2014 Fall Preview: New Plays

A scene from the London production of The Curious Incident of the Dog in Night-time, one of several new works making the journey across the pond for the Fall season.

This past Monday saw the first preview performance of This Is Our Youth, meaning the Fall 2014 Broadway season is officially upon us. I've already taken a look at the many star-driven revivals coming to the Great White Way in the next few months; thankfully, unlike last fall's dismal showing of new plays (critical and commercial flops The Snow Geese and A Time to Kill), this fall has a few promising new works to balance out all those revivals. Hell, at least one of these plays is virtually guaranteed to be a sell-out hit, and given strong productions a couple of the others could also be at least critical if not necessarily commercial hits. So what's on deck for the fall? Find out below.

The Country House
Previews begin 9/9; Opening Night 10/2

One thing Manhattan Theatre Club can always be counted on for is attracting name talent to new works. I personally feel MTC's new plays trend a little too upper class and cerebral for their own good, but every once and a while the famed not-for-profit produces a daringly original and energetic piece like Venus in Fur. Unfortunately, The Country House sounds like par for the course at MTC (re: well-done but a little boring). Blythe Danner stars in this Donald Margulies play about a group of established and aspiring artists in a summer home in the Berkshires, with the explicit promise of "romantic outbursts" and "passionate soul-searching" along with an implicit promise of weighty discussions about art and culture. I actually enjoyed MTC's production of Margulies' Time Stands Still several seasons back, but this new work just sounds ponderous. I'm predicting respectable reviews and a respectable run, although it would take something unexpected for this play to take off and become a true hit.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in Night-time
Previews begin 9/10; Opening Night 10/5

The Curious Incident of the Dog in Night-time is the latest in a long, mostly distinguished line of new works originating in the West End. A hit oversees, the play centers on an incredibly intelligent but socially awkward teenage boy who is accused of killing his neighbor's dog, and his attempts to uncover the real killer. Coming to Broadway from London's prestigious National Theatre, this Olivier-winning play sounds a good deal more interesting and inventive than a lot of our home grown theatre, probably because England's government subsidized arts scene is a little more embracing of theatricality and invention (see War Horse). That said, some of these West End transfers lose something in the journey across the Atlantic, failing to live up to the hype generated by their reputations (see War Horse again). The reviews will probably dictate how well this does. If the critics embrace it, I expect it to settle in for a healthy run and potential Tony Awards; if they are lukewarm, it will probably close with relatively little fanfare. I am certainly curious, and just glad to see a high-minded drama that isn't solely concerned with the problems of upper class white people.

Disgraced
Previews begin 9/27; Opening Night 10/23

Like far too many plays, Disgraced concerns a group of upper class New Yorkers. But in this case, two of them are Muslim-American, and the play comes to Broadway having already won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. Which is certainly enough to make anyone sit up and take notice, and of all the new plays scheduled for fall this is the one I am most interested in seeing. A contemporary take on a contemporary subject (the place of practicing Muslims in post 9/11 America), Disgraced sounds fresh and provocative, unlike the staid dramas that have taken over Broadway in the past few years. Barring some kind of creative implosion in the production, I expect this to be one of the more buzzed about works of the fall, and a clear early contender for Tony consideration come spring.

The River
Previews begin 10/31; Opening Night 11/16

The producers of Jez Butterworth's The River have scored the biggest casting coup of the fall: they somehow convinced box office magnet Hugh Jackman to star in this new play by a decidedly off-beat English playwright. Add in the fact that the Circle in the Square is one of Broadway's smallest houses and you have what is sure to be one of the hottest tickets in town. While The River's box office success is virtually assured - audiences have repeatedly proven they will turn up to see Jackman in just about anything - artistically the play is another story. I personally was underwhelmed by Butterworth's 2011 Tony-nominee Jerusalem (without the incomparable Mark Rylance that would have been a wasted 3 hours in the theatre), but many critics enjoyed the show and may again be charmed by Butterworth's work. I personally have no interest to see this play, which I suspect will be remembered much more as a financial success than an artistic one.

