Showing posts with label needs to close. Show all posts
Showing posts with label needs to close. Show all posts

Thursday, July 24, 2014

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.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

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