Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Casting Controversy of 2017

Okieriete "Oak" Onaodowan as Pierre in Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812.

What a mess. That's about the only way to describe the brouhaha that has arisen over what initially seemed like a fairly innocuous piece of replacement casting for the Tony-nominated production of Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812. For those who may have missed it, on Wednesday the producers of Dave Malloy's musical fantasia announced that Mandy Patinkin would step into the role of Pierre for a limited 3 week engagement starting August 15th. It was quite a get for the production, as the beloved Tony-winner hasn't been seen on Broadway since his concert evening with Patti LuPone in 2011, and hasn't tackled a role in a musical since originating Burrs in Michael John LaChiusa's The Wild Party all the way back in 2000.

But shortly thereafter, a vocal segment of Twitter cried foul, as Patinkin's surprise Broadway return meant that the production's current Pierre, Okieriete "Oak" Onaodowan, would be cutting his run in the role short barely a month after taking over for original leading man Josh Groban. Many questioned if there was a racial motivation behind asking a black actor to step aside for a white performer, and Onaodowan for his part made it clear that he was turning down the producers' invitation to return to the show after Patinkin finished his run. Although nothing was explicitly said, one gets the impression there's some bad blood between Onaodowan and the producers over the way this was handled, and that Onaodowan's departure wasn't the mutual agreement it was made out to be in the initial press release. The famously principled Patinkin subsequently withdrew from the production on Friday, stating that he would never knowingly take a job that would harm another actor.

Now, a couple of clarifications. I don't think Onaodowan is out of line to be a bit perturbed by the way this was handled, and I admire Patinkin's integrity in withdrawing from the show as a public rebuke to the producers. But the cries of this casting being in any way racially motivated strike me as bullshit, and I think those arguing otherwise are doing a huge disservice to the important and necessary conversation around diversity in the theatre. 

Let's not forget that the producers of The Great Comet have gone out of their way to cast ethnically diverse actors from day one (they've even won awards for it). The lead role of Natasha has been very pointedly *not* white from the start, being originated by Chinese-American actress Phillipa Soo Off-Broadway before the beautifully dark-skinned Denee Benton took over for the show's Broadway transfer. The producers also had no problem casting Amber Grey to play the sister of the very Aryan Lucas Steele, and the ensemble is full wonderfully diverse performers that many casting directors would argue have no business being in a show set in 17th century Russia. These are all conscious choices that show the producers obviously care about representation; it makes no sense for them to suddenly decide ethnic performers can't lead their show.

What happened here is simply a case of needing a name to drive ticket sales. As composer Dave Malloy admitted on Twitter Friday, the show's advance sales have taken a nosedive since multiplatinum recording star Groban departed the show earlier this month. Well known singer-songwriter Ingrid Michaelson was brought in to play the key supporting role of Sonya the day after Groban left to help boost ticket sales, a move that seems to have worked in the short term. (It should be noted that Michaelson's casting resulting in another performer taking a leave of absence from the show and no one batted an eyelash.) Patinkin's scheduled start date the day after Michaelson's departure was an obvious attempt to keep the show running with ticket sales high.

It is a classic example of the problem with star casting, as shows built around a particular performer have difficulty sustaining interest once said performer leaves. (For an extreme example, the smash hit revival of Hello, Dolly! lost over $1 million in ticket sales when Bette Midler went on vacation earlier this month.) Great Comet was sold from day one as a Josh Groban vehicle, perhaps understandably so. Can anyone imagine the oddball, immersive show securing a prime theatre like the Imperial and running for months at near capacity without a big name to put butts in seats? The producers' gamble clearly worked. 

What they realized too late was that they had no idea how to sell the daring, somewhat divisive show without a star who has a huge, devoted fanbase willing to spend big bucks to see him or her. Patinkin's wide exposure thanks to roles on high profile television shows like Homeland and Criminal Minds - not to mention a beloved supporting turn in the movie The Princess Bride - gives him significantly box office draw than a talented but little known performer like Onaodowan. (Yes, Onaodowan was in Hamilton, but he didn't star in Hamilton, and the Pultizer Prize-winning musical's continued sold out status proves that for that production the show is the draw more than any individual actor.) A white actor with a similar resume would have found himself in the exact same position of being "asked" to step aside the moment Patinkin's schedule opened up.

And that is the reason why this mess still feels icky, despite the lack of racial motivation. Onaodowan was only scheduled to be with the show for 2 months to begin with, and he was unceremoniously dumped the second a bigger star came along. Further, the producers clearly fudged the truth when presenting the idea to Patinkin, making it appear as if Onaodowan had agreed to take a leave of absence rather than being forced out. What they didn't count on was the true story making its way to Patinkin, and the Tony winner changing his mind when he found out his new gig was forcibly taking a job from another actor who had already been promised a set number of performances.

So feel free to condemn the producers of Great Comet for this situation, but leave the accusations of racism out of it. It is dangerous to raise the specter of racism in a case where that clearly wasn't the intent. Crying wolf on a matter as important as the treatment of black performers will make it that much more difficult to get people to pay attention when true injustices occur. It will be easier to discount complaints about mistreatment as fabrications, and it could well discourage other productions from going after diverse casts if they feel it is a "no win" situation. We need to encourage and educate our allies, not dismiss them after one unintentional misstep. 

The Advent of the Closely Timed Revival

A scene from Deaf West's production of Spring Awakening, soon to transfer to Broadway's Brooks Atkinson Theatre.

Now that all of the buzz has died down from the 2015 Tony Awards (one more hooray for Kelli O'Hara!) the industry has turned its eyes firmly forward. The dates and venues for next season's shows are firming up, and following a week of intense speculation producer Ken Davenport has officially announced a Broadway transfer of Deaf West's production of Spring Awakening, which uses both hearing and deaf actors to perform the material in spoken English and American Sign Language. Originally an unsourced rumor from Deadline, the posting of a detailed casting breakdown on the Actor's Equity Association website let the cat out of the bag about the revival, and today Davenport confirmed that the show will be taking up residence at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre just a month after It Shoulda Been You in early August.

The problem, at least for me, is that the original production of Awakening closed only six years ago. Ever since the early 90s when revivals (and specifically musical revivals) became a major factor in the Broadway landscape, the timeframe between productions has steadily shrunk. With rare exceptions made for popular star vehicles like Gypsy or Death of a Salesman, most shows would go 15 years or more between Main Steam productions. Lately, it's not uncommon to see something like La Cage aux Folles revived twice in a decade, or the mere five years that separated Bernadette Peters' and Patti LuPone's Gypsies. Hell, the last two Macbeth revivals premiered within mere months of one another in 2013!

Deaf West's Spring Awakening is the third revival of the upcoming season to occur less than a decade after the previous Broadway incarnation. John Doyle's stripped down The Color Purple is opening almost 10 years to the day after the show first premiered (and marks the long awaited Broadway debut of Oscar and Grammy-winner Jennifer Hudson). A View from the Bridge last played Broadway in a well-reviewed production in 2010, but Lincoln Center is reviving it once again for a limited run in the fall. And while 11 years will have technically passed between Alfred Molina and Danny Burstein's Tevyes in Fiddler on the Roof, the timing of the 2 productions still seems a little close for comfort.