Constellations
Previews begin 12/16; Opening Night 1/13

Not much is known about this Manhattan Theatre Club production, other than the fact it will mark Oscar-nominee Jake Gyllenhaal's long-awaited Broadway debut. Something about the play must have enticed the notoriously choosey Gyllenhaal to Broadway, and it certainly wasn't MTC's not-for-profit pay scale. The official plot description of this West End transfer sounds heady - it is described as a "mind-bending" work that "defies the boundaries of the world we think we know" on MTC's website - which means it could either be an adventurous, inventive new work or a pretentious quagmire too caught up in its own premise to actually work. And while Gyllenhaal isn't a particular draw for me, he likely will be to a lot of other people, so hopefully this play turns out well.


And there you have the five new plays scheduled to open on Broadway in the next few months.  Check back soon for the final instalment of my Fall Preview series, which will focus on the musicals coming to Broadway between now and Christmas.  In the meantime, don't forget to catch up with part 1 of the series:

2014 Fall Preview: Play Revivals

2014 Tony Awards Reaction

Love it or hate it, Hugh Jackman's Music Man rap with rappers LL Cool J and TI was definitely one of the more memorable moments of Sunday's Tony Award telecast.

Sunday night saw Hugh Jackman host the 68th Annual Tony Awards, celebrating Broadway's best and brightest and making some theatrical history along the way.  It marked an official end to the speculation and handwringing about who would win big, and unlike in recent years the awards were pretty evenly split.  No show scored more than 4 wins, and most of the productions with multiple nominations managed to take home at least one award.

I have lots of thoughts about this year's ceremony (which wasn't my favorite, but more on that in a bit), but before I delve into them the real question is how well did I do with my annual Tony predictions?  The answer is not great, only correctly predicting 12 of the 17 categories I blogged about.  That makes for a barely passable 70% average, although in my defense almost nobody predicted that A Raisin in the Sun would walk away with 3 awards.  I don't even have the satisfaction of my "Will Win" guesses being supplanted by my "Should Win" choices, although given the way the nominations turned out I had a feeling this year would see some out of left field winners.

As far as the winners go, I (like pretty much the entire Broadway community) was absolutely thrilled to see Audra McDonald win her record-shattering, much deserved sixth Tony.  McDonald now officially has more Tonys than any performer ever, with the added bonus of being the only woman (person?) to win a Grand Slam in all four performance categories.  This is impressive in and of itself, but the fact that she did all of this as a black woman (parts for women of color are hard to come by, and convincing producers to go with colorblind casting is often even harder) and by the age of 43 is positively mind-blowing.  McDonald is clearly a once in a lifetime talent and my hands down favorite Broadway performer, and despite my stone cold heart I got a little teary eyed watching McDonald be overcome with emotion at the thunderous applause and standing ovation that followed the announcement of her win.  The fact that the always classy McDonald gave such a genuine, heartfelt acceptance speech just made the moment all the more charming.

I must admit my disappoint that Jessie Mueller won over Kelli O'Hara, and although I have not seen Beautiful I cannot imagine what she's doing that tops O'Hara's exquisite work in The Bridges of Madison County.  While there's no denying that Mueller is talented and she clearly has a winning personality (watching her impromptu dance with Jackman was another highlight of the evening), O'Hara is long overdue for some recognition from Tony voters.  Extremely talented, gracious, and a tireless worker (she has rarely been far from a stage since her breakthrough performance in The Light in the Piazza 9 years ago), O'Hara is also that rare actress who has shown no inclination toward film work, and it would be nice to see the Broadway community show her some thanks for passing up the more lucrative film world to keep doing theatre.  When we look back at her career, I firmly believe that Francesca in Bridges will be one her crowning achievements and a role everyone agree she should have won for.

