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.

Podcast Episode 7: Spring Preview Part 2

Jared, Brian, and Christopher continue their discussion of this spring's upcoming Broadway productions, this time focusing on the musicals slated to hit the Great White Way in the coming months. Although at first glance it looks like slim pickings, a closer examination reveals a lot to get excited about. Which new show is the panel most excited about? Can Pippin continue Diane Paulus' Best Revival winning streak? Does anybody even remember that they're doing Pump Boys and Dinnettes?!?

What's So Speacial About the Original Cast?

There have been five Broadway productions of Gypsy, and for many the Ethel Merman original remains the best

One interesting phenomenon among musical theatre aficionados – really all theatre fans, but it’s more pronounced in musical theatre circles – is the near-universal belief that a show’s original cast is always the best one.  No matter how many times a show has been successfully revived or remounted, these fans insist the original group of actors represent the best possible incarnation of a property.  If the work is particularly beloved, suggesting different actors for the lead roles becomes tantamount to sacrilege, and eventually you get people who think the then 43-year-old Sarah Brightman is an appropriate choice to play ingénue Christine Daae in the 2004 Phantom of the Opera film.

The above example is extreme, but the thinking behind it is so widespread that people have paid good money to see a 37-year-old Adam Pascal play Roger in Rent or a septuagenarian Carol Channing do Hello, Dolly!  Those real-life examples can be explained away as people who missed legendary performances willingly suspending their disbelief in order to see great actors recreate their most famous roles, but such reasoning doesn’t justify the idea that no matter how many times Gypsy or West Side Story get done, the original cast will always be the best.

So what’s driving this belief?  Is there any substance to the assertion that the original cast is always the superior one?  In large part, I think the primary reason comes down to mere familiarity.  With musicals, many times the only thing resembling a permanent record of the show is the Original Cast Recording.  This is how the vast majority of fans are first exposed to a show, and it is just about the only way anyone can relive the experience of actually seeing a live production.  The particular set of mannerisms, vocal tics, and acting choices captured by the recording becomes subconsciously ingrained in the listener’s head, and through repeated exposure becomes the accepted or “correct” way the material should be done.  If the person has never actually seen the show in question, then the cast album becomes representative of the ideal version of the property that’s been created in the listener’s head.  Any deviation from this imagined ideal can prove off-putting, even with supposedly open-minded people.

But if the reasoning behind this preference for the original cast seems somewhat arbitrary, that doesn’t mean the resulting wisdom is entirely wrong.  The truth of the matter is that the originating actor often ends up being the best, or at least one of the best, people to tackle a particular role.  If the performer is lucky enough to have the part written expressly for them, the way Gypsy was written for Ethel Merman or The Producers was tailored specifically to Nathan Lane, then of course he or she is going to impress in the role.  Even if the writers don’t have a particular person in mind when creating a character, they will inevitably end up fashioning the part around the person chosen to play it.  If a scene or song isn’t working, any rewrites will almost certainly take the performer’s strengths into account.  In a particularly collaborative environment, the actor may have direct input into the character’s moods and actions, subtly but forever skewing the script towards that performer’s interpretation of the role.

Then there are the times when a performer proves so compelling in a role that it takes on a life of its own, becoming greatly expanded in order to fully utilize that actor’s talents.  Anyone who has read the novel Wicked will tell you Glinda is a much more prominent presence in the musical, because the writers wanted to put for focus on Kristin Chenoweth’s bravura performance.  Stephen Flaherty and Lynn Ahrens wrote the song “Sarah Brown Eyes” in Ragtime specifically to give Tony-winner Audra McDonald more to do, since she was simply too good to leave out of the second act.  Rory O’Malley’s Elder McKinley didn’t even exist is early drafts of The Book of Mormon, but Matt Stone and Trey Parker were so entertained by his antics in the ensemble they crafted a role to better highlight him.  When a role is so specifically tailored to the original performer, their take on it will naturally be one of the strongest.

Original casts (and premiere casts of revivals) also have the benefit of extended rehearsal time to explore their roles.  A typical Broadway musical has about a month of rehearsals and another month of previews, giving the performers plenty of time to discover the nuances of their characterizations and iron out any kinks.  Add to that the months or even years spent workshopping a modern musical, and you have an artist who is intimately familiar with their particular character.  By the time workshops, out-of-town tryouts, and previews are taken into account, Idina Menzel spent three to four years refining her Elphaba, whereas her many replacements got at best a couple weeks of rehearsal before their first public performance.

The massive investment of time, combined with the knowledge that they are the first person to portray a particular role, results in actors feeling a sense of ownership that is difficult to replicate.  The original cast of a show has a heightened investment in making the show succeed, and going through the journey of discovering their characters with the writers and director gives their performances a more fully-realized and believable quality.  In contrast, many subsequent actors are encouraged to replicate the original’s performance, which can create a feeling of inauthenticity in their work.  Even if the production is new, such as a revival with entirely original staging, the shadow of their predecessor can loom large over any actor.  Every woman who’s played Joanne in Company has had to choose between trying to mimic Elaine Stritch (thereby inviting director comparison) or veering from Stritch’s blueprint and likely being criticized for it.

As we have seen, there are a lot of factors that contribute to making the original cast of a particular show the preferred one.  Because of this, I will always try to see a show while the original company is intact, but I have also seen enough replacements and understudies to know that they can be every bit as strong as the original performers.  I’ve also seen some incredible revivals that surely must compare favorably with the originals, such as the Patti LuPone-led Gypsy or the most recent New York staging of Follies.  Ultimately, the right actor in the right role will make for amazing theatre, whether that actor is the first person to ever play that character of the hundredth.  That is what makes live theatre so exciting, and being able to see multiple interpretations of the same show is what keeps me coming back, time and again. 

Shows We Don't "Get"

Jared, Jessica, and Christopher get together for this second edition of the Broadway, Etc. podcast to discuss the shows they just don't "get." Those shows that everyone else seems to adore, but they just can't get behind. Prepare for some surprising (controversial?) admissions. Also, the team discusses the future of the ill-fated musical "Rebecca," and if this European import will ever see the light of day on Broadway.