Given the well documented Broadway theatre crunch - there are far more Broadway-aimed productions than there are available theatres - one has to ask if the growing abundance of such closely timed revivals a good thing for the industry. After all, these aren't just shows we've seen, but shows we've seen recently. Even if the new production radically reinvents the property (and removing the turntable from your set does not count as a "radical reinvention," Les Miserables!), the audience may not be ready to digest such a major rethinking of a familiar show so soon after their last go round with the material. As much as I love revisiting old favorites, I love being exposed to new stories and talents even more, and between long running hits like Wicked and Phantom and the steady parade of revivals, getting those new works in front of a Broadway audience has become increasingly difficult. In general, I would prefer the time and resources being expended on these revivals be put towards new works, so we can create a new generation of classics rather than revisiting the same material over and over again (a practice that is slowly killing the opera world).

That said, at least The Color Purple and Spring Awakening have the good sense to come in with concepts substantially different from their initial Broadway runs, limiting the number of direct comparisons. A View from the Bridge and Fiddler both sound like fairly traditional takes on well-worn material, which makes them harder to justify no matter how strong the talent involved. This doesn't make either show an immediate lost cause - the LuPone Gypsy was specifically designed to be a traditional take on material which had been unsuccessfully reconfigured to accommodate the non-traditional casting of Bernadette Peters in 2003, and LuPone's rendition is quite possibly the greatest theatrical production I've ever seen. But doing the same material in the same fashion does create a higher benchmark for the new productions to surpass to justify charging Broadway prices and eating up Broadway resources.

Like every artistic endeavor, there are no hard and fast rules about when the time is right for a revival. It took 38 years for Broadway to get a miscast, poorly directed Promises, Promises that did little more than convince most audience members the show was hopelessly dated. Meanwhile, Roundabout brought back the exact same Tony-winning Cabaret they produced in 1998 and proved that Kander and Ebb's deliciously dark masterpiece is just as shocking, fascinating, and illuminating as it ever was. But overall, given the abundance of both new material and older shows that haven't been seen on Broadway in the new millennium, I can't help but wish that producers would place a little less emphasis on the familiar. Artistically, I think the industry would be better for it.

Why "Hamilton's" Producers Made the Right Decision

Lin-Manuel Miranda's sung through Hamilton is moving uptown this summer, ending weeks of speculations about when and how it would make its Broadway bow.

After a couple of brief but intense weeks of speculation, we now know the timeline for the Broadway transfer of Lin-Manuel Miranda's critically acclaimed Hamilton. The producers of the hip-hop musical just announced a July 13th start date for the production's Main Stem bow, which means everyone can stop speculating and start lining up for tickets. The question was never if Hamilton would transfer, which was a given based on the thrice-extended tuner's ticket sales and over the moon reviews, but rather when, with the most popular rumor stating that producers were desperately trying to get the show to Broadway in time for this year's Tony eligibility cutoff.

The truth is preferable to the rumors for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is timing. I always found the rumblings of a spring transfer dubious because of the extremely accelerated timeline it called for, which among other things would have involved cancelling the musical's lucrative extension at the Public Theatre. While technically possible (the show's contract with the Public allowed for the extension to be cancelled in favor of a Broadway run), such a move would have been horrible customer service to the show's ticketholders and created a rescheduling nightmare for the Public and the show.

Furthermore, the only Broadway theatre up for grabs is the Richard Rodgers, which will continue to house If/Then until that show's March 22nd closing date. By the time stagehands managed to load out If/Then's complex set and load in Hamilton's, not to mention the week of technical rehearsals the cast would need to get accommodated to their new playing space, the show would have an extremely limited preview period if it wanted to open before the April 23rd eligibility cutoff. Press performances would have started almost immediately, which would preclude any kind of rewrites, trimming, or tightening up of the show before it was thrust onto the most high profile stage in the country.

I also never understood how a spring transfer would benefit the Public Theatre, which helped develop Hamilton and will surely have a stake in the Broadway production. In addition to having to refund/reschedule thousands of tickets for the cancelled performances, premiering Hamilton on Broadway during the same season as Fun Home (another critically acclaimed musical which originally debuted at the Public) would pit two of the non-profit's highest profile titles against one another. Fun Home's intriguing but decidedly non-commercial premise means its only real hope at a healthy Broadway run is critical acclaim, and if Hamilton were added to this spring's slate the reportedly game-changing historical show would surely dominate most of the spring press and awards talk. By delaying Hamilton's Broadway bow, the Public could potentially have two Tony winning musicals to add to its resume instead of one, with all the added prestige and additional income that implies.

The show's current timeline makes much more sense, both commercially and artistically. By taking a 3 month break between the end of the Off-Broadway run and the beginning of Broadway previews, Miranda and his artistic team have time to rethink elements of the show they might not be entirely satisfied with. It also gives everyone, cast and crew, a chance to catch their breath before diving into a rigorous and open-ended Broadway production schedule. The hip-hop musical is also one of the few shows that might actually sustain a summer opening, a time when a majority of the focus is on the past season's Tony winners and the long-running tourist friendly shows. Given the massive level of buzz surrounding Hamilton, I imagine the initial months will sell well and possibly even sell out primarily on the strength of its Off-Broadway reviews and already high demand (The Public run is entirely sold out despite the three aforementioned extensions). By the time fall rolls around good reviews and word of mouth should have spread far enough to get the tourists interested, and it will get a virtually guaranteed boost in ticket sales once the 2016 awards season starts in earnest.

It looks like Hamilton is going to be the kind of blockbusting hit Broadway hasn't seen for several seasons, so I would recommend any interested parties book tickets as soon as they go onsale March 8th. It really is looking like we're going to have a Book of Mormon level critical and commercial hit on our hands, and I suspect anyone who waits until performances begin to look for tickets is going to have a hard time tracking one down. And when they do, they could well have to pay an arm and a leg for the privilege of seeing the show, which is something Hamilton is already slightly infamous for.

I know I'll be buying my tickets when they go onsale! And as soon as I get in to see it, you can certainly expect a full review!

Hamilton and the "Not-For-Profit" Off-Broadway Theatre Scene

This is as close as most of us will be able to get to Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda's much ballyhooed new musical about one of America's founding fathers.

Anyone hoping to see Lin-Manuel Miranda's hotly anticipated new musical Hamilton better already have tickets. The show's thrice extended world premiere at the Public Theatre was essentially sold out even before the show opened to rapturous reviews on Tuesday night, making the chances of finding a ticket now about as likely as winning the lottery. Which is wonderful for Miranda, the actors, the Public Theatre, and the producers who are surely already plotting a Broadway transfer, but is maybe not the best thing for the Off-Broadway theatre scene.

Why? Because the Public Theatre, a non-profit which spends a great deal of time talking about making theatre accessible to everyone, has been charging almost Broadway level prices for the privilege of seeing this apparently groundbreaking new work. Regular tickets run $120, whereas Public Theatre members - who have already made a donation in support of this supposed not-for-profit - have access to tickets at the low, low price of $85. And as they have sold out an entire four month run, there isn't a whole lot to stop other Off-Broadway producers from attempting to charge the same thing.

To be fair, the Public is offering a daily "Hamilton for a Hamilton" lottery, with a whopping two whole seats per performance available for $10 each. And there is supposedly a $20 ticket lottery in the theatre's lobby prior to each performance "subject to availability," which in this case probably means "if anyone cancels." This to me does not sound like a company that is trying to make theatre accessible to the masses.

Now, obviously there are a lot of production costs involved with mounting a brand new musical, especially one with a large cast like Hamilton. Furthermore, I know that the Public has a whole season to finance, and many of their shows lack the sort of commercial appeal of Miranda's hip-hop historical opus. I'm sure a portion of the profits from Hamilton will go towards funding some of the Public's more obscure works, not to mention their hugely popular and much appreciated Shakespeare in the Park series (which remains free to anyone with the time and patience to wait in the legendarily long ticket line). And obviously they aren't charging more than the market can bear since, as previously mentioned, the show is legitimately sold out.