As for the telecast itself, like the award winners it was something of a mixed bag.  Hugh Jackman was certainly a game host, although his bits rarely landed as well as they seemingly should have.  Perhaps we've just been spoiled by three straight years of the incomparable Neil Patrick Harris, but Jackman's routine seemed off.  His jokes got chuckles instead of guffaws, and his Music Man rap was so out of left field it was difficult to enjoy because of the "Is this really happening?" factor.   And then there was the hopping.  Oh, the much debated hopping.  Even after seeing the film musical clip that inspired it, Jackman's opening still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and most people had to Google what he was referencing to begin with.  It will probably be many year's before a Tony opening tops NPH's "It's Not Just for Gays Anymore," but given Jackman's skills as a song and dance man it would have been nice to see him tackle a glitzy production number.  The closest we got was his dynamite tapping with the cast of After Midnight.

The production numbers from the nominated shows generally went off without a hitch.  Seeing the 3 summer headliners of After Midnight sing was a treat, and the performance managed to highlight most of the show's extremely talented ensemble without seeming manic.  Neil Patrick Harris absolutely killed with his performance of "Sugar Daddy" from Hedwig, and seeing Samuel L. Jackson's reaction to having his glasses licked was absolutely priceless.  I thought the producers of A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder came up with a brilliant way to perform the show's most impressive song ("I've Decided to Marry You") while still giving us a taste of Jefferson Mays' multi-character performance by having him introduce the song as 3 of the 8 doomed D'Ysquiths.  Even productions like Violet and Les Miserables, which I didn't particularly enjoy in the theatre, came across well on TV.  And Idina Menzel gave us the best awards show vocal of her career, completely erasing any sour taste her nervous Academy Awards performance left us with.

That said, I could have done without the two preview numbers from next season.  The Sting performance from the upcoming The Last Ship was a snoozefest (most of the people at the Tony party I hosted decided to check their phones during his performance) and had the exact opposite of the desired effect by making me less interested in seeing the show.  The number from Finding Neverland was a bit livelier, mostly because Jennifer Hudson can sing pretty much anything (someone please book her for a guest stint in After Midnight!).  But ultimately that performance was even more dubious because the song made zero sense out of context and Neverland isn't even officially confirmed for Broadway.  I thought these blatant ads distracted from the celebration of the current season's work (the nominal purpose of the awards), and were doubly shameful considering the In Memoriam segment was booted from the telecast to make room for them.  I would have much rather seen that segment and a performances from The Bridges of Madison County then two performances that probably bear no resemblance to the finished product we'll see when (and if) the shows open on Broadway.

Overall, this was one of the less enjoyable Tony broadcasts in recent years for me.  Which is a shame, because I actually felt that this season, despite the absence of a runaway hit, was a very strong one for the Broadway community.  But there's always next year, and in the meantime congratulations to all of the winners!

Podcast Episode 5: All About "Les Miserables"

After months (if not years) of anticipation, "Les Miserables" has finally been released into theatres nationwide. Jared, Jackie, Jessica, and Christopher have all seen the film, and they get together to discuss its pros and cons. How does "Les Miz" rank when compared with the great stage-to-screen adaptations? Do Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway really deserve all of the Oscar buzz they've been getting? What happened to Samantha Banks' waist? All these topics and many more are discussed on Episode 5 of the Broadway, Etc. podcast.

Do You Hear the People Sing?

Movie Review:  Les Miserables

Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, the most impressive of the highly accomplished stars of Les Miserables.

 

Musical theatre fans everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief.  The long awaited big screen adaptation of Les Miserables is not just a good movie musical but a great one, working as both a successful adaptation and a strong film in its own right.  Tom Hopper’s lovingly crafted epic may have a few faults, but they are mere nitpicks in a film that does so much right with what could have gone so very wrong.

The plot of Les Miserables, the musical adaptation of Victor Hugo’s sprawling novel, tells the story of convicted thief Jean Valjean and his lifelong struggle towards redemption in 19^th century France.  After breaking his parole, Valjean goes into hiding and eventually meets disgraced factory worker Fantine before becoming the guardian of her daughter Cosette.  The pair moves to Paris, where Cosette falls in love with student revolutionary Marius right before he spearheads a violent uprising against the Parisian elite.  All the while, Valjean is relentlessly pursued by the rigid Inspector Javert, the one man who knows Valjean’s past and could see him locked away forever.

