gershwin.

Since I value new work and am in favor of as many shows getting the kind of exposure Broadway can offer, I personally feel that the ludicrously long runs being enjoyed by certain shows need to end.  Yesterday.  By selfishly remaining in the same theatre for years, these theatrical dinosaurs are keeping new works from getting well-desrved Broadway premieres, with all the attendant publicity and notoriety that entails.  Which brings me to an "honor" I plan on bestowing from time to time: the Needs to Close Award.

This award will be given to shows that I feel have worn out their welcome, and need to close in order to make room for new, better things.  While winning this award does not necessarily mean the show is bad, the worse the show, the harder it is to justify its hogging of prime Broadway real estate.  And the winner of the inaugral Needs to Close Award is.......

Chicago.

Congratulations!  You have successful milked a scaled-down concert version of a 1970s musical classic into a 15-year run, making you the 4th longest running show in Broadway history.  But your time is up.

Why, you ask?

For one thing, you're a freakin' revival!  So not only are you preventing new work from being seen, you weren't even new yourself when you premeired!!!  Granted, your original production had the misfortune of opening the same season as A Chorus Line, leaving you completely shut out on Tony night.  And your satiric take of fame and celebrity may have been ahead of its time and not fully appreciated in 1975.  I also do not deny the quality of your writing, which I genuinely like and admire. 

But after years of ridiculous celebrity stunt casting, featuring hoardes of semi-famous people who weren't anywhere near Broadway calibre, it's throw in the towel.  So get lost, and take solace in all you have acheived.  You have brought newfound life to an aging theatrical property, making it a staple of regional, summer stock, and educational theatres.  Your success finally resulted in a long-awaited film adaptation that made the movie musical relevant again, and won that nice lady with the funny accent and extremely old husband an Oscar.  You have made Barry and Fran Weissler disgustingly rich and two of the most influential producers in the business.  Now please go away before we have to hear one more celebrity who's probably too young to be playing Roxie butcher "Funny Honey."

Sincerely,
Jared Wietbrock

How was the Show? (Part 1)

So one of the many joys of living in New York is the ability to go see Broadway theatre on a regular basis.  And after you go, it is a theatregoing tradition to distill everything you've just seen, which includes months of hard work by dozens if not hundreds of generally talented professionals, into a few short sentences so that you can quickly answer the question "How was the show?" when asked by your friends.

It is also theatregoing tradition to offer these overly biased, simplified opinions up without actually being asked for them, which is what I'm about to do. :-)

Now, I should point out that I am actually a big fan of legitimate reviews that take the time to dissect the hard work of the many, many artists and craftsmen involved in mounting a theatrical production.  My plan going forward is to write a full-fledged review of every Broadway show I see, and I would love to go back and write full reviews of all the productions I have already seen.  However, I do not have the time nor the memory to do so, given my two jobs and the fact that I haven't seen some of the long-running shows in years.  So this will have to do.

So let's pretend you've just asked me, "Hey, how was [insert show title]?"  Here's how I would respond:

Anything Goes:  Sutton Foster is fantastic and the production numbers are stellar, especially the 8-minute tap routine that accompanies the title song.  Unfortunately, Joel Grey seems to not know what is going on (or even his lines on occassion), and while the production is very slick, it's not significantly different from past productions of the same show.  Worth it to see Sutton completely earn her 2nd Tony Award, espcially if you can get in for cheap thanks to Roundabout's Hiptix program (one of the greatest deals on Broadway).

Man and Boy:  I haven't seen, so I'll have to get back to you.  From what I've heard Frank Langella is amazing but the show itself is kind of blah.

Billy Elliot:  I found the American production to be overrated, but I am probably biased because I saw the original London cast back in 2005 and they were spectacular (especially their Billy).  The choreography is astounding, but some of the show's heart seems to have been lost during the trans-Atlantic journey (and Elton John's score is pretty ho-hum).  Maybe the show is simply too British for American actors to be able to fully convey the nuance and emotion the Brits displayed.  Whatever the reason, I maintain the show has been over-praised and should have lost the Best Musical race to the far superior Next to Normal.

Chicago:  Needs. To. Close!  At one point it was probably really entertaining, but that was likely about 200 celebrity stunt castings ago.  Aparently if you manage to catch a celebrity-free cast the show is still really good, but I would just as soon rewatch the movie version.  I wish this show would shutter and free up that theatre for (gasp!) a new musical or play.

Chinglish:  Haven't seen.  Sounds mildly interesting, but it isn't at the top of my list of shows to go see.  Let me know what you think if you go.

Follies:  Is amazing!  It's seriously one of the best shows running right now, if not one of the best productions of the past few years.  It features some of the most glorious music and staging I've seen in quite some time (props to the producers for opting for a full orchestra).  Moments like "Who's That Woman?," where the fantastic Terri White leads the entire company of ladies (including Bernadette, Elaine Paige, and Jan Maxwell) in a tap routine where they dance with the ghosts of their former selves, will blow your mind.  I'm also in LOVE with the Loveland sequence, especially the transitions in and out of it.  All of the leads are fantastic, especially Jan Maxwell and Danny Burnstein (who is something of a revelation considering I have not enjoyed his previous Broadway outings).  You need to go see this before it closes in January.

That's about enough for now.  I'll be back later with more mini-reviews and recommendations for your viewing pleasure.