But I still find it sad and more than a little upsetting that Off-Broadway, and specifically not-for-profit Off-Broadway, has gotten so ridiculously expensive. What used to be known as a low cost alternative to the ever-more-expensive Broadway now routinely costs upwards of $100 for high profile shows, a price point most people can't afford more than once or twice a year if that. It's hard to totally blame the Public for charging what they're charging (obviously many people are happy to pay $120 a head), but at the same time it would be nice if a greater number of seats were set aside at a more affordable level for the vast number of people who don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on an evening's entertainment. Hamilton has a gloriously multicultural cast and a musical style that could attract vast segments of the population who don't normally see theatre, but for a multitude of reasons way too complex to address in this blog many of the people who look like the cast of Hamilton couldn't even begin to afford a ticket.

The New York theatre scene is currently in the midst of a vicious, self-destructive cycle that will take some drastic measures to change, and Hamilton is just the latest example. High ticket prices keep all but a narrow segment of the population from being able to see theatre, a segment that if we're being honest is getting older and dying out without a new generation of patrons to replace them. These high prices put pressure on producers to give audiences their money's worth in the form of needless spectacle and too many works that pander to the lowest common denominator. After all, if shows cost millions of dollars to mount, producers are understandably reluctant to tackle projects without a decent chance of financial success, which generally rules out more adventurous works and less established creative voices. Because the industry is notoriously tight lipped about each show's actual costs, it's difficult to know where cuts and changes can be made, but someone needs to tackle this problem before live theatre becomes just a diversion for the wealthy that has little cultural impact or significance to the general population. If a major non-profit with a stated focus on accessibility like the Public isn't willing/able to lower prices, then it may already be too late.

Matilda Just Recouped, and That's a Bad Thing

The revolting children of Broadway's Matilda are officially in the black, which should make saving for their college funds significantly easier.

Matilda recently announced it had officially recouped the entirety of its $16 million capitalization, meaning the production is finally in the black. Any money made over its weekly operating costs is pure profit at this point, a milestone only an estimated 1 in 4 Broadway productions reach. And while this is an excellent celebration for Matilda and its producers (who will hopefully put some of those profits into developing more new work), the implications for the greater Broadway community are a little more troubling.

You see, by pretty much every metric Matilda is an unqualified success. Critics (myself among them) loved the show, giving it across the board raves for its inventive staging, winsome performances, and clever writing that challenges rather than talks down to its family audience. The production is often sold out, and even on a bad week rarely dips below 80% capacity. It routinely brings in over $1 million in weekly grosses, and shows no signs of slowing down almost 2 years into its run. Come January, the only other show still running show from the 2012-2013 Broadway season will be Kinky Boots, the musical the beat Matilda in that year's Best Musical race (and in hindsight, Matilda is probably the more deserving show).

So why on earth did it take Matilda so long to turn a profit? Kinky Boots turned a profit over a year ago, no doubt bolstered by a summer of sell-out business following its Best Musical win. That season's Best Musical Revival, Pippin, also recouped around the same time, although to be fair its capitalization was only half of Matilda's. To be doubly fair, Pippin's weekly grosses were often far below Matilda's during the same timeframe.

The obvious answer for the delay is that Matilda, like a growing number of Broadway shows and especially new musicals, cost a lot of money to mount. The cast is large, especially when taking into account that many of the children's roles are doubled or even tripled. Add in the fact that the production is contractually obligated to hire child wranglers to supervise all these minors and you have another major expense. The set is rather intricate, and there are several special effects that are surely driving up the weekly running costs. A higher weekly nut (the industry term for a show's running costs) means less of the gross can go towards paying back investors, something that surely slowed the show's progress towards turning a profit.

However, the nearly 2 year saga of Matilda's inching towards profitability begs the questions: what is wrong with Broadway budgeting when even a hit takes so long to recoup? Did the show really *need* all 16 million of those dollars, or is a large chunk of that tied up in needless waste from redundant union contracts and unnecessarily costly production elements? The show's high price tag is especially disheartening when you learn that the production team actually cut certain expenses present in the London production in an effort to keep costs down, and the Broadway mounting still costs almost 4 times its West End counterpart (where theatre is much more heavily subsidized by the government).

This is ludicrous, and it is a problem that no one in the Broadway industry seems particularly keen on tackling. It is the main reason ticket prices continue to climb, making theatre an ever more elitist art form instead of the populist entertainment it used to be. The average person cannot afford a $135 ticket more than once or twice a year, if that. But when your show costs $16 million and you want to pay back your investors' money, you can understand why producers feel the need to charge that much. Which in turn begins a cycle where people want to see something that looks like it costs that much, which again raises prices, which continues ad naseum until you end up with an ungainly monstrosity so focused on the spectacle it becomes a creative nightmare (Spider-Man being the most high profile recent example).

This is not an easy problem to fix, and solving it will take a seismic change in the way the industry works. First and foremost, everyone should probably take a pay cut, something that will of course be horribly unpopular but is ultimately an investment in the future of the industry. No one will have any jobs if costs end up pricing theatre out of reach for all but the wealthy elite. The pay cut doesn't necessarily have to come from the salary if the unions would make some concessions in other areas; for instance, maybe the stagehand and musician unions take a long, hard look at how many people they require Broadway shows to hire. And as very few actors manage to qualify for Equity's healthcare but the universal payment amount to a major production expense, maybe producers could stop being required to pay into the system for actors who don't opt in.

Secondly, all designers and directors should really adopt a less is more approach. There are some eye-popping special effects in Matilda that are plot driven and need to be included, but there are also things like lasers which may look cool but don't particularly add much to the show other than running costs. In my experience, some of the most effective theatrical moments are the simplest, the ones that embrace stagecraft rather than trying to produce a literal representation of whatever they're meant to portray (something film is significantly better at, anyway). The Lion King is one of the most spectacle driven shows on Broadway, and the moment that most took my breath away was one of the simplest: a bright blue piece of fabric being pulled through an upstage hole, simply and elegantly conveying the drought that plagues the African savannah.

Now of course artists need to make money, and I'm not arguing that we suddenly start paying the most talented people in our industry nothing. And I'm certainly not against spectacle or lavish production elements when warranted, as they contribute to some of the magic of theatre. But being more selective about how productions spend their money is probably a good idea. There's no reason for a hit show like Matilda to take 2 years to turn a profit, especially in an age when the average length of a Broadway run is growing shorter. Many shows - even well received ones - can't count on running 2 years, so any budget that requires that much time to turn a profit isn't the most fiscally responsible. Addressing these issues will take a major shift in the way producers and unions think about Broadway budgets, and will take some self sacrifice on everyone's part in order to ensure the future health of the medium. But if no action is taken, Broadway will soon go the way of opera, catering to a small, elite minority rather than the masses. And that would be a true tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

A Premature Defense of "Peter Pan Live"

Allison Williams gets all glammed up for NBC's Peter Pan Live!

Last year, NBC took a gamble and tried something that hadn't been done in decades: a live Broadcast of a full scale musical. The Sound of Music was the show, and Grammy-winner Carrie Underwood was chosen to play the lead role of Maria in an obvious attempt to court her sizable fan base (spoiler alert: it worked). From the moment Underwood was announced, a vocal segment of the population began proclaiming the endeavour a disaster waiting to happen. These people began looking forward to the show with the same gleeful cynicism that caused them to eagerly devour the many missteps of the ambitious but flawed TV show Smash (a show I still miss from time to time, ill-advised Bollywood numbers and all).