For those who wondered how Hopper and screenwriter William Nicholson would condense the three-hour pop opera into a typical movie runtime, the short answer is they didn’t.  Although a couple of verses and some incidental music have been trimmed, every musical number from the stage version is represented (even “Turning”).  The order has been tweaked, but as in West Side Story these changes feel organic and are often for the best.  Hopper and Nicholson have even found room for a new song, “Suddenly,” which illustrates the instant connection and responsibility Valjean feels for young Cosette.  It may not be equal to the greatest pieces of Claude-Michel Schonberg and Alain Boublil’s score, but it works as a nice character moment and a welcome change of pace from all the bombastic power ballads.

The transfer from stage to screen does reveal some flaws in Les Miserables’ construction, as elements that go unquestioned in the theatre feel underwritten on the big screen.  The reasons behind the student uprising that forms the crux of the second half are never satisfactory explained (something about “the people”), and the love triangle between Cosette, Marius, and street urchin Eponine is underexplored.  But while some details could stand fleshing out, the emotional truth of the story remains intact and powerful, and those prone to tears should definitely bring some tissues.

The star-studded cast is uniformly excellent, even those with zero musical or theatrical experience.  Hugh Jackman anchors the movie with his innate charisma and a fine flair for the dramatic, with his expressive face conveying the depth of Valjean’s internal conflict.  His voice does sound a wee bit strained on the high notes, but I can’t think of another movie star better qualified to tackle such a mammoth role.  And if we’re going to get really nitpicky, they probably could have aged Jackman more for the movie’s final act, although the actor’s expressive eyes go a long way towards conveying Valjean’s growing weariness.

The true revelation among the cast is Anne Hathaway’s devastating turn as Fantine, the factory girl who resorts to prostitution in order to support herself and her child.  Hathaway pulls out all the stops for her bravura performance, committing to the role physically and emotionally in a way few actresses could manage.  In a film full of big songs her “I Dreamed a Dream” is the showstopper, a gut-wrenching depiction of a woman with nothing more to lose.  Hathaway is a guaranteed Oscar nominee, and it’s unfortunate the constraints of the story keep her from being in more of the movie.  Whenever she does appear, it is pure movie magic.

Russell Crowe does an excellent job as the relentless Inspector Javert, although the role’s restrained nature keeps him from cutting loose the way his costars can.  Crowe possesses an unexpectedly strong singing voice, and while his strict adherence to the written rhythms is initially jarring in comparison to everyone else’s free-form recitative, it ultimately works as a character choice which further illustrates his unbending nature.  Amanda Seyfried has surprisingly little to do as Cosette (while none of her material has been cut, the role feels much more substantial in the stage version), and while a fine actress her lightning-quick vibrato is the one vocal quirk this reviewer can’t quite overlook.  Seyfried does have excellent chemistry with Eddie Redmayne’s Marius, and the young actor’s ease in the role goes a long way towards making the second half of the film work.

Samantha Banks’ Eponine is gloriously sung and looks properly pensive, although her underwritten character arc doesn’t leave as much of an impression as it could have.  Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter are perfectly cast as the wily Thenardier and his wife, and their scene stealing antics provide some much-needed levity amid all the angst and suffering.  Of all the major characters, the Thenardiers have the least bearing on the central plot, but Cohen and Carter are so hysterical that their every appearance is appreciated.

The movie’s production design is exemplary, with the dingy costumes, makeup, and set design giving the musical a grounded quality it never had onstage.  The sweeping vistas on display are quite breathtaking, but unfortunately Hopper’s direction is much more enamored with various awkward close-ups.  It’s difficult to tell if the problem stems from the precise angle of the camera or from the actors’ visible discomfort directly addressing it, but these shots pull your attention out of the movie and make many of the solos appear visually flat.  The few that do switch up the shooting style, such as “Stars” and “Master of the House,” are notably stronger for it.

Overall, Les Miserables is a stunning achievement that should delight fans of the stage version and nonbelievers alike.  Top-tier production values and truly compelling performances help disguise the source material’s occasional shortcomings, and the movie manages the difficult task of remaining faithful to the stage version while simultaneously succeeding on its own merits.  Any theatre aficionado owes it to themselves to see this movie, and rediscover the joys of one of the seminal musicals of the past thirty years.

