Why Shorter Runs are Good for Broadway

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Rebecca" is Dead (Again)

The the Manderly estate in which the show is set, Rebecca's Broadway dreams have gone up in smoke.

I’m generally not a superstitious person, but even I have to wonder if the American production of Rebecca is cursed.  On the eve of its long-delayed first rehearsal, the gothic musical thriller had to cancel its Broadway bow for a second time due to lack of financing.  This comes after the production was pushed back from the spring to the fall for the exact same reason, a move which forced the recasting of its two lead roles.

For those who haven’t been following Rebecca’s various ups and downs (mostly downs), here’s a quick recap.  The show, based on the novel of the same name, is a hit in Europe that already saw plans for a London production scrapped in favor of Broadway.  Lead producer Ben Sprecher has had a hell of a time securing the show’s $12 million capitalization, which is expensive but by no means unheard of for a big Broadway musical.  He claimed to have the money situation all shored up when a mysterious benefactor named Paul Abrams died in early August, taking his $4.5 million investment with him to the grave.  Sprecher scrambled to find more funds, pouring his own money into the project and finding a new, unnamed $2 million investor.  But now that investor has pulled out after being sent a “malicious e-mail” by a third party, prompting this latest delay.

Sprecher claims he still wants to make Rebecca happen, but at this point only a fool would believe him.  Remember, this isn’t a show that was rumored for the Great White Way; Sprecher has on two occasions announced firm opening dates, secured a theatre, and begun work on the show’s costumes and sets.  Canceling a show so far along in its development is almost never done, which serves as an indication of how bad things really are.  But whatever you think is happening behind the scenes, the latest information indicates that the truth could be much, much worse.

For instance, The New York Times published a very interesting article last week that speculated Paul Abrams and his $4.5 million never even existed.  Sprecher himself has admitted that he never actually met Abrams, and you have to wonder about a producer who would depend on a complete stranger for a full third of his production budget.  Even worse, the Times asserts that the e-mail address used by Abrams’ assistant to communicate with Sprecher is only a month old, AND points out that there is no independently verifiable information about Abrams’ death (you’d think such a wealthy man would merit at least a sentence or two in the obituary section of the local paper).

At best, Sprecher is an incompetent producer who isn’t performing his due diligence and therefore shouldn’t be in charge of large sums of money; at worst, he has willfully deceived his other investors and the general public.  The police certainly find all of this suspicious, and have begun to question Sprecher about the whole affair (to his credit, Sprecher seems to be cooperating).  And then there is this most recent investor, who was scared off by the content of a nasty e-mail – an e-mail he or she should never have received, because the investment was supposed to remain anonymous.  Assuming this person exists, the sudden departure makes you wonder how reliable Sprecher’s other investors are, and also how safe your personal information is with this untested Broadway producer.  I certainly wouldn’t trust my money to him, and I doubt many others would, either.

Even if the existence of Paul Abrams is proven and Sprecher cleared of all wrong doing, no one is going to support this show.  As the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.”  Who’s to say that Rebecca won’t be canceled late in the game a third time?  Making money on a Broadway show is a tricky proposition to begin with; having an inexperienced and clearly unqualified person calling the shots isn’t going to increase the show’s financial chances.

The only way I see Rebecca happening now is if Sprecher leaves the project, and is replaced by someone a little more trustworthy.  That strategy worked on Spider-Man, Broadway’s last big budget disaster, which has miraculously overcome all of its early troubles to become one of Broadway’s top box office draws.  And if Spider-Man is your best case scenario, you have to wonder if it’s even worth it, considering that show is one of the most reviled and mocked pieces of entertainment to hit the Rialto in years. 

I would love for Rebecca’s fortunes to change, because as I’ve said before I think it is an excellent idea for a musical and could be a fantastic night at the theatre.  But at this point, I don’t think anyone would touch the show.  You’d basically be starting from scratch (as the Times points out, most of the investors are asking for their money back), and the stigma on the show is probably too much to overcome.  I think Rebecca is truly dead, and her ghost will haunt aspiring Broadway producers for years to come.