The Sound of Music Live premiered to big numbers, although critical reaction ranged from "not terrible" to "unholy affront to the gods of film and theatre." But the numbers are really all that matter, and with 18 million viewers Underwood and company were clear winners. High on their success, NBC announced their intent to make these live musicals an annual event, with this year's edition being Peter Pan. The 1954 musical is best remembered for Mary Martin's Tony-winning performance as the Boy Who Won't Grow Up, which was preserved via an incredibly popular television Broadcast that was eventually released on home video. Attempting to fill Martin's big shoes is Allison Williams, who is perhaps the fourth or fifth most famous person to appear on HBO's buzzed about but only haphazardly viewed Girls, and her nemesis Captain Hook will be played by Oscar-winning film actor Christopher Walken.

Like last year, many are dubious about the artistic prospects of this broadcast. Williams is a largely unknown commodity, and Walken at this point is probably more famous for his distinctively bizarre mannerisms than his acting talent. I will admit that I fully expect it to be a disaster (I cannot imagine Walken in any kind of musical situation that doesn't involve more cowbell), partly due to casting and partly due to the fact that Peter Pan is a much weaker show than The Sound of Music, which for all its saccharine sweetness does feature a solid narrative and songs so catchy they have entered the popular consciousness. That said, anyone who complains about the existence of Peter Pan Live is missing the point.

First and foremost, a live musical broadcast like this is massive exposure for musical theatre at a time when it is not at the forefront of the pop culture conversation. Even if Pan draws only half the audience of The Sound of Music, that is still 9 million people who took 3 hours out of their day to watch a musical. For comparison's sake, the Broadway production of Wicked would have to sell out every performance for nearly 12 years to be seen by that many people (and it is playing Broadway's biggest theatre). That is a lot of people being exposed to theatre, and if even a fraction of a percent of those viewers are then motivated to buy tickets to a live performance it will be a lot of extra bodies in seats.

One major complaint levied against NBC (and most film adaptations of musicals, really) is that they opt for Hollywood talent over actors with theatrical backgrounds for the leads, robbing arguably more qualified people of work. While casting filmed musicals exclusively with Broadway talent is nice in theory, it is also wilfully ignoring the business side of the industry. The fact of the matter is that name talent attracts both viewers and investors, and without someone like Walken involved it is far less likely the whole enterprise would even get off the ground.

And while the two leads in  Peter Pan have dubious connections to the theatre at best, the supporting cast and ensemble are stuffed to the brim with Broadway talent. This is both work and exposure for some of Broadway's best and brightest (Kelli O'Hara and Christian Borle both have pivotal roles), and as anyone in the industry will tell you TV pays a good deal more than theatre. The money from a project like this will help give these hard working actors a financial cushion so they can continue to pursue passion projects like The Bridges of Madison County or Peter and the Starcatcher.

Now yes, you could argue that a subpar production would ultimately turn people off of live theatre. But in the same way that seeing a bad movie doesn't make people swear off films forever, I don't believe seeing one or even a few bad musicals is enough to make people avoid them for the rest of their lives. The prohibitive cost of live theatre is doing a lot more to turn people away from the medium than one or two bad productions.

So feel free to watch Peter Pan Live and (not so) secretly root for it to be awful. That is everyone's right, and no one can stop you. In all honesty, I would much rather the broadcast reach legendary levels of awfulness than have it just be mediocre. But in between any snarky comments and barbed critiques, do keep in mind that whatever the artistic quality of the show, it is doing a lot of good for the theatrical community. NBC has been one of Broadway's biggest Hollywood allies, casting scores of New York talent for its various shows. Mounting a live broadcast on this scale is no easy feat, and it would have been much easier for the network to schedule a Saturday Night Live clip show during Peter Pan's 3 hour slot. But NBC has chosen to present a Broadway musical to a wider audience, and has looked locally for most of their onscreen and behind the scenes talent. We should be grateful, even if we are secretly hoping for them to cast Jessie Mueller and Norbert Leo Butz in their already announced Music Man.

One final thought: Tony winners Kristin Chenoweth and Matthew Broderick couldn't do anything to help ABC's telemovie version of the same show, proving Broadway talent does not automatically equal success.

Union vs. Non-Union Tours and Equity's Image Problem

Well, Actors' Equity just significantly raised the game in its crusade to combat non-equity tours. The union has begun the "Ask If It's Equity" campaign via social media, encouraging all potential audience members to inquire if a touring production is Equity before purchasing a ticket. And unsurprisingly, there are strong feelings about whether this is a good idea on both sides.

First, some background for those who aren't well-versed in the ins and outs of performer contracts. Actors' Equity Association is the performers' union that represents all Broadway actors, along with the actors in many Off-Broadway, regional, and touring productions. After joining the union by jumping through a convoluted and/or highly unlikely series of hoops (most performers become an Equity Membership Candidate and accrue a certain number of points before being allowed to buy into the union, although if an Equity theatre really wants someone they can pay the actor's dues for them), Equity actors gain access to a litany of special privileges including better pay, healthcare, strict limits on the amount of hours they can be worked, and perhaps most appealing of all, priority access to auditions. In return, members pay union dues every year and are forbidden from taking any non-union work; if they get caught performing without a union contract, they can be barred from the union for life, which effectively kills any Broadway or other high profile aspirations a performer might have.

Now, the way touring productions work is that touring houses will guarantee a certain level of ticket sales before booking a show at their particular venue. This allows tour producers to make informed decisions about how much money they should budget for actor salaries, costumes, sets, etc. If the theatres cannot guarantee a large amount of ticket sales, then producers are left with the option of either cancelling the show or casting it with non-union talent, which costs significantly less (there are no minimum salaries for non-union actors, and the producers don't have to pay into Equity's expensive healthcare system on behalf of each performer). Since non-union tours are cheaper to mount, more and more productions are going the non-Equity route to cut costs. As most audience members wouldn't be able to spot the difference between union and non-union talent - there is sometimes little to no difference in skill level and professionalism - the tour producers still advertise these shows as if they are direct from Broadway, even if it involves smaller sets, fewer actors, and less polish than you typically (but not always) find in Equity productions.

Unfortunately, there has been tension between union and non-union actors for almost as long as there has been a union. Equity's job is to protect its members and ensure them as many well-paying jobs as possible, which means Equity auditions are notoriously hard to get seen at if you aren't already in the union. However, the only way to actually join the union is to be cast in an Equity production, which is a huge catch-22 that is understandably frustrating to the many hardworking and talented non-union performers who wake up at the crack of dawn and wait around all day in the hopes of being seen. Also, because Broadway and all of the most respected theatre companies are Equity, many union members have developed a nasty habit of acting like they're better than their non-union counterparts. Keep in mind, every performer was non-union at some point, and we've all seen professional, Equity productions that are just as painful (if not more so) as those at the local community theatre.

To me, the biggest problem with the "Ask If It's Equity" campaign is it plays directly into that tradition of smugness when it comes to the merits of non-union performers. The question heavily implies that if the touring company is non-Equity it is automatically of a lower quality. That is by no means an accurate assumption; last winter I saw the non-union tour of Memphis and found it compared quite favorably to the original Broadway incarnation. No, it was not better or necessarily equal, but the differences were negligible to all but the most experienced theatregoers; if I had not known the production was non-Equity, I would not have been able to tell with any certainty, and I see a lot of theatre. Furthermore, the production was not on Broadway and no one was paying Broadway prices to go see it, which does make a difference as far as perceived value.