Tony Watch: Assessing the Fall Season Part 2

Stockard Channing, satisfied to know she's a likely Tony nominee for her work in Other Desert Cities

Moving right along, it’s time to continue picking apart the Tony chances for last fall’s crop of shows.  Next!

Relatively Speaking

I have to tell you, I rolled my eyes every time this show came up in the press.  Before it opened, there seemed to be a consensus among the media that this was an event, filled with A-list talent in front of and behind the curtain.  Well, I certainly wasn’t excited about any of the “stars” announced for this collection of one acts; I hadn’t even heard of most of them.  And while the three authors certainly have marquee value at the cinema, we all know that theatre and film are two very different mediums, and success in one by no means guarantees success in the other.

Three months later, and who was right?  I was.  Not only did the production receive tepid reviews, it failed to light the box office on fire.  Even if we assume that the so-called stars appealed to the older generation, who typically has more money to spend on Broadway tickets, the pitiful weekly grosses prove that this was a non-event no one was clamoring for.  It has thankfully closed, and we can all forget it ever happened, because that is surely what Tony voters will do.

Chinglish

Like Relatively Speaking, here was a show seemingly destined for commercial failure; unlike that other show, I actually feel bad for the now-closed Chinglish.  Given the current realities of Broadway box office, there is something admirable about the producers’ decision to premiere this play without any name stars.  And while playwright David Henry Hwang is certainly a respected member of the theatrical community, he has been largely absent from the New York scene for years, robbing this play of the kind of commercial appeal it might otherwise have had.  Reviews were admirable but not raves, which probably sealed the production’s fate.

Tony-wise, it is a long shot (but not impossible) Best Play nominee.  Its best chance at Tony recognition rests with leading lady Jennifer Lim, whose dual-language portrayal of a Chinese translator was by all account breathtaking and resoundingly praised by the press.  That kind of goodwill should help keep her in voters’ minds when they announce nominations this May.

Other Desert Cities

The heavyweight among this fall’s new plays, Other Desert Cities comes to Broadway after a critically lauded Off-Broadway run with much of its cast intact.  The returning actors received another round of raves, with newcomers Rachel Griffiths and Judith Light deemed worthy additions to this Great American Play in the making.  All of these factors have combined to create strong box office for the production, resulting in its limited run being extended well into the spring, keeping this critical darling front and center during the crucial spring Tony voting season.

I would be shocked if Other Desert Cities doesn’t wind up among the Best Play nominees.  And with such a uniformly excellent cast, acting nods are virtually assured, although who will get them is still open for debate.  The smart money would be on awards darling Stockard Channing, possibly joined by Ms. Griffiths in the Best Actress category.  Both men in the cast are well positioned to score Supporting Actor recognition, and I suspect Joe Mantello will receive his umpteenth Best Director nomination as well.

Venus in Fur

And the new plays just keep coming!  Venus in Fur is another winner, an Off-Broadway hit that was again embraced by critics for its Broadway debut.  I personally adored this production, and would love to see it among the Best Play nominees.  I’m not sure it will make the cut, though, given the stiff competition this year (I believe there are around 12 new plays competing for 4 nomination slots).

While the show’s fate is uncertain, Nina Arianda will surely be among this year’s Best Actress nominees, making her two for two in her fast growing Broadway career.  She is sensational as Wanda, and anyone who hasn’t seen this rising star work her magic needs to rush out and buy tickets to Venus’ upcoming commercial transfer.  Depending on how well or poorly the men in this spring’s plays do, her costar Hugh Dancy could also find himself walking the Tony red carpet as a Best Actor nominee in June.

Hugh Jackman: Back on Broadway

Honestly, the Tony committee should feel pretty stupid for doing away with the Special Theatrical Event category a few years back.  Had it been around, they would have the perfect excuse to nominate Broadway golden boy Hugh Jackman, thereby encouraging him to return to Broadway that much sooner and make some lucky producers very, very rich.  As it stands, they may still give him a special achievement Tony for his record-breaking one man show and Herculean fundraising efforts for Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS.  If not, their next chance to shower Jackman with praise will be in 2013, when he stars in Stephen Schwartz’s Houdini musical to what will surely be lots of acclaim and insane box office figures.

