All in the Timing

Goodbye, Breakfast at Tiffany's.  We hardly knew you.

Here’s a fun bit of theatrical trivia: almost half of the shows eligible for the 2013 Tony Awards will open between March 1^st and April 25^th (the cutoff date for Tony consideration).  If that seems excessive, well, it is.  But conventional wisdom states that spring shows have a better chance at doing well during awards season, and the fact seems to support that assertion.  In the last twenty years, 63% of the winners for Best Musical, Play, and Revival have opened between February and May, so it makes sense that producers would choose this time of year to launch their productions.  The spring also sees a massive influx of tourists into the NYC area, something that begins in March and doesn’t let up until September, meaning there are a lot of tourist dollars up for grabs.

But there’s a flip side to this entire situation, one most producers seem to willfully ignore.  More shows equals more competition, and unless your show is one of the buzzed about productions with either star power or major awards pedigree, it cannot hope to compete in such a crowded marketplace.  Two shows from late March, the new musical Hands on a Hardbody and the stage adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, have been forced to shutter after less than a month of performances.

Now, I don’t think anyone can honestly claim that they find this news surprising.  In the weeks leading up to the shows’ respective openings, there was a definite air of dismissal among the theatrical press about the merits of both shows.  The idea of any actress tackling an iconic Audrey Hepburn role is dubious at best, and given it to the untested (onstage, at least) Emilia Clarke did little to assuage doubts that Tiffany’s would prove to be a wholly unnecessary adaptation.  Meanwhile the very premise of Hands on a Hardbody is so inherently static – it chronicles a contest where ten Texans attempt to win a truck by keeping their hand on it the longest – many wondered how it could possibly sustain a two hour plus musical. 

And therein lies the problems.  Rather than attempting to launch their shows against highly anticipated productions like Lucky Guy (which has an A-list actor and beloved author to help sell tickets) and Matilda (the latest British import to arrive with a boatload of glowing reviews from the West End), Hardbody and Tiffany’s would likely have lasted much longer had they opened during a slower portion of the Broadway season.  Other parts of the year may not have as many tourists looking to spend money, but there is an entire population of local theatregoers who would love to have new shows to see in, say, January or late August.  I don’t think either show would have been a hit – especially given the lukewarm reviews both shows received – but they might have scored enough additional traffic to run for a few more months.

I have said it before and I will say it again: producers need to consider scheduling their opening nights in months besides October, November, March, and April.  Shows with little buzz and mediocre reviews can do quite well when there is less competition, and the longer a show runs the more time it has to build up good word-of-mouth to counteract any negative press.  Even the most diehard Broadway fan only has a finite amount of time and money, and when presented with as many options as are currently available those fans will have to prioritize.  This is one of the most crowded spring seasons in recent memory, and hopefully producers will learn their lesson from the failures of Hardbody and Tiffany’s and consider spreading things out a bit more next year.

Bang Bang, You're Dead

Well, that was fast. After less than a month on Broadway, Bonnie & Clyde will go the way of the dodo, as it was announced that the show will close at the end of the month. This news isn't entirely unexpected, as it was reported last week the show only had tickets on sale through December 30th, although at the time producers wouldn't comment on whether or not that meant the show was ending its run. Clearly it did, and the show will become the first official casualty of the 2011-2012 season, beating out Private Lives by a whole day. (Roundabout's production of Man and Boy and Manhattan Theatre Club's Master Class don't count, as they completed their limited runs as scheduled.)

I have to say, I really think it was undeserved, and I *never* thought I would say that about a Frank Wildhorn show. Like everyone else, the press was biased against the show because of its composer (and Wonderland certainly didn't help his case). I honestly believe that had the exact same show, with the same cast and same staging, had opened with Wildhorn's name on the marquee, it would have received more encouraging reviews. Actually, the reviews really weren't that bad, but because Brantley (unfairly) ripped the show apart in the Times, the press treated the show like it had been universally panned.

I personally think the producers are making a big mistake by throwing in the towel so early. While the grosses haven't been spectacular, they also haven't been abysmal for a small(ish) show that has a relatively low capitalization of $6 million. Given the weak assortment on new musicals on the horizon, Bonnie & Clyde wouldn't have much competition among avid theatregoers who have seen most of what the Great White Way has to offer. If the producers has stuck it out through the winter months (admittedly no easy task), I really believe the show could have built word of mouth that would steadily increase box office. Had it made it to awards season, I believe it could have even been in contention for some Best Musical awards due to a sheer lack of competition. Hell, given the way public opinion towards a show typically softens after a few months of running (see Memphis, Wicked, and a host of other shows that opened to mixed reviews which suddenly became awards contenders after six months), the show may have even stood a chance at winning. And given the palpable impact Best Musical has on a shows box office, it could have ended up running for a few years, a respectable amount of time and certainly long enough to make back its money.

I truly believe this show wasn't given a fair shot because of the extremely negative association people have with Frank Wildhorn. I admit I myself was skeptical (I generally despise Wildhorn's work), and found myself flabbergasted by how much I enjoyed the show. It is by no means perfect, but very few shows are. I would argue it is about as good a show as Memphis - competent if uninventive, with a likable and talented cast doing a good job of glossing over the show's bigger flaws. Especially in a season heavy with musical revivals and light on new fare, it would have been nice to see Bonnie & Clyde nurtured a little more.

One thing is for sure: after two savage critical and commercial lashings this year, Wildhorn will probably stay far, far away from Broadway.