That said, I also see Equity's side of the situation and understand the concerns that are causing them to act like dicks. The non-union tours are certainly advertised as if they are straight from Broadway, which is misleading and probably allows them to charge more money for tickets than if the distinction was made clearer. As I have many friends who can verify that this extra money is not going to the performers, that trend is at best concerning and at worst exploitation. And more importantly from Equity's end, these non-union tours could theoretically be union and thereby provide work for their membership, the vast majority of whom are unemployed during any given year. If Equity can use the campaign to prove that the union status of a tour does make a difference to ticket buyers, then they will be in a better position to demand union contracts for future tours.

So what can be done about this situation? There are no easy answers, although I think the majority of the burden lies with Equity and its large member base. The reason tours go non-union is because the touring houses cannot guarantee enough money to finance an Equity production, so a show goes out non-Equity (and still makes the creators and producers money, while also giving future union members a chance to hone their craft) or it doesn't go out at all. Touring shows either need to figure out a way to make more money, or they need to use the money they already make more effectively.

The first option (make more money) can pretty much be ruled out, as most regional audiences are already spending the maximum they're willing to pay for live theatre. Raise prices any further and attendance will likely decline. A decrease in ticket prices could theoretically increase the number of tickets sold and potentially lead to more actual income, but it's a gamble I don't see any sane producing team taking. Which means the tours need to be able to make their current income go further, which may involve lowering wages (something I would not personally advocate) or alternatively relaxing some of the union's stipulations. Broadway and Equity theatres are rife with tales of frivolous personnel due to union mandated quotas, and the strict time limits on rehearsals and performances can cause overtime pay to add up in a hurry. Furthermore, I know of at least a couple of former Equity theatres who are now non-union solely because they can't afford the Equity healthcare premiums (their actors still receive a salary equivalent to the Equity minimums). Since the vast majority of Equity actors can't actually take advantage of the union's healthcare - you must be employed more weeks out of the year than not to qualify - perhaps these premiums could be lowered to help cut costs.

Even more importantly, I think Equity needs to make itself more accessible to new members. I'm sure the current Equity membership is already bristling at this idea, as there already aren't enough jobs to go around and no one wants extra competition. However, as theatre is primarily a merit based profession, if Equity performers are as good as they believe they have nothing to worry about; they will still be cast instead of the less experienced newcomers. And if more of the talented non-union performers were to join Equity, it would get much harder for producers to piece together a non-union tour audiences would be willing to pay good money for and thus force producers to offer more union work.

There are no easy solutions to this problem, but the "Ask If It's Equity" campaign still leaves plenty to be desired. There will always be more people who dream of being an actor than the profession can actually support, so no matter what Equity does to increase job opportunities for its members a large percentage of them will be unemployed at any given time. As theatre becomes more and more expensive there will be fewer audience members and fewer jobs, which only highlights the need for the industry's leaders to prioritize cost saving measures that still provide for the safety and financial viability of acting as profession. And Equity really needs to reexamine the way it behaves towards non-members; it is often despicable and elitist, especially considering everyone in the union was non-union at some point. Perhaps if they honestly asked themselves how their 22-year-old self would feel about a given policy, they wouldn't be so hasty to put their feet in their mouths and angry large swaths of the theatrical community.

Broadway and the Burden of Unrealistic Expectations

Tony-nominee Andrew Rannells dons Hedwig's wig and high heels through October 12th, at which point Michael C. Hall takes over.

For the third week in a row, Playbill.com has felt the need to take thinly disguised digs at Andrew Rannells' box office performance in Hedwig and the Angry Inch. And while nothing they have reported has been untrue, the way they are spinning the story is indicative of a problem in the way they and many others view Broadway grosses, and the unrealistic expectations placed on most shows.

In case you somehow hadn't heard, Tony-winner Neil Patrick Harris brought in ridiculous amounts of cash during his 5 month stint as the German transgendered rocker. The show was routinely sold-out, set various house records at the Belasco Theatre, and spent most of the summer grossing more than $1 million per week. Obviously, the producers of the revival were wise to wait until Harris' schedule allowed him to do the show before mounting a Broadway production, which recouped its entire investment in mid-July. It was a given that the show would see a decrease in box office receipts when Harris departed (it was mildly surprising the producers decided to keep the show running without him), but I think spinning Rannells' run thus far as a financial disappointment is a disservice to Rannells, the show, and Broadway in general.

Last week, Hedwig made $514,411 (59% of its potential gross) and played to 70% capacity crowds. That is a large step down from last week's 81% potential gross and 93% full houses and an even bigger drop from Harris' heyday, but every single show on Broadway saw significant (often six figure) drops in grosses following the Labor Day holiday. The one exception to this is the Nathan Lane-Matthew Broderick led It's Only a Play, which managed to buck the trend by having 8 performances instead of the 5 it had the week before. Hedwig is still doing better, gross-wise, than the much more expensive Cinderella, Best Musical winner Once, and the Diane Paulus-helmed Pippin.

Considering that Hedwig is a cult musical which until a few months ago no one was sure could succeed on the Great White Way and has lost its main selling point, I'd call those numbers just fine. As a small show with low running costs which has already recouped (there aren't many costumes or pricey technical elements, and you can bet that Rannells' salary isn't anywhere near what Harris was being paid), Hedwig likely has a very low bar to clear in order to remain profitable. And while Rannells is popular within theatre circles, he doesn't have nearly the mainstream appeal or drawing power as Harris. Viewed in that light, the fact that he and the Hedwig brand can fill the Belasco to 70% capacity during a notoriously slow time of year is something to be celebrated.

The fact that many people view these numbers as disappointing points to a larger problem in the unrealistic expectations producers and the public have for Broadway shows. Because shows like Wicked and The Lion King have done so well for so many years, they have erroneously become the yard sticks by which a potential hit is judged. This is akin to saying that an athlete is no good because they aren't performing at Olympic medal levels, which is absolutely ridiculous. The last place finisher at the Olympics is still better than a huge percentage of the population, and the fact that Hedwig continues to run (and has just announced an extension into January 2015) while other spring shows have already closed is a testament to how well the show is doing financially. Just because a show isn't making $1 million a week doesn't mean it's doing poorly, and we shouldn't consider shows a disappointment if they don't run for 10+ years.

But unfortunately, many people do use those metrics as the measure of a show's success, which is unfair to the industry and all the very talented people working in it. It casts the industry in a poor light and makes the theatre seem much less healthy than it actually is; as I have stated before, I think the current model of more shows with shorter runs is ultimately better and more exciting for the industry artistically. And while I am not privy to any budgeting meetings for Broadway shows, I think too many shows are budgeted in a way that they have to do sell-out business to be financially viable, since that is what is expected of a "successful" show.

So let's try to focus on the positive. If a relative unknown like Andrew Rannells can retain such a large percentage of certified star Neil Patrick Harris' box office numbers, that is a win. It shows that audiences are in fact interested in the show and not just the lead actor, something that should be encouraging to all the people who decry Broadway's current obsession with celebrity vehicles. And if numbers continue to decline and Hedwig closes before the new year, who cares? By every metric that matters, the production is an unqualified success, and exposed a great piece of contemporary musical theatre to a much larger audience than could ever fit in the show's original Off-Broadway home and the small spaces it is traditionally performed in. To borrow the famed Gershwin lyric, "who could ask for anything more?"

Should Race Be a Selling Point?

Norm Lewis made history as the first black Broadway Phantom when he joined the Broadway company of The Phantom of the Opera in May.  And while that is certainly noteworthy, I can't help but feel that maybe we are making *too* big of a deal about it.