Private Lives

Oh, Kim Cattrall.  You gave it a nice shot.  You even managed to earn pretty decent reviews for your performance in this oft-revived Noel Coward comedy, which appears on Broadway every 10 years or so with big name stars making delicious fools of themselves.  But the show was simply too familiar, and I’m not sure the gays have completely forgiven you for making them wait so long for that first Sex in the City movie (we all know she was the sole holdout among the main cast when the movie deals were being drawn up).  But while I don’t foresee any Tony glory in your immediate future, you can go on with your head held high, and maybe return in a vehicle better suited to your persona.

Seminar

In case you haven’t clued in, the fall is clearly the time to launch new plays.  And this one, by Pulitzer Prize finalist Theresa Rebeck, is another work that scored solid but not spectacular reviews.  Since Tony voters tend to favor serious dramas when picking Best Play nominees, I don’t think the comedic Seminar stands a very good shot in that category.  But Alan Rickman, who has been Tony nominated both times he has graced Broadway with his presence, will likely complete the hat trick and be three for three in the Best Actor category.

5 Reasons Why I'm NOT Excited About the "Les Miserables" Film (The Picture Should Give You a Major Hint)

This woman will soon be stinking up a multiplex near you

You may have heard that after years of rumors, they are finally making a film version of 80s megamusical Les Miserables.  This show will always hold a special place in my heart, as it was my first Broadway show, and I had fallen in love with (re: memorized) the entire score long before I actually saw it onstage.  While it can come across as too earnest for its own good, I think Les Miz is an inspiring story of redemption and people struggling to rise above the unfortunate circumstances life has dealt them. 

 

 

All that being said, I am not the least bit excited for the film version of Les Miserables.  And here’s why:

 

 

1)  Tom Hooper is directing.  The Oscar winner gained a lot of fans with last year’s Best Picture winner, The King’s Speech.  I was not among them.  While I think Speech is a perfectly respectable film, I also think it is perfectly ordinary.  There is nothing particularly daring or interesting about the way it is made; it is just a well acted, well shot period drama, the type of film that has been winning Oscars for decades.  Given how familiar Les Miz the musical already is, I think that adding Hooper’s very familiar directorial style into the mix will result in a decidedly bland and uninvolving film that lacks the key element to all great musicals: a sense of life.

 

 

2)  Hugh Jackman is not my ideal Jean Valjean.  I will say that, since they almost had to go with a major movie star (that’s the only way these film adaptations can secure the budget they really need to be done right), they could have done much worse than Jackman.  We know he can sing, and his brooding Wolverine persona could work for Valjean.  However, he strikes me as too young to play someone who starts the musical around age 40 (he’s been in jail for 19 years, after all), and ages another 20 over the course of the story.  I also question whether his voice is up to the demands of such a challenging role, especially given Hooper’s ludicrous decision to have all the actors sing live on set.  I’d love to see how they’re going to get a usable audio track onset, and how Jackman’s voice will hold up for the 20^th take of “Bring Him Home.”

 

 

3)  Anne Hathaway is playing Fantine.  Again, we know she can sing, and we know she can act (she is sensational in her Oscar-nominated turn in Rachel Getting Married).  She is also very young and glamorous, traits that don’t really suit Fantine.  Yes, Fantine probably isn’t that old physically, but she is definitely an old soul emotionally.  And she kind of gets sick and dies for no apparent reason early on (I assume she contracts syphilis during the “Lovely Ladies” montage), which means she’s gonna need to look like hell for her final number.  Will the makeup artists be able to tone down Hathaway’s natural beauty, especially in a big Hollywood film where the stars rarely have a strand of hair out of place?