A New Broadway Business Model? Bring It On!

This week we were treated to the first new musical of the 2012-2013 season when Bring It On officially opened on Broadway.  While I am personally excited for the show, which I think sounds like a blast, I can also understand those who are wary of a musical based on a movie of dubious quality that has no less than four writers.  But aside from being a new show, I think Bring It On represents a new way of developing musicals that while not perfect for every show, could end up being a major boon to the future prospects of certain theatrical properties.

We’re told Bring It On was never intended for Broadway, and while I find that claim suspect (when Tony-winning composers Tom Kitt and Lin-Manuel Miranda are collaborating, any sane producer must at least *consider* Broadway), the fact of the matter is the producers chose to skip the Great White Way in favor of a national tour.  In doing so, they removed a lot of critical pressure from the show, as Broadway-bound musicals are evaluated on an entirely different and much more stringent metric.  These raised standards almost inevitably lead to lukewarm out-of-town reviews, and if the press is overly negative it can lead to the cancelling of the proposed Broadway run.

Shows that cancel already announced Broadway runs inevitably get branded as failures, a major marketing hurdle any future productions or revisions must overcome.  By only announcing a tour, the producers of Bring It On managed to keep media scrutiny to a minimum and in essence gave themselves permission to fail.  A tour is much less susceptible to negative reviews, because by the time bad word of mouth starts to spread it has already moved on to the next destination, one in which a good deal of seats are already sold to the touring house’s season subscribers.  The producers and the production also don’t have to endure the embarrassment of canceling already announced Broadway plans, keeping any potential downsides at a manageable level.

BUT, since the tour received enough positive response to prompt a Broadway run, suddenly Bring It On is positioned to be a pleasant surprise.  In addition to having avoided the massive expectations attached to “Broadway-bound” shows, Bring It On is also arriving in the midst of the summer doldrums, making it the only new game in town for New Yorkers who have seen everything else.  Add to that audience the enormous number of tourists that are currently increasing the box office of every show in town, and you have a musical that is poised to do relatively strong business.  The show’s limited engagement should also help increase ticket sales, as it forces anyone interested in seeing the show to buy their tickets sooner rather than later.

Of course, New York’s famously jaded theatrical press could spoil everything by trashing the show, but I think truly terrible reviews are unlikely.  For one thing, the show has essentially been running for months, meaning that if nothing else it should be the tightest, most polished version of Bring It On possible.  The competitive cheerleading setting also necessitates musical staging unlike anything currently on Broadway, and novelty usually earns at least measured praise from the press.

If Bring It On can manage decent reviews and good word of mouth from audiences, I see no reason why its limited run can’t be extended, making the show more money and increasing the perception of the show as a Little Musical That Could.  The mere fact that the show had a Broadway production brings with it a certain amount of legitimacy that will help catch the eye of regional theatres and other touring houses, which in turn helps widen the show’s exposure.  And perhaps most importantly, the longer Bring It On runs, the better its chances at some Tony nominations, which would be a huge boon to its future prospects on the road and as a licensable property.

Am I saying Bring It On will win the 2013 Best Musical Tony?  Of course not.  It’s far too early in the season to be making those kinds of predictions.  But I am saying that by starting with a tour and then coming to Broadway during the less crowded summer months, Bring It On has maximized its chances of making money and being generally well-received.  This developmental path would not work for every new musical (for instance, the big name stars producers love to build a show around rarely go out on tour), and I expect most shows will stick to the traditional out-of-town or Off-Broadway routes.  But if Bring It On is a success, it gives producers another option on how to develop new work that helps maximize their chances at financial success.  And the more money any musical makes, even a bad one, the more money producers have to develop new works and continue to employ the next generation of theatrical artists.