Recently, some singer/talk show host I had never heard of was cast as the latest headliner in the terrible revival of Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella.  Her name is Keke Palmer, and she will be Broadway's first black Cinderella.  This news story bothered me greatly.

Now, let's be clear:  I am most certainly NOT upset that an African-American woman will be headlining a Broadway musical about a fairy tale princess.  As a person of color who once dreamed of being an actor, I am all too aware of the difficulties facing ethnic actors today.  While we are slowly seeing more diversity in entertainment, the sad fact remains that a lot of casting directors still won't consider an ethnic actor for a part that doesn't explicitly call for that ethnicity.  Furthermore, the parts that do require an actor of color often make skin tone the role's defining characteristic, as if that is the only thing which could possibly necessitate casting a non-white performer.  And since most subsequent productions have a tendency to mimic the casting of the original, if the original actor wasn't black (or Latino, or Asian-American, etc.), then actors of those ethnicities often aren't seriously considered for the role even if race has zero bearing on the story.  So any instance of a traditionally white role going to an ethnic performer is something I am all for.

No, what bothers me about Ms. Palmer's casting is that the producers and press made such a big deal about her being the "first black Cinderella" on Broadway.  Every story went out of the way to mention Palmer's ethnicity, which makes me believe this is something that was explicitly pointed out in the press release as a way of drumming up extra attention.  Because honestly, the 4th replacement in a revival of a musical with middling box office probably wouldn't even merit mention if not for this one tidbit.  I will choose to believe that the producers of Cinderella didn't cast Palmer solely because of her race, but they sure don't mind using her skin color to get some extra publicity and perhaps stroke their egos in a self-congratulatory, "look-how-progressive-we-are" way.

My problem with this is that it makes skin color the defining characteristic of this actress.  The selling point of Palmer's casting is not her talent or her previous accomplishments; it is her skin color, something she has absolutely no control over.  This is even more baffling considering Cinderella, which won an Actor's Equity award for the diversity of its ensemble, has several other ethnic actors in principal roles without feeling the need to point out their heritage.  No one mentioned that Ann Harada is the first Asian-American Stepsister.  You know why?  Because it is Harada's talent that is her most important asset, not her ancestry, which is only one component of the many qualities and characteristics that make her unique.

A similar thing happened recently when Norm Lewis took over the title role in The Phantom of the Opera, Broadway's longest running musical.  Every news outlet, even those that normally don't cover Broadway, was suddenly talking about Phantom again because Lewis is the first black actor to play the role on Broadway in the show's 26 year run.  And while that is certainly an achievement, and a cool bit of theatrical trivia, why did that have to be the defining piece of news about his casting?  Again, my problem with spinning the story this way is that it places the emphasis on Lewis' skin color, something he has zero control over, and not his talent, something he has honed and sharpened over nearly 3 decades of performing.

Defining anyone primarily by their skin color is reductive (and borderline insulting).  By calling extra attention to race, we continue to train future generations to notice it and use it as a way to define people.  Even if the focus on Palmer and Lewis's heritage is well-intentioned, as a mixed-race American it makes me vaguely uneasy.  It deemphasizes individuality, and encourages people to make assumptions based on someone's outer appearance.

To me, the ideal treatment of race is how the subject was handled in Rent.  That show featured an incredibly diverse cast without making their diversity the central focus.  All of the various characters in Rent are treated as people first, with subtle nods to their ethnic backgrounds that provided extra spice without becoming their defining quality.  Very little is explicitly mentioned about any characters' heritage, meaning the show could theoretically be cast with any combination of actors.  It is generally cast to mirror the ethnic breakdown of the original cast, which goes back to the lack of imagination on casting directors' part, but that is an issue for another blog.  The pertinent point here is that it was diverse without making race its defining characteristic, one of the many ways in which the show was so groundbreaking.

Or to use a currently running example, look at Disney's The Lion King.  It features a largely black cast, which makes sense given the African setting and director Julie Taymor's wholehearted embrace of tribal design aesthetics.  Yet the show doesn't once call attention to the character's blackness (probably because they're all actually lions, but that is beside the point).  As Taymor has said in various interviews, The Lion King is a show that is not about race and yet all about race.  As she astutely points out, to white audiences it is the same story they know and love from the movie, and the ethnicities of the actors are a non-issue.  But to black audiences, it is very much the story of a black king trying to win back his kingdom, and sends a powerful message that people of color can be noble kings and queens too.  The brilliance of the show is that it allows for this reading without doing anything to emphasize it, which makes it even more progressive than the shows that call attention to their inclusiveness.

There is no denying that Broadway could use more diversity.  The country continues to become more ethnically varied, but the principal characters in most Broadway shows remain steadfastly white.  I am all for actors like Palmer and Lewis breaking barriers, but I think when we call too much attention to it we only exacerbate the problem.  I hope directors continue to consider and cast actors of all ethnicities in all roles (provided the show isn't explicitly about race and racism), but cease to call attention to the fact that they are doing so.  Calling attention to it ultimately reinforces the notion that race is something to obsess over and define people by, and that kind of thinking helps no one.  Trying to get brownie points for your affirmative action casting decisions is just tacky, and devalues the talent of the people you do hire.

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 the Internet Needs to Calm Down About "Into the Woods"

Meryl Streep will play the Witch in Disney's film adaptation of Into the Woods, and regardless of how much they change the material she will still be Meryl Streep.

At a recent event for high school educators, Broadway legend Stephen Sondheim let slip some of the planned changes for the upcoming film version of his beloved musical Into the Woods.  The Powers That Be at Disney, which is financing and releasing the film, have made several changes that soften the musical's darker edges, such as desexualizing the relationship between Little Red and the Wolf, sparing Rapunzel from her death at the hands (feet) of the Giant, and removing the Baker's Wife affair with Cinderella's Prince.  (Ironically, Sondheim revealed these changes at an event about censorship of the arts, specifically in high schools, when a teacher shared that he was hesitant to produce the show at his school due to potential backlash over the same issues.)  The Internet promptly went insane, declaring their hatred of Disney and how they were boycotting the movie and how Disney has "ruined Christmas" (which is when the movie is scheduled to be released).

If you ask me - and by clicking on the link to this blog entry, you kind of did - everyone needs to calm the hell down.  The fact that anyone can legitimately be surprised and/or upset by this news is baffling, and shows they have a complete lack of understanding of how these things work.

First and foremost, theatre and film are entirely different mediums, with different strengths.  In order to take advantage of the new medium, you almost have to make changes (which also helps justify why you're changing mediums at all).  Just about every film adaptation of a stage show features alterations and cuts, some of them major departures from the original.  The Sound of Music reorders a large chunk of the musical numbers, cuts pretty much any music involving Elsa and Max, and adds new songs like "I Have Confidence."  Dreamgirls rewrites the majority of the show's second act in order to flesh out the characters, provide more closure for Jimmy (who just sort of disappears in the stage version), and give Beyoncé an 11 o'clock number because she's Beyoncé (and also because Deena Jones can come across as an underwritten puppet onstage).  Cabaret, often cited as one of the last great movie musicals, completely recalibrates the original stage version to focus more exclusively on Sally (Fraulein Schneider and Herr Schultz are barely in the film at all) and adds so many new songs that when Sam Mendes and Rob Marshall revived the show for Roundabout they changed it into a hybrid between the original and the film.  Even West Side Story, one of the most lauded movie musicals of all time and generally considered a pretty faithful adaptation of the stage show, swaps the placement of "Officer Krumpke" and "Cool" in a way that totally changes the tone and meaning of both.

The common thread shared by those movies is that most theatre fans consider them to be pretty damn good.  In fact, I would argue that both The Sound of Music and Dreamgirls are substantial improvements on the originals, and if Bob Fosse had just filmed the stage version of Cabaret we wouldn't have the Kander and Ebb classics "Mein Herr" and "Maybe This Time."  And while both versions of West Side Story are pretty close to perfect, I personally prefer having "Cool" take place after the rumble rather than before it.  While there are plenty of examples where the changes for the movie don't work out so well (*cough*Rent*cough*), we don't really have any way of knowing where Into the Woods will fall until the finished film is released.  If someone just listed the changes for the movies I mentioned without anyone having seen the finished films, people would be just as upset as they are about Sondheim's fairy tale.

Also, the fact that Disney is releasing Into the Woods should have been a major tipoff that the darker edges would be softened.  Disney is one of the most image conscious, carefully designed and maintained brands on the planet; it is a major part of their enduring, basically unprecedented success.  They care very much about their reputation as a family friendly company, so there was no way they would put out a fairy tale film (fairy tales being closely tied with their brand and image) as dark as the stage Into the Woods.  Sondheim is certainly aware of this, and is quoted as saying, "If I were a Disney executive I probably would say the same thing." As soon as we heard that this would have the Disney name on it, rather than one of their subsidiaries, we all should have been prepared for the inevitable changes.

And if that hadn't clued people in, casting sure as hell should have.  Little Red was originally cast as an 8-year-old girl (although later replaced by the slightly older but still prepubescent 12-year-old).  Did people honestly think they were going to keep the sexual undertones of "Hello, Little Girl" and "I Know Things Now" with an actual child playing the part?  If they did, they are frankly stupid and/or twisted.  It is one thing to see that subtext played out using an adult playing a child; it is another when Little Red is actually a kid acting opposite a Wolf who is in his 40s.  That is gross.  I argue that even purists wouldn't really want to see the story played as written with that particular age dynamic, and even if you think how uncomfortable that would be is the point you can't have really thought Disney of all companies would go there.

At the end of the day, besides the fact that everyone should have seen this coming, my real point here is that it doesn't matter because we haven't even seen the finished product yet.  The changes could be brilliant, or at the very least bring out a different take on the story than the stage version.  The fact that Sondheim and James Lapine are involved with the film and have helped with the rewrites means we have a better chance of preserving some artistic integrity than if an outside screenwriter had made the changes (it also means we get new Sondheim songs).  And if the changes end up being bad, and "destroy the show" as some people are already claiming, we always have the stage version.  Not only is it one of Sondheim's most performed works, but we also have the video of the original stage production, with the incomparable original cast reprising their roles, readily available on Netflix for you to watch whenever you want.

Personally, I'm expecting the film to be a mixed bag.  I think Meryl Streep will be a fascinating Witch, and Anna Kendrick is pitch perfect casting as Cinderella (see what I did there?).  But the changes will definitely affect the overall meaning of the story, and I've never been convinced that the sharp delineation between Act I and Act II will work in a medium without an intermission.  The commonly accepted reading of the show is that it is a deconstruction/dismissal of the idea of "happily ever after," but if that was all there was to Into the Woods it wouldn't be so enduringly popular and meaningful to so many different people.  And no one is forcing me or you or anyone else to watch the movie, and it's existence does nothing to negate or change everything you love about the stage version.

Who's to Blame for "Bridges" Early Closing?

Steven Pasquale and Kelli O'Hara in the underappreciated (and soon to close) The Bridges of Madison County

Jason Robert Brown's beautiful, heartbreaking The Bridges of Madison County (featuring a career-best and Tony worthy performance by the always amazing Kelli O'Hara) is closing this Sunday.  If you haven't seen the show yet, stop reading this and go buy your ticket now; the blog will still be here when you return.  For those of you who have seen it, let's sit down and have a frank discussion about all of the issues Bridges' premature closing points to in our industry and the people who work in its.

Now, Broadway is a business, and Bridges has hardly been a box office sensation.  It would be unfair to blame the producers for closing a show whose grosses don't cover its weekly running costs; if anything, they should be commended for keeping the show running as long as they did.  No, if blame must be assigned, it belongs squarely on the potential audience members who supposedly wanted to see the show but didn't.  I was in the theatre district the day after Bridges announced it was closing and heard multiple people discussing the news with some variation of the phrase, "That's too bad. I wanted to see that."  To which I say, "Well then why didn't you?"

Theatre people love to complain, and one of the most common complaints over the past decade has been the lack of original and artistically daring work on Broadway.  According to these naysayers, everything is movie adaptations and revivals with miscast stars and jukebox musicals that clearly had their genesis in a marketing meeting.  These complaints aren't entirely without merit - although I tend to think the situation isn't as dire as most people make it out to be - but the fact of the matter is when something like Bridges comes along and *is* artistically daring and more serious, it isn't supported.  The easy scapegoat is the tourists aren't cultured enough for these sorts of things, but it isn't exactly fair to blame them for not attending a show during their 4-day vacation that you couldn't be bothered to see in your months of living here.

When it closes on Sunday, Bridges will have run for exactly four months.  And while that isn't a particularly long run in this time of multi-year hits, it also isn't an insignificant amount of time.  Especially for someone who lives in the city, I find it hard to believe that there wasn't at least one evening (or afternoon) during that four months where they could have attended the show.  And before any New Yorker even starts with that "I'm busy" nonsense, the fact of the matter is that everyone is busy, but with a little thing called time management it really isn't that hard to carve out a 3-hour block to see a show (especially if you have time to see a movie, go out drinking, or any of the millions of other leisure activities even "busy" people have time for).  If you make seeing Show X an actual priority, I promise you that you will magically find the time to do so. 

And before anyone brings up the price of tickets, I have a twofold counterargument.  First of all, while theatre tickets are certainly expensive, industry people should know better than anyone just where all that money is going and the importance of supporting the industry financially.  Secondly, no one is saying you need to buy a $150 orchestra seat.  There are rush seats, there are discount codes (especially easy to come by when a show is not selling well), and plenty of other ways to get in to see a show that don't involve spending an entire week's paycheck.  If all you can afford is a $40 or $50 ticket (and if you cut out a night or two of drinking/dining out at NYC prices, I promise you that over the course of a month you can scrounge up that much money), then buy that ticket and know that you supported the arts as much as you were able.  If all of the New Yorkers who wanted to see Bridges had bought a $40 ticket, the show might have been able to run an extra week or two.

The other major problem I see with Bridges lies in its critical reception.  To be blunt, the critics were not kind to the show.  Now everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and as long as a critic can back that opinion up with specific examples from the show they can write whatever they want.  But considering that critics are some of the loudest voices decrying the commercialization of Broadway, they should maybe be a little more encouraging to new work that possesses the traits they claim the industry needs more of, even if it doesn't always execute those traits well.  There is a way to point out the flaws in a piece without dismissing the entire thing out of hand, and I feel that far too many critics latch onto the flaws of new work while ignoring the positive traits.

This problem is particularly pronounced when you compare how new works are reviewed versus revivals.  In the same week, I saw Violet and If/Then (coincidentally the same week Bridges announced its closing).  I personally think both shows have some structural problems, and if I'm being honest I feel that If/Then is the more successful of the two productions.  But the general press savaged If/Then's flaws while ignoring what in my mind are many fine performances and a thought-provoking narrative that tackles some of life's big questions.  These same individuals largely overlooked Violet's structural problems and somewhat trite message in favor of praising the cast, since the convention is that you don't review the writing of a revival.  This double standard tends to make revivals sound more appealing than new works, and as a result a lot of the revivals this season are doing better business than the new shows.  If the critics steer people towards revivals, and those revivals subsequently make more money, then the new, daring work critics claim to want will be produced less and less.

At the end of the day, we all need to take responsibility for our actions and the messages they send.  If we are going to complain about the lack of original work on Broadway, then we need to make it a priority to get out and support the original work that does get produced.  No single individual can turn a flop into a hit, and there are some fantastic shows that due to their nature are just destined to be more niche affairs (as a serious musical without much spectacle in an industry that has lately favored feel-good puff pieces, Bridges probably falls in that category).  But if we all collectively make a more conscious effort to prioritize and support new, artistically daring new work like Bridges, If/Then, or even A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder, we can help counterbalance the masses of tourists who are only interested in seeing Phantom and Mamma Mia! for the umpteenth time.  And the other lesson to be learned here is that you cannot assume a show will still be running when you get around to it; if you are passionate about seeing a show, you need to prioritize it because you cannot ever know for certain how long it will run.

PS - I saw Bridges twice, once when I reviewed it in March and then again after it announced its closing date.

2014 Tony Nominations React

Previous Tony-nominee Jonathan Groff and tenuously-connected-to-Broadway Lucy Liu announce the 2014 Tony Award nominations.

They're here!  The 2014 Tony Award nominees were announced bright and early this morning, and there is plenty to discuss (some of it surprising, some of it less so).  But before we go any further, here are the complete list of nominees in the Big 12 categories.  The asterisks indicate nominees that I correctly predicted, and the asterisks in parentheses indicate Wildcard picks that succeeded in making the cut.

Best Play
Act One
*All The Way 
*Casa Valentina 
*Mothers and Sons
*Outside Mullingar

Best Musical
*After Midnight
*Aladdin
*Beautiful: The Carole King Musical
*A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder

Best Revival of a Play
*The Cripple of Inishmaan
*The Glass Menagerie
(*)A Raisin in the Sun
*Twelfth Night

Best Revival of a Musical
*Hedwig and the Angry Inch
*Les Misérables
*Violet

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Play
Samuel Barnett, Twelfth Night
*Bryan Cranston, All The Way
*Chris O'Dowd, Of Mice and Men
Mark Rylance, Richard III
*Tony Shalhoub, Act One

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Play
*Tyne Daly, Mothers and Sons
(*)LaTanya Richardson Jackson, A Raisin in the Sun
*Cherry Jones, The Glass Menagerie
*Audra McDonald, Lady Day at Emerson's Bar and Grill
*Estelle Parsons, The Velocity of Autumn

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Musical
*Neil Patrick Harris, Hedwig and the Angry Inch
(*)Ramin Karimloo, Les Misérables
*Andy Karl, Rocky
*Jefferson Mays, A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder
*Bryce Pinkham, A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Musical
(*)Mary Bridget Davies, A Night with Janis Joplin
*Sutton Foster, Violet
*Idina Menzel, If/Then
*Jessie Mueller, Beautiful: The Carole King Musical
*Kelli O'Hara, The Bridges of Madison County

Best Performance by an Actor in a Featured Role in a Play
*Reed Birney, Casa Valentina
*Paul Chahidi, Twelfth Night
(*)Stephen Fry, Twelfth Night
*Mark Rylance, Twelfth Night
*Brian J. Smith, The Glass Menagerie

Best Performance by an Actress in a Featured Role in a Play
Sarah Greene, The Cripple of Inishmaan
*Celia Keenan-Bolger, The Glass Menagerie
*Sophie Okonedo, A Raisin in the Sun
*Anika Noni Rose, A Raisin in the Sun
*Mare Winningham, Casa Valentina

Best Performance by an Actor in a Featured Role in a Musical
*Danny Burstein, Cabaret
*Nick Cordero, Bullets Over Broadway
*Joshua Henry, Violet
*James Monroe Iglehart, Aladdin
*Jarrod Spector, Beautiful: The Carole King Musical

Best Performance by an Actress in a Featured Role in a Musical
*Linda Emond, Cabaret
Lena Hall, Hedwig and the Angry Inch
*Anika Larsen, Beautiful: The Carole King Musical
*Adriane Lenox, After Midnight
(*)Lauren Worsham, A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder


First of all, I'm pretty damn pleased with the accuracy of my guesses.  If you only look at my official predictions, I have an 80% accuracy rate, which jumps to 91% if you include Wildcard predictions as correct guesses.  Now here are some more thoughts on the nominees:

-Considering that most critics felt this was a weak season for new plays on Broadway, I'm surprised to see five nominees in that category while the Best Musical race remains unexpectedly limited to four contenders.  And I'm especially surprised that The Realistic Joneses didn't make the cut even with an expanded field; I guess the nominations committee found the play more off-putting than the press (which was still sharply divided).

-Speaking of Best Musical, I personally am bummed they didn't see fit to nominate The Bridges of Madison County for the top prize.  The show is by no means perfect, but it has an artistic ambition rarely seen on Broadway these days, and I wish that had been acknowledged with a nomination (ditto for If/Then, although having not yet seen that show I don't have as strong an opinion about it's exclusion).

-I try not to actively root against shows, but I feel validated by the relative scarcity of nominations for Rocky.  Apparently the Tony committee was as nonplussed about that misfire as I was.  Note:  While it is not a category I predicted, Alex Timbers' exclusion from the Best Director race is one of the major surprises of the day.

-Why would the Tony committee go through the trouble of deeming Cabaret eligible for Best Revival (when according to the rules it really shouldn't be) only to not nominate it?  That seems unnecessarily cruel and a bit of a slap in the face to Roundabout.  Note:  The exclusion of Cabaret from the category was my Wildcard prediction for that race.  Just sayin'.

-Twelfth Night was undeniably amazing (and easily the best production of that play I've ever seen), but I am gobsmacked by just how well the show did in the acting nominations.  There are five total nods shared among its ensemble, including a surprising but well deserved nod for Samuel Bartlett's Viola.  Sidenote:  In my midseason predictions, I mentioned Bartlett as a dark horse contender, but by the time I made my official predictions I thought some of the heat for this production had died down.  Clearly I was wrong.

-I never considered her a serious contender to win, but I am still shocked by Marin Mazzie's exclusion from the Best Featured Actress in a Musical race.  That role was highly sought after and she beat out some of the industry's biggest name to secure it.  Considering Mazzie has been rather forthcoming with her desire for a Tony Award (despite 3 career nominations she's never won), this can't be what she wanted or expected to happen.

-Congratulations to Mary Bridget Davis for breaking into the extremely competitive Best Actress in a Musical Race.  While I personally skipped A Night with Janis Joplin because that music doesn't appeal to me, I heard nothing but complimentary things about her and she should be proud that she made enough of an impression to get nominated despite her show being long closed.

-I really really REALLY wish the committee had nominated Lisa O'Hare's acidic Sibella Hallward along with Lauren Worsham's equally deserving Phoebe D'Ysquith.  A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder has one of the most talented quartet of leads of any Broadway show right now, and it would have been wonderful to see all four of them recognized with nominations.



I will of course have lots more Tony coverage in the coming weeks (including some reviews for more Tony nominated shows), but before I go I want to leave you with one final thought.  Every year there is a lot of talk about who gets "snubbed" by the Tonys, and this year there seems to be even more chatter than normal.  But let's not allow the grousing and griping to take away from the achievement of the people who did get nominated; it is quite an achievement, and they deserve to be celebrated.

Check back all month for more Tony coverage!  And for a more in-depth look at my nominee predictions, look here:
Production
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Featured Actor/Actress