 

 

4)  Taylor fucking Swift has been cast as Eponine.  This was really the straw that broke the camel’s back for a lot of people, myself included.  The country songstress has somehow managed to become a global music superstar despite the lack of any apparent vocal talent.  I assume her songwriting abilities are what have gotten her this far, but technique-wise she just isn't up to snuff.  If I wanted to hear a young 20-something woman butcher “On My Own,” the epitome of 80s Broadway belting, I would simply look the song up on YouTube and let the hilarity ensue, comfortable in the knowledge that those girls weren’t being paid large sums of money to do it.  Plus, we have no idea if Swift can actually act, although I suspect she is more Brittany Spears than Cher.

 

 

5)  Like all great musicals, Les Miz is inherently theatrical.  All of the best movie musicals have been altered significantly during the transition from stage to screen, letting them take advantage of cinema's inherent strengths (which can be quite different from theatre's strengths).  Even West Side Story, which on the surface is a very faithful adaptation of its stage counterpart, actually reshuffles several major numbers in an order to work on film.  And even then, that famed “Quintet” doesn’t really work onscreen, where it’s much more difficult to do simultaneous action, which does not bode well for “One Day More.”  In a best case scenario (which I’m not sure we’ll get), the Les Miz movie will end up like the Sweeney Todd adaptation:  perfectly respectable in its own right, but unable to replicate the magic of the stage version. 

Will It Recoup?

Fair warning:  I'm about to get pretty "industry insider" on you guys right now.  Not so much in that I'm going to be using a bunch of pretentious terms you don't know, but because the topic I'm going to discuss doesn't really come up outside of industry newspapers and websites like Playbill.com.

That subject, boys and girls, is when a major Broadway musical manages to recoup its investment costs and therefore start turning a profit.  The reason this topic fascinates me is because it is not a straightforward result of popularity or the length of the run (although those things obviously come into play).  Some shows manage to recoup their investment within the space of a year, and others run for years without making back their initial costs.

For example, The Addams Family, that veritable punching bag of the 2009-2010 Broadway season, will be closing this Christmas.  By the time it's gone, the show will have run for nearly two years.  Furthermore, for the first six months of that run, it did nearly sell-out business and made over $1 million a week.  And yet, the show still won't have turned a profit by the time it closes, due to its high initial capitalization and what must amount to high weekly running costs (something tells me Nathan Lane and Bebe Nueworth did not come cheap).  Meanwhile, there are shows like the 2009 Hair revival that manage to make back their money in as little as 5 months.

I would argue that moreso than the initial cost, the thing that really makes or breaks a show financially is the weekly running cost.  It costs money to pay the actors, musicians, and stagehands, not to mention maintain the props, costumes, and sets while also paying rent on the theatre and the monthly power bill.  And since even the biggest theatres can only cram in about 10,000 people during a typical 8 show week, that means a very finite amount of earning potential for even sell-out shows (and this is assuming everyone pays full price for their tickets, which pretty much never happens).  If the weekly costs aren't kept in check, your show is going to have a tough time turning a profit even if it runs for years, since they amount to additional money being spent on top of the initial capitalization.  It's basically like trying to pay off a credit card while continuing to make charges on it; the more you "charge" in weekly running costs, the longer it will take to pay the balance down to zero.

So in the spirit of this fascinating (to me, anyway) subtopic of the theatrical business, I wanted to play a little guessing game about which of this season's musicals will actually turn a profit and prove financially successful.  I'm going to focus on the musicals because they:  a) cost more; b) are more likely to be commercial runs instead of not-for-profit productions that aren't actually concerned with making money.  So let's take a look at the first 5 musicals opening on Broadway this season, starting with Broadway's other favorite punching bag, Spider-Man.

(Note:  This may or may not be an attempt to salvage an article written for a certain nameless website who decided not to run it at the behest of their marketing department, after I had put in a lot of time and energy to write it.  Just sayin'.)

Spider-Man:  Turn Off the Dark

Yes, it’s been running for almost a year, but Spider-Man is technically part of the current Broadway season due to its mid-June opening.  This famously troubled musical is the most expensive in Broadway history, with a whopping $75 million in initial production costs (for comparison, Wicked cost “only” $14 million).  That hefty price tag, combined with the critical lashing the show received, led many to predict the show’s early demise.  But ticket sales have remained strong throughout the fall, and the show regularly grosses over $1 million a week.

Will It Recoup?  No.  Despite steady box office returns, there’s almost no chance of Spider-Man turning a profit.  In addition to its astronomically high initial capitalization, the technologically advanced show spends almost $1 million a week paying salaries, power bills, and maintaining sets and costumes.  Spider-Man would need to continue its current earning patterns for five to seven years before it begins making money, something that seems incredibly unlikely.  Only 15 musicals in history have run for that long, with recent megahits like The Producers and Hairspray only managing six year runs.

Follies

One of the many attractions of the critically lauded revival of Stephen Sondheim’s groundbreaking 1971 musical Follies is the fact that the show is a fully staged production.  The large-cast, costume-heavy musical is usually performed in scaled down concert versions due to its prohibitively expensive production costs (the original production was at the time the most expensive Broadway show in history, with an $800,000 capitalization).  In this era of bare bones revivals and smaller scale new musicals, the show’s 41-person cast and 27-piece orchestra seems particularly extravagant.

Will It Recoup?  Probably not.  The weekly running costs (including actor and musician salaries) are just too high.  Box office returns have been strong enough to prompt a three week extension of the show’s limited run, but Follies is also one of the few new productions currently open.  The glut of show openings in late October and November will surely steal some of Follies’ box office thunder, but if strong word of mouth continues to drive business there’s a possibility of a second extension which would increase its chances of recouping.

Godspell

This staple of high school and community theatre is prepping for its first Broadway revival, and its financial prospects are particularly up in the air.  The show does have a pre-established brand that’s familiar to the tourists who drive a large percentage of Broadway ticket sales, and being from the same composer as Wicked certainly won’t hurt.  In fact, the revival’s location next door to the Witches of Oz may make it an ideal alternative to those unable to score tickets to the perpetually sold-out hit.

Will It Recoup?  The chances are 50/50 on this one.  Popular regional shows do not necessarily set New York box offices on fire, and people may wonder why they should spend $135 to see something they could view for significantly less back home.  But with a 10-person cast and a small venue like the Circle in the Square Theatre helping to keep running costs down, the show shouldn’t need to sell-out every night to remain financially viable.  With some good reviews and positive word of mouth, it could easily run for a year or more, which is likely all it would need to turn a profit.

Hugh Jackman: Back on Broadway

Although not a musical in the traditional sense, this solo concert featuring one of Hollywood’s A-list stars qualifies as one for our purposes.  Headliner Hugh Jackman has been on Broadway exactly twice, and both times his presence has translated into box office gold.  In fact, Jackman was such a strong draw that both productions couldn’t continue without him, and The Boy from Oz even elected to temporarily shutter for a week during Jackman’s scheduled vacation rather than try to sell tickets without him.

Will It Recoup?  Yes.  Jackman’s Broadway concert already has a reported $6 million in advance ticket sales, cementing the Tony-winner’s status as a proven box office draw.  Even with Jackman’s star salary – which could easily be $100,000 a week or more – and an 18-piece orchestra to pay, running costs for a concert like this are comparatively low, making this one of the surest financial bets of the season.

Bonnie and Clyde

Frank Wildhorn must be a glutton for punishment.  Just six months after the critical and financial disaster that was Wonderland, Wildhorn is back with a new musical based on two of the most notorious outlaws in American history.  Helping this show’s financial viability is an intriguing subject matter that seems ripe for musicalization, and the large number of diehard fans of Wildhorn’s previous works.  Of course, the same could have been said about Wonderland, and that barely lasted a month.

Will It Recoup?  No.  There are just too many factors working against it.  Despite two well-reviewed out-of-town tryouts and two well liked up-and-comers in the lead roles (Laura Osnes and Jeremy Jordan, respectively), chances are Bonnie and Clyde will be ripped to shreds by New York critics, who have historically lambasted Wildhorn’s shows.  And even the composer’s biggest hit, Jekyll & Hyde, failed to turn a profit despite nearly four years on Broadway.  Given the current economic climate, Bonnie and Clyde can hardly count on a run that long, making the show’s financial prospects grim.

That's all for now.  I hope to make this a recurring article, so look for another installment as we get closer to more show opennings